Dec
German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”
For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
Note: Over 500 Diggs! Keep it alive with a Digg here
Possibly related posts:
It goes another step further to show that the only thing warm about “global warming” is that it is a steaming pile of B.S.
What’s here, in this little corner of the Internet, mostly, isn’t a diversity of scientific information. It’s a difference of opinion. Overall, I think that’s mostly a good thing. But the dismissal of the consensus of hundreds of scientific bodies from around the world on arguments based on things like the idea that the greenhouse effect is poorly named and when ice in a full glass melts it doesn’t overflow are really fairly scary. Both of those things are true. The greenhouse effect if poorly named as the processes that heat the atmosphere are fundamentally different than those that heat a greenhouse. When ice melts in a glass, it won’t overflow, but huge masses of ice in the real world are sitting on land so they will cause sea level to rise.
One thing that everyone posting here shares is that they are all scared. I’m scared that the scientific consensus is right and so are most of you. Many of you are also scared that the scientific consensus is wrong and we’ll destroy the economy trying to prevent imaginary problems. I’m unclear as to how using resources more efficiently is a path to ruin the economy, but maybe that’s just me.
Now, I’m sure a bunch of you are also angry that I refer to scientific consensus about something you staunchly disagree with. Your anger doesn’t negate the consensus. There are no scientific bodies or national or international standing that deny humans are changing the climate. Not one. And there are hundreds of such bodies, including the National Academies of Science of dozens of very different countries that have issued statements concurring on the basic science. If that isn’t scientific consensus, then there is no such thing as scientific consensus.
That should be “…the greenhouse effect is poorly named…”
Your statement can be turned right back on itself!
There is plenty of scientific and engineering consensus that does not support AGW.
Most of the posts I’ve seen from warmers are simply statements of opinion – with reference to other statements of opinion, but no facts.
The earth has been warming naturally after the recent mini ice age – which is expected. However along the way there have been cooling periods such as what we are experiencing now.
If you look at the raw surface station data, it clearly shows a cooling trend.
The “consensus” of scientific opinion that you quote is a phony one. It has been based on doctored data. Clearly you can see in many cases GISS, NOAA and others have someone with a vested interest in changing the data so it shows global warming – why?
Because they want us to believe that man is the cause, and the thin thread holding that together is the very iffy relationship between temperature and CO2.
If man is the cause then it justifies in their minds the actions that are moving us toward tyranny by a socialist/communist few who have this insatiable need to be in control of everyone. The environment and fear over what might be caused by man is the leverage they can use to gain control.
On the other hand, if the earth goes through cooling trends while CO2 continues to rise (which is the case now), and if it can be proven that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, then the socialist has lost his leverage.
That is the driver behind climate gate. That is the reason that scientists are willing to lie to themselves and others; “man is the cause” must be propped up at all costs.
Science has taken a back seat to politics.
This dissent you speak of is not consent. It’s dissent against the scientific consensus.
I’ll grant you that in this forum, most of what’s stated is best described as opinion, but the scientific literature makes a very strong and generally successful effort toward grounding arguments in fact. Some that are simple to demonstrate include:
- When ice on land melts, it generally flows to the ocean.
- Changing the amounts of trace gases in the atmosphere change the way the atmosphere heats and cools.
- Humans are adding tremendous amount of CO2 and other gases to the atmosphere that change the dynamics of the atmosphere.
Right now is not the warmest moment in history, if we define now as a particular minute, but f we look at the 4.5 billion years of Earth history, thinking about a particular minute, hour, day or year is really pretty silly. It’s unclear whether 1998 (as NOAA claims) or 2005 (as NASA claims) was the warmest year, but it does look like the decade drawing to a close is the warmest in human history.
I can’t make the scientific case to back that up in a few sentences here, but these findings are based in rigorous science and are supported by multiple modes of evidence. The science allows prediction that has generally held up. The vast majority of the glaciers around the world are melting. Climate zones are shifting towards the poles. We have a causal explanation for these observations, and we have a scientific consensus about the causal explanation.
The folks who share your opinion also make bizarre claims that a conspiracy involving the majority of scientific organizations that study any of the Earth sciences or are not discipline specific in the world is driven by the greed of these supposedly communist scientists. I hope you’ll at least agree that those arguments do not help your case.
There are a number of inaccuracies in your reply.
We still don’t know what year was the warmest in recent record – the instruments being used to record that data are only accurate to within a few degrees C. Look at the CRN classes for the surface stations here in the US – the majority of them are CRN4 and CRN5. (you can see the map on surfacestations.org) This means that by NOAA’s own classification system, the majority of the measurement instruments have error greater than 2 deg C, some are greater than 5 deg C!. Yet they would like us to believe that they can discern temperature differences of 0.1 degree.
As an engineer with a lot of measurement experience under my belt, I can tell you there is no way I could sell this arrangement to any educated customer.
The temperature record is tainted also by outright manipulation of the data. Anyone who has been collecting data from GISS for example can see the difference between the raw data, and the data that is presented to the public or Congress. The idea of what temperatures were prior to the use of measurement instruments are based solely on extrapolation of trends, deduction from tree rings, geology, etc. – which is even more inaccurate than the instruments mentioned above.
It is easy to prove that CO2 levels are increasing, but the statistical correlation between it and temperature is far weaker (go to http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth fro a great presentation of this) than the correlation between temperature and water vapor, and even weaker still than the correlation between temperature and solar activity (this last one is so obvious its amazing that we even have to point it out).
The earth has been far warmer in the past than it is now (based on geological records of the extent of ice at the poles for example) – and the planet and wildlife survived just fine.
Your implied assertion that climate models are accurate is also incorrect. Models disagree with each other by 400%. The most accurate models have only been good with short term predictions of a few weeks, let alone the years into the future that some climatologists are using them for.
And climate models are NOT evidence – yet they are being used that way to try and convince people that there is some future catastrophe waiting around the corner.
These same people predicted an impending ice age back in the 70′s, remember?
It is only your side of the fence that would call consensus on my side “dissent”. One man’s consensus is another man’s dissent.
Your statement that most of the worlds glaciers are melting is not true. For starters the majority of the worlds glaciers are not even instrumented yet. Only a fraction of them are. Of those that are being measured, only some of them are retreating, others have been growing. Mount Rainier for example has glaciers on it that are growing. Alaska is full of glaciers that are growing, as well as receding. The north pole yearly melt recently was the highest on record, yet the next year, the annual ice had completely been replaced, and then some. Antarctica on the other hand has very clearly been adding to its size, and is not undergoing any kind of drastic melt. How do draw the conclusions that you are drawing?
Which brings up another fallacy in liberal thinking – and that is that somehow the planet should remain static – the temperature should never change, the amount and type of species should never change, there never should be another ice age, or warm period, etc. The earth’s history has NEVER been that way.
But the liberal point of view has such a jaundiced, cynical view of humanity, that any theory that comes along that can diminish the trustworthiness of people is immediately embraced, because it can be used as justification to gain more control.
It always makes good sense to take care of the environment, and being more responsible in that area doesn’t need the phony, propped up justification of AGW.
Talk about a bizarre claim…. “the decade drawing to a close is the warmest in history” ??? You’re joking, right??? My Lord, man!!! Is there ANYONE who actually believes that?? Your honor, I rest my case. Has no one else seen data regarding those “melting” glaciers in the past few years?? You know, the ones that are actually LARGER than they were in the ’70s when we were supposedly heading for an Ice Age; or the drowned polar bears, you know, that have INCREASED in population by 50% over the past three decades??? Get your head out of your hind quarters, sir. Dale T.
Don, it is very interesting to me that you refer to “the warmest [decade] in human history.” What about pre-historic, or even pre-human, times? Are you claiming that this was the warmest decade in the four billion year history of the planet, or just the warmest of the last few thousand years? (Of course, in either case you would be wrong.)
Bizarre, you say.
I’m a research librarian. I don’t do “conspiracy” theories.
I’ve read over 300 hours of posts and blogs.
The supporters of your “science” draw from the “science” of the United Nations. The United Nations is not a science organization. It is a political organization. In every single case I note that supporters of your “science” use the term “sustainability.”
Scan this document for that word. Use Edit: Find on this page: sustainab
http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UN-reform-Socialist%20International-%20Position%20Paper_%20240105.doc
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/uns-ban-ki-moon-boasts-global-government-coming-like-it-or-not.html
Some of us don’t trust the UN. Should we just ignore these people?
http://www.peopleforwesternheritage.com/PFWHRMAdditionalQuotes.htm
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read through and respond to all the comments here.
Dale, I find it remarkable that you manage to misquote me directly underneath my text. There’s quite a different between “the warmest in history”, as you claim I wrote, and “the warmest in human history,” as I actually wrote.
Similarly, Mark, I didn’t claim that the last decade was the warmest ever. I get that climate has changed substantially throughout Earth’s history and it always will. I also understand that those, like myself, who accept the scientific findings that indicate that the atmospheric dynamics will change and are changing as humans change atmospheric chemistry are not out to save the Earth. That’s not what it’s about. The Earth will go on for billions more years. It’s a question of preserving a quality of life for humans. Ecological peril seems likely if we keep doing as we’re doing. Is it really reasonable to assume that each human with modern comforts can put an unlimited amount of CO2 into the air without consequence? That seems like so much wishful thinking to me, and there’s ample science to back me up on that.
K, as a research librarian, I hope you realize that spending 300 hours of your time reading blog posts may not be the best place to get scientific information. I hope you don’t work for an institution that relies on you to do that, if that’s what you think.
The scores of postings to this are too time consuming for me to tend to, I’m afraid, so I’ll be eliminating my subscription to posts. I have found them to be a bit more grounded here than on some other denier sites, but only a bit. Too bad.
I’m assuming that your credentials as a physicist are equal to or better than Dr Gerlich’s, otherwise why would you dismiss the hundreds of pages and equations and citations in his paper, let alone all of Physics by equating it as “a difference of opinion” ?
—Don sez:
It’s “…based on things like the idea that the greenhouse effect is poorly named and when ice in a full glass melts it doesn’t overflow…”
—
Based on?
Actually, what it’s based on is physics, because it’s science, not some kind of opinion poll.
You then started referring to ‘consensus’ as though it has some kind of applicability in, or weight that offsets, physics. Consider the well-named political phenomenon called “jumping on a bandwagon.” Now consider the second law of thermodynamics. Now relate the two: Jumping on a bandwagon is to thermodynamics as… spitting in the wind is to science, perhaps?
P.S. don’t feel bad, that you consider bandwagon head counts to be a more important criteria in a question of pure science than the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is more a commentary on the nature of our so-called educational system than anything else.
The only “Inconvenient Truth” is the physics Dr. Gerlich has compiled and cited. The 2nd law of thermodynamics can’t be swayed by opinion–no matter how many.
Quote from G&T’s review article:
“A consensus, exactly speaking a consensus about a hypothesis, is a notion which lies outside natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth of a physical law:
Scientific consensu(us) is scientific nonsense.
(Page 87 of the online version.)
But then, most AGW superstitionists writing comments here would never actually read the article, they just have knee-jerk reactions to anything that threatens their precious conjecture. By the way, G&T never say anything about a full glass of ice. They stay “within the frame of physics” like their title implies.
Sorry for a misspelling.
“Scientific consens(us) is scientific nonsense.” is the correct quote.
“Actually, what it’s based on is physics, ”
No, it’s based on a poor interpretation of physics.
wERE YOU BORN A FOOL,OR HAVE YOU MADE A STDUY OF IT, OR PERHAPS BOTH?
Don. We’re not scared. We’re frustrated!
This is the fight that will define the twenty-first century as either a time when mankind advances due to honest enterprise, quality science, and technical achievement…or we are subjugated by government micro-regulation from manipulative control freaks based on false and slanted data from grant recipients with no scruples.
http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UN-reform-Socialist%20International-%20Position%20Paper_%20240105.doc
It’s not as if the paper you linked is a policy document. It is, of course, trying to influence policy, but that’s hardly the same thing. You’re frustrated and scared. It wouldn’t frustrate you if you didn’t think this stuff will change will matter in the way you live your life. You’re scared that it will. You’ve alsoe spent way too much time on this site and others like it.
Science itself negates concensus in this case. That is what you do not understand. Concensus is not science……facts are science. A concensus, especially in this case, has nothing whatever to do with science. The consensus is comprised to a great degree by those whose funding depend greatly on the continuation of this fallacy.
Duh, global warming is actually good. Why? Because so-called greenhouse gas CO2 is used in greenhouses, that’s why. What for? Plants thrive on it. Ergo, if we want to be able to feed the teeming billions in the future, a good idea would be to release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible in order to make deserts bloom.
Instead, the silly debate goes on, with the punchline always being the reduction of CO2 emissions. Talk about short-sighted.
So what if the Earth’s climate heats up and the polar regions melt? What animal needs to be in freezing weather to live? They can lose fat, feathers, or hair and enjoy the Tahiti syndrome like Gaugin. So what if coastal cities have to be relocated? Beats mass world starvation down the line.
When will the scientists get with it and suggest methods for increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
For you global warming types; here is a list of 500 peer reviewed articles that support skepticism of man-made global warming:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Kurt, thank you ever so much for this amazing resource! Wish I had known about it a month ago when I was arguing with a woman in Ontario’s office of Climate Change. She wanted a peer-reviewed article “from 2009″ that disproved climate change. (Once again deflecting the burden of proof.) I suppose now she’ll want one from 2010, even though it’s only the 3rd day of the year.
Of course, it would not be worthwhile to go back and find her because when I found Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s article, she did not accept it as being peer-reviewed, even though I also found “Comments to ‘Proof of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’ by Arthur P. Smith” as well, which was the only (weak) attempt to refute G&T’s article from a physics standpoint prior to publication. This was after two years from time of original request for criticism.
Here is an excellent article – chock full of facts and data – that handily debunks the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf
[...] Here. [...]
I’m pleased the article has drawn so many interested commentators. That can only be good for the debate on what is such a contentious issue. I apologise if I have not been able to reply to all the questions put to me. But I see many sceptics have been swift to proffer commendable answers on my behalf. Nonetheless, I’d like to take a moment to wish all of you, alarmists or sceptics, a prosperous New Year.
Here, Here, kind sir !! Blessings to you and all you hold dear. And “damn the torpedos”. Dale T.
John O’Sullivan..
When does ‘joined up thinking’ become raving paranoia? While joining the dots can lead to discovering a truth, one can, with practise and an over-active imagination become quite adept at joining dots that really have nothing in common thus leading to conspiracy theories that can be at least as dangerous as Ponzi schemes. It can also lead to seeing Christ’s image in a carpet stain.
I’m assuming that if we dodge a bullet and this hoax, fraud, conspiracy – pick your term – is not successful and the commie/fascist power hungry bastards fail to take over the world – you’ll be happy to carry on with business as usual under the corporate/fascist power hungry bastards currently in charge.
Put it down to my leftist, pinko limp-wristed liberal outlook, but I don’t see how we can infinitely grow the economy on a finite planet. And I don’t think it much matters whether it’s a socialist or a free market capitalist pushing this idea. It eventually leads to the same dead end.
just sayin..
And a happy new year to you as well..
Steven M. – Are we not perpetuating the type of mentality that will say “Forever in a landfill”, when we have absolutely no concept of what “Forever” actually means? Should we, instead of in some semblance of comfort, live in squalor?? Is it just fine for most to do so, as long as THE SPECIAL FEW elites in our society, do not have to?? In most cases, the least developed nations actually pollute much more ‘per capita’. What, pray tell, DO YOU WANT!!!!!!!! Should those of us who are alarmed at the threats to our freedoms just kill ourselves??? Frankly, I would not be surprised if you said yes. You think of yourself as ‘visionary’, yet are apparently blind to the truth. I, for one, would fight to the death for you to still have those freedoms tomorrow – would you do the same for me??? Dale T.
Dale..
I quite frankly have no clue what you are talking about but you sure sound excited. I have tried to link any one of your questions/comments to any of my own and come up empty. Maybe you’ve begun New Year celebrations a little early. Inwhich case you’re forgiven. And happy new year!
http://www.peopleforwesternheritage.com/PFWHRMAdditionalQuotes.htm
Ok kids, granted the climate science is far from predicting the consequences of anthropogenic CO2, this article is a joke.
First of all CO2 traps heat (infrared radiation) from escaping into space. It does not defy the laws of thermodynamics which describes the tendency of systems approaching equilibrium to trend in the direction of greater disorder (entropy). Basically, the more concentrated something else, the more it tends to disperse. While climate models do hold that there is greater heat transfer between the cooler gases of the atmosphere and the warmer ground, this is because there is simply more residual heat in the atmosphere in addition to the sun’s input (most heat still goes to space).
CO2 is merely buffering the transfer of heat into space, thus “greenhouse” effect, mimicking the glass of a greenhouse buffers the heat transfer of warmer gases in the house to the colder ones of the exterior.
I won’t say the climate science is ironclad, we are still far away from having accurate predictors for the outcomes of anthropogenic CO2, but these claims are based on scientific falsehoods. If you don’t believe me, look for yourself.
Lets deal in actual data:
http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf
There is a graph on page 6 of this article that shows water vapor is far more effective at trapping radiation in the “greenhouse” than CO2 is. You can see the absorption lines across the spectrum of radiation from the earth is far greater for water vapor than it is for CO2.
You write as if no one knows what the greenhouse effect is.
What is being disputed isn’t the existence of any greenhouse effect, but that CO2 has any appreciable greenhouse effect.
Water vapor and solar activity have far more effect, whereas CO2 does not. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere in pretty close to a straight line, but it does not correlate well at all with temperature.
Also heat always flows from high temperature to low – if climate models are based on flow in the opposite direction then there is a serious flaw in the model.
Look Dale, I agree about the economic policies, they are stupid and don’t have realistic goals or impacts for what it will cost us. Personally, I think we would be better off relying on focused R&D and the free market to decide how we move forward with cleaning up fuel consumption (which we should do anyway for national security reasons).
But I have studied the actual literature on the subject (I have a B.S in molecular biology from UCLA, and yes, I read the paper you linked), and I have concluded (all by myself) CO2 is not just an innocent bystander. If you want to take issue with the validity ice core sampling, power to you, but you are still misrepresenting the facts all the same.
When considering the high to low dynamic of heat flow, keep in mind the 2nd law of thermodynamics describes systems moving towards equilibria, heat moves in both directions (yes, both high to low and low to high), but overwhelmingly favors high to low since that increases entropy. If there is more heat being retained in the atmosphere, then as a matter of stastistics more heat must go from low to high (more potential gaseous collisions with the surface of the Earth), despite the fact that much more heat is escaping the earth.
Again, not a supporter of the liberal climate agenda, but this article does not represent the science accurately. Laws of physics would be broken if scientists said that the dynamic of heat flow FAVORS low to high, but no one is saying that. The low to high flow is simply a result of more heat being retained, but heat still has a much greater net flow in the opposite direction.
When the sun heats the ocean surface, the temperature of the water is moderated by the mass of liquid sloshing around. So it does not immediately lose its heat into the atmosphere or into cold space. The warm waters of the gulf stream are a good example of this moderating effect. That is why on my Bahama yacht adventure in the summer of 1975, I could sleep all night in only my swimming trunks without a blanket.
When I lived on the west coast, the summer sun would heat the land surface to a very high temperature in the afternoon, let’s use 100 deg F as an example. The heated atmosphere rose, drawing in cool breezes from the ocean so that if you were within 3 miles of the shore, the air may only be say 50 deg F. As soon as the sun went down, the land was no longer being warmed by the sun, so the cool breezes would extend much further inland, making a quick transition to cool temperatures. If I wore short sleeves and was caught without a sweater, my lips and fingernails would soon turn blue and I would seek an artificial heat source as soon as possible.
There is no greenhouse effect. There is only an ocean effect and a lesser atmospheric effect. Earth only has an average 2.2 miles of ocean across only 77% of its surface. Venus has well over 40 miles of high-pressure carbon dioxide that is more like our ocean than our atmosphere – about the same pressure at its surface as our ocean more than half a mile down. The large volume of high-pressure gas blowing around the whole planet at 300 MPH is what stores the heat on Venus and keep it an even termperature. It has nothing to do with the fact that the particular gas in the atmosphere happens to be carbon dioxide. In fact, IF the greenhouse conjecture were true (which it is not, since it has been falsified), what would cause the effect would be sulphuric acid clouds, not CO2! The sulphuric acid clouds are the equivalent of our “dihydrous monoxide” (water) clouds.
If one allows oneself to really stop and think about where the heat from our planet comes from and how it gets stored, it is really not that difficult or complex. Some of the heat comes from the core of the earth, but most comes from the sun. I recently read a website that claimed more than twice as much heat comes from the greenhouse effect than from the sun! That seems laughable, but it is sad that people don’t think things through before they speak or write. They so often just regurgitate what they’ve been force-fed by a scary movie or a political document.
If climate science is “Far from predicting the consequences”, why have we cost ourselves and the rest of the world trillions of dollars in extra expenses for virtually everything we have purchased in the last three decades? And, since you asked, I actually don’t believe you, or your conclusions. It is water vapor that is the most widespread “pollutant” in the atmosphere. It is water vapor that causes your “greenhouse” effect, so feared (and revered) by those of your ilk, far beyond the comparatively puny effect of your beloved anthropogenic CO – frickin’ 2. Dale T.
Here are some more facts for you:
http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf
Check the conclusions on p.58, and also the discussion of CO2 vs. temperature on p. 54.
CO2 levels actually lag temperature changes – not vice versa.
David says..
…”I won’t say the climate science is ironclad, we are still far away from having accurate predictors for the outcomes of anthropogenic CO2…”
I think you are quite correct in your post, David and I think the sentence above is one of the important points that ‘deniers’ miss. (I use the term deniers advisedly as it is a perfectly good psychological term referring to our collective ability..nay..propensity to ignore unpleasant truths and does not, for me, have any connection or reference to the holocaust..as I have seen it portrayed on some blogs)
In any case, I keep seeing people fulminate about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming being just a theory..that the science is not ‘settled’ or that it is ‘settled’ etc. etc. and forgetting that science is never settled. The theory of relativity isn’t settled..people are still conducting experiments and observing phenomena that were predicted by Einstein..the theory of gravity is still just that..a theory, as is the theory of evolution. But these theories hang around because they continue to explain things about our universe that are not explainable by other means and to predict future events etc. and you don’t see people furrowing their brows about them being a hoax because they aren’t ‘settled’. Science is provisional and contingent, always ready to change upon the discovery of new evidence. This is where true skeptics come in.
And I’m quite sure the papers of real skeptics are published in peer -reviewed journals (altho’ I’m sure most on this blog would be quite skeptical about that)..All scientists are, at bottom, skeptics. That’s how science moves forward. But there is a difference between true skeptics who come forward with real questions and bona fide methodology and research and others who are more ‘professional’ skeptics – interested in producing noise and misinformation rather than in getting closer to the truth.
I also agree that the strategies to deal with what are still largely unknown consequences are in their infancy and not well thought out After all, we are just beginning to even admit that there is a problem. But I don’t agree that they will necessarily be all negative and costly and will do great damage to our economy. It will be a huge challenge to replace oil and coal with wind, solar and whatever other alternatives come available but their will be huge economic opportunities in the required changes as well. Just ask Al Gore.
Just as an aside..I keep hearing that his involvment with carbon trading and alternate energy etc. is proof positive that there is a huge conspiracy to suck money out of capitalist economies yada yada yada..Could it not just be that he’s seen the writing on the wall and is making an intelligent bet on where the future is going?
points that ‘deniers’ miss
deniers eh?? who criminally removed the MWP so as to ‘deny’ that the earths climate changes in cycles and well outside the bounds we have seen in the last 150 years. who ‘denies the science that says the melting of the Arctic will not increase sea levels let alone flood New york etc.
calling people who question your religious beliefs a childish schoolyard bully name like ‘deniers’ with all that implies shows you have nothing valuable to add to any discussion on this topic. how do you think Jewish climate realists feel when they are termed ‘deniers’ by self centred clowns like you?? have you ever thought about that or is it too Inconvenient??
regards
I’m not quite sure what you are saying here but…
Could you cite the paper that shows that someone ‘criminally removed’ the MWP. Here’s an interesting discussion of the Mann Hockey Stick graph and the MWP..it’ worth your time:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
I’m not aware of anyone who denies that the earths climate changes in cycles..
With regards to melting of the Arctic..do you mean the entire Arctic or are you referring to Arctic sea ice or Arctic land mass ice…? It does make a difference..Ice that is already in the ocean will not, upon melting, raise sea-levels but ice that is on land that melts most assuredly will. Further, the melting of Arctic perma-frost will release millions of tons of Methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas than co2..
I’m not calling people who question my religious beliefs deniers. For one thing, I don’t have any particular religious beliefs. I have heard the adolescent cheap shot referring to those who find the scientific evidence pursuasive regarding global warming as belonging to some sort of religious cult..perhaps that is what you mean.
I was careful to point out that I was using the term deniers in its psychological context..a perfectly good term that refers to our penchent for denying or blocking out of consciousness unpleasant facts that we would rather not have to deal with. I think some of the denialists have tried to attach the word to holocoust denial in an attempt to somehow tar proponents (for want of a better expression) of global warming with anti-semitism. An obvious example of the sort of desperation which results from having nothing better to say.
With regards to ‘Jewish climate realists’…I’m not entirely sure what a Jewish climate realist is..or how a Jewish climate realist would differ from any other sort of climate realist..or any sort of realist of any kind..Perhaps you could explain.
Liberal minds are shut, they were shut by closed minds and closed minds keep it that way. Hitler said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it, that is the gullible three quarters who let others do their thinking. Lenin put it to masterful use and took it a step further by saying that any lie is truth if it serves communist agenda. Also if you listen to their closed mind followers’ spouting you will see and hear a practically recorded repetition as I have experienced. After all most of the media is drumming the lies into their heads and the liberal educational system has been dumbing down students for quite a few years now making them ready and pliable to eat up the lies.
@ Steve Mennie. You say, “I keep hearing that his involvment with carbon trading and alternate energy etc. is proof positive that there is a huge conspiracy to suck money out of capitalist economies yada yada yada..Could it not just be that he’s seen the writing on the wall and is making an intelligent bet on where the future is going?”
Us legal experts call that ‘insider trading’ when prosecuting corruption cases. I suggest you bear that in mind. Undue influence has been cited as a motive that removes the objectivity of every individual who takes undisclosed sums of cash from undisclosed sources ( e.g. the ‘world’s leading climate scientist’ is none other than Dr. Pachuari, the man at the head of the IPCC who trousered hundreds of thousands from sources he will not disclose). There is nothing ‘intelligent’ in double-dipping from the public and private purse when you’re likely to face DOJ corruption charges. Please think on that before speaking as an apologist for what may yet prove to be a RICO racketeering scandal.
[...] Harmless sky – year ahead, Burt Rutan says AGW a fraud, German Physicists trash global warming [...]
[...] Global Warming Hypothesis – Discredited Here is an excellent article, “German Physicists Trash Global Warming Theory“. It is a detailed synopsis of the original paper [...]
John O’sullivan
I’m ready to be corrected of course but I have always thought that insider trading referred to someone having information about a stock or bond or a company’s intentions that was not generally available to others and that that person could then profit at the expense of these others. In Gore’s case, he seems quite open about his involvment in alternate energy so where’s the corruption. Am I totally out to lunch on this?
And it is my understanding that Goldman Sachs would also be heavily involved in any carbon cap and trade scheme..the same Wall St. bankers that sold what they knew to be crap securities while at the same time betting that they would go south. Is this the kind of capitalist behaviour – which nearly took down the economy – that you are afraid of losing to the international socialist plot?
And in any case, isn’t this one of the fundamentals of the capitalist paridigm..to discover or create a market and then serve it? Isn’t this how we moved from the horse and buggy to to international air travel? Just trying to think this through…
A short addendum..
I have only recently become aware of Dr Pachauri’s seeming nefarious behaviour..will have to do a little more reading before I speak as an apologist for such..By the way, what does RICO mean?
Steve, you basically right but the term applies more broadly than you think. Read RICO first to understand the legal implications here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO
The term ‘insider trading’ refers to a practice in which an insider or a related party [e.g. Dr. Pachauri, Obama et al.] trades [share dealings in the Chicago Climate Exchange] based on material non-public information [climategate ‘spoliated’ emails] obtained during the performance of the insider’s duties at the corporation [UN, IPCC, Obama was US Senator when he oversaw $1.1million of Rockfeller ‘donations’ into the Joyce Foundation – a ‘charity’ that set up the ‘world’s first carbon credits exchange’].
http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/
What we see evidenced here is a breach of a fiduciary or other relationship of trust and confidence or where the non-public information was misappropriated from the company [ CRU destroyed data]. I am currently in talks with interested expert parties with a view to DOJ charges under the False Claims Act, RICO statutes and ‘Whistleblower Rewards Program.’ I cannot divulge any more than that at this time. But I can assure you a very big story is going to break on this soon: watch this space.
John..
Not saying I agree with this totally but isn’t this a rational plausible scenerio that could serve as an alternative to the socialist control freak one?
…”I see there is a meeting on The Hill today where decision-makers are asking for input from the Murrican business community on how to adjust for climate impacts while keeping the economy robust.”
“The Kyoto Protocol isn’t merely a political document — it’s the equivalent of market research. Viewing the protocol from this perspective, we see that most of the world’s nations believe climate change is real and urgent and are attempting to do something about it. That allows the commercially inclined among us to move on to the wonderfully crass questions about what products we might sell them. We start to ask: Whose appliances will the world buy? Whose fuel cells and photovoltaic panels? Whose light bulbs? Whose cars? “This basic market intelligence may be the single most important key to thriving in a new economy. There is money to be made here — lots of it. There are jobs here — lots of them. This is Silicon Valley 2.0. We thrived with the information revolution, developing computers and software to change how the world works and plays. We can thrive again with a clean energy revolution, changing the way the world finds power for electricity and transport. But we can only thrive if we lead, if we take action now.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/04/hope/index1.html
John..
I began what is quickly becoming a novel with a short aside referring to Al Gore and his interests re alternatie energy etc. and you have talked about Obama and Dr. Paschauri..which I will research. But what about Gore who seems to be the deniers’ favorite whipping boy..and further what do you think about Goldman Sachs and their future involvement in carbon cap and trade?
Steve, you’re an intelligent guy. I have every confidence you will figure this out. Just look back at the Enron scandal. A lot of people made money out of that. Ponzi schemes always have a good few winners before the losers cry wolf. I strongly urge you to watch every Lord Monckton video you can. Then you’ll understand why legal advocates like me are rubbing our hands expecting the mighty to fall if we demand transparency and upholding of FOIA statutes. Be assured that I am 100% in favour of renewables, alternative clean energy, conservationism, recycling, etc. but the people running the IPCC and those who are running them ( Bilderbergers, Club of Rome, Maurice Strong, Rockefeller) aren’t interested in the environment- they are out to rip you off. They hijacked the green movement in the late 80′s, Strong set up UNEP that led to the IPCC to set up a gravy train for the elite clique who run it. Rockefeller wants to be the kingpin of the new World Bank and lead his one world government. Rockefeller set up ( using Obama) the Chicago Climate Exchange and trousered big bucks already that they refuse to disclose. Those who lie and deceive and steal from the public purse have nothing to offer me – don’t let your ideals be mired in the filth of those crooks. Read the proposed Copenhagen Treaty ( not the Accord). The Treaty sells your nation’s soveriegnty to the UN – not right to vote, no democracy. I already live under the fascist model here in Europe. We have a president of Europe no one elected – he was appointed by the Bilderbergs. Please check the facts. Its all out there. Climate change was merely the stalking horse to political totalitarianism. Obama has done nothing for his country. He has created a personal militia numbering one million. He disguises his personal ‘guard’ as INTERPOL officers. He is expecting riots when the truth comes out. The Bilderbergs have such a grip on the mainstream media they are now acting with impunity. Their puppets, Gore, Bush, Obama, etc have set the stage . Your Congress is being bypassed and democracy is being cuckolded. I am apolitical in all this – I don’t side with the left or the right. I am fighting for the rights of all citizens to help preserve their nationhood and personal liberties. You need to see the wider agenda. Then you’ll appreciate the concerns us sceptics feel. Please read far more widely than you have then in a few days come back and we can talk – start with these links and go from there wherever it takes you>>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/research-reports-obama-intimately-tied-to-phony-environmental-movement.html
http://recyclewashington.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/the-obama-carbon-scam/
I’m not sure I can agree with the statement….
The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses
to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second
law of thermodynamics.
This would be the case if the earth’s climatic system was
a closed system. If it was a closed system and heat flowed
from a colder region to a warmer region then this would
violate the second law.
But of course the earth isn’t a closed system. This is the
argument Jehovah’s Witnesses use to suggest that evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics. They forget
the earth is not a closed system and although there is
a decrease in Entropy on Earth, this is negated by a greater
increase of Entropy throughout the universe.
Having said that I haven’t read the article. And I do not
believe a word of AGW. I just suspect the second claim is
rubbish. I’m with David on this one, despite my Physics degree
being 16 years old and a distant memory.
I see people hard at it.
John O’Sullivan should not feel that his Prison Planet data is the only game in town either. Global Research.ca and CFACT have enough articles on file to remind anyone of the basic difference between scientific consensus and psyops/advertising/religion : science questions assumptions.
Dr. John v. Kampen was kind enough to forward URL’s to YouTube videos of Dr. Ian Plimer – Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences – scoff unmercifully at the idea that ‘Climate Change’ constituted a valid proposition : the concept of a model of a closed system which did not even include all the parts bearing any significant resemblance to an Open chaotic and unpredictable model really being an eyebrow raiser.
I’ve even posted info from New Zeland where people did their own graphs…and found they didn’t resemble ‘official’ ones !
I’ve posted – starting Dec 4 – many articles in my news list which start about the time of Climategate and just keep building. And Dec 20 Mission in Afghanistan, etc. follows some of the geopolitics not of Copenhagen…but of resource strategy.
The YouTube videos from my.opera.com/nepmak2000/blog
Movie 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo
Movie 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBT2QUY2UgE
Movie 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrK33zze3Ws
I blogged my exploration along with regular article watching at opitslinkfest.blogspot.com I’m afraid I cover more politics than science, however.
This man made global warming argument is reminding me of the sun vs earth being the center of the universe. The people that support the man made argument are the believers that the Earth is the center of our system. The earth has always had huge changes in climate and man had absolutely nothing to do with it.
These man-maders have been working to set up Cap and Trade markets and stand lose millions if the wealty nations don’t fall in line. I hope America becomes a NAYtion, and reject their power and money grabs.
Another commie pinko chimes in…
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6000G220100101
I hope you are not talking about me (shipley130) as a pinko commie. I spent 20 years in the US military, and as far from a commie as you can get.
Non dude, not you. Follw the link. And, I was being sarcastic.
No dude, not you. Follow the link. And, I was being sarcastic.