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
actually the problem seems it is too much too late, and the politicians and business. with the global titanic economy steaming ahead the voice of ideas is say slow down in this direction only. I started GW countermeasures campaign and it kicks off with solar reflection. tom levitt msn triggered the campaign specifications that are almost on an exponential curve, reflect it back into space the weather is controllable, the carbon emmision situation is important however reflectance is vital and global, thats what the poles do at the root of van allens belt reflect light back into space like a “white parasol” to quote tom levitt. the phase one gwcc specification is solar reflective paint on upper surfaces of cars, house roofs, buses, planes, trains, trucks and so on and a bit of ice that melted is augmented by a solar reflective car roof in simple terms etc, x 2 no a big deal, x 1000 mmmm, x 1,000,000… things are going to happen! a global sr mission control for registering your car you roof etc its not small task however its going to work Im with gallileo and noah its can do all the way!
for a global s r mission control get in touch and we start building the picture
the ice caps with wind turbines on large buoys with refridgeration coils gps monitored at the edge of the ice caps are a gwcc idea to put help put the breaks on the melt. its not 10, 20, 50 its more like a 1000! howard hughes if your out there drop us a line there’s a wip to crack action today! savin the polar bears is savin our furure too. george crosfield bsc hons arch dip arch gwcc / london
Who will dare mention population control?
The problem is that Copenhagen is so highly orchestrated that any such inconvenient information will be buried: such as a recent report, Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: the German Experience. This thorough study of German electricity production found that its promotion of renewable energy is “a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits”.
The total cost of German subsidies for wind power, which produces 6.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity, is estimated at 20.5 billion euros between 2000 and 2010. But that is peanuts compared to solar power, which will have swallowed 53.3 billion euros while producing only 0.6 per cent of Germany’s power. Colossal amounts have been wasted, without much benefit to the environment or the country’s energy security.
The real “elephant at the summit”, however, is population growth. In spite of it being the core cause of climate change, everyone is running a mile from having a serious, frank discussion on how it can be halted. True, it’s a sensitive subject, but it will be impossible to feed an expanding population while reducing the impact on the environment. And if this problem is not confronted, all those hours spent agonizing over reducing greenhouse gases and setting carbon emission levels will have been superfluous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6781985/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Who-will-dare-mention-population-growth.html
Already in the works:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/comments/?cpage=13
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10654389/1/northeast-mid-atlantic-states-set-low-carbon-goal.html
These are the words of your US energy secretary, from this week’s Nature Magazine:
________________________________________________
[Steven] Chu plans to tackle climate change by reviving the scientific and technological urgency of the Manhattan Project — enlisting some of the nation’s best minds to find a way to power the world without ruining it. His plans start at home, where he is trying to push the ponderous DOE to support riskier research that could yield huge dividends.
With a budget of US$27 billion, the department runs 17 national laboratories, oversees America’s nuclear stockpile and manages the environmental clean-up after the early nuclear age. It is the largest source of funds for physical-science research in the United States, and this year Chu had a much bigger pot to dole out. Just one month into his tenure, Congress gave the agency $37 billion in economic stimulus money — funds that Chu is steering towards renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon-sequestration pilot plants and projects to modernize the electric grid, all of which should help to solve the climate problem. “They say that necessity is the mother of invention and this is the mother of all necessities,” he says. “So we’re going to get the mother of all inventions. And it’s not going to be just one, it has to be many.”
This man controls billions. And he bases it on the hockey stick.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091223/full/462978a.html
Ladies & Gents,
I do believe that the mathmatical reduction is almost inpossible to prove, and like most sane folks do NOT believe in GW. But, to get the majority of the working class to believe that GW is a hoax, we all need to determine and publish WHY the GW professors are pushing this agenda. Then, if, as I suspect, the GW terrorists are shown to be professing that the ‘sky is falling’ for their own economic gain, then their ideas will die as they should. So, WHY are these scientists without much math apptitude pushing GW fears? Let us get that word out and this lie will be exposed and save the rest of us a lot of money. “Never give up”, Winston Churchill. Mission in life – Add value! Do not take away value as the GW believers are doing.
The only answer I have to that is as fantastic as the hoax itself.
The LaRouche link brought instant scoffing from one website where I mentioned it. All I know is that I consider the geopolitical aspect more than plausible because of continued misrepresentation of the facts right from the Oval Office on down : regardless of who is sitting in it.
A current political overview
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/01/3-jan-brave-new-world-that-has-such.html
Linking the LaRouche noted story with foreign policy and the NPT http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/12/20-dec-mission-in-afghanistanetc.html
The original post on AGW : note links from Dr. John v. Kampen – on his weblog – and the comment thread which follows.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/12/4-dec-following-trail-climate-fraud-and.html
I’m not a scientist : but when you tell me a model is incomplete and unrealistic and a scam is being run in taxes to be submitted to the UN….
You don’t need to convince just ‘leaders’ to get something going. The biggest hurdle is controlled media. We will not be the only ones aware of that.
Convincing people of the reality of programmed education, religion, media and more is the high bar. People are conditioned to avoid confronting those ideas as reality. Indeed, a sizeable percentage are literally incapable of throwing off psychological conditioning.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/07/perception-alteration.html
None of these links constitute theses leading to an unavoidable conclusion. Yet though a more or less random collection of articles within the topic,they should lead one to see how avoiding the conclusion works.
Whether the motivations are dreamy idealism or slavering power-hunger, climate change panic is an excellent lever. All civilization and survival depends on energy generation; energy and (for the forseeable future) CO2 production are the carotid artery and jugular vein of the planet. Control them, and you control everything (production, living standards, money flows, and so on and on.)
Our planet would experience approximately zero resultant temperature increase if we multiplied CO2 levels by 5-10X, to the levels favoured by greenhouse growers, and agriculture and food supplies would be increased by up to 4X. Unfortunately, the atmosphere does not respond much to our input; other factors are in control.
This paper is a joke. First, there’s the strawman that the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” can’t be real because the atmosphere doesn’t behave like a glassed enclosure. Since NOBODY has ever made that argument, proving it wrong is moot.
The author of the paper has no clue what is meant in planetary science by “shortwave” and “longwave” radiation—he sticks to radio frequencies which is just silly. Shortwave means visible to UV; longwave means NIR to (at most!) cm. Thus, his disproof via ionosphere reflection is also moot.
You accuse people of appealling to Professor X as the basis for their conclusion. That’s exactly what you’re doing.
Years ago, with limited knowledge, you decided that GW wasn’t caused by human activity, and have worked very hard to find information to reinforce your conclusion. That’s quite different from searching for the truth. This is one man, among many who have an idea that may or may not be valid. This isn’t a nail in any coffin! Merely another interesting foray into the debate.
!794 – Vancouver surveyed Glacier Bay – at that time it was amere indentation in the coastline. It was 4000 ft. thick, 20 miles wide & 100 mi. long to its’ source in the St. Elias Mts.
1879 – John Muir conducted his own survey & found it had retreated 30 miles, a loss of ~ 470 cubic miles of ice in 87 years
It seems clear that if global warming is to be considered the cause of glacial melt it began long before extensive industrialization.
[...] was than in what was revealed. Perhaps the media folks bought the whole “science is settled” thing, or just lacked the technical skills to understand the manipulation problem. Also [...]
I had a good laugh at this article. It must be that the author, John O’Sullivan, is easily impressed by scientific-sounding texts. Not that I believe that GW deniers will change their minds, but, for those interested in the real-world truth, and who understand how to read a scientific paper, see the rebuttal to Drs. Gerlich and Tscheuschner here.
Some more inconvenient facts:
500 peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptics point of view.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Kurt..
I have come across this page several times as well as the refutation of same..some of these are scientists and/or papers are credible but not a lot. As well, many of the so-called peer reviewed journals are nothing of the sort. Just for fun check this out..http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
The accusation that John O’Sullivan is “easily impressed by scientific sounding texts” is a little rich when the “rebuttal” offered is in the form of a “paper” whose authorship is described as “By: E. Rabett, and the Bunnies (add or subtract your name here)…”. Welcome to the blogosphere, where any group of idiots can rage about whatever they like and try to make it appear “scientific”.
Yes, G & T responded to that and Dr. Pierrehauser (of the notorious RealClimate Warmist PR site) by challenging them to answer certain key questions about the relevant physics. Deafening silence ever since.
Yep, this is good rebuttal—what I said and more. To boil it down more: it isn’t that the “greenhouse effect” is *warming* the surface, it’s that it is preventing the cooling; the more CO2 you have, the less able the surface can cool. So really, it’s more like a “blanket” effect than a greenhouse.
Strawman vs strawman? The actual slight lag in dispersal of planetary energy influx caused by CO2 is trivial, and already very near saturation. Even getting back to the geological 600 m.y. average of 1-3,000 ppm (coincidentally the level preferred by greenhouse keepers) would have barely detectable temperature impact, but huge benefits in agriculture and food supply.
Unfortunately, humans can’t affect CO2 levels, to speak of. ;(
Ballards
Thank Christ for small miracles..finally someone shows up on this blog with something to impart. I couldn’t agree more that the article by John O’Sullivan is largely hot air that may have moved us even closer to a tipping point.
Steve and Ballards
Here are some inconvenient facts:
http://www.climategate.com/hockey-stick-in-perspective
Just the earths temperature history alone refutes your point of view!
Never mind for a moment the mechanisms involved. The earth has been in an extended warming period where the average temperature has been higher than what we are seeing now – and what catastrophic effects were there??
Methinks, ‘pot, kettle, black’ here gentlemen. If you don’t wish to be labelled hypocrites, stick to the ‘rules’ that your scientific alarmist gurus have said we all must adhere to, ie. scientific debate occurs in peer-reviewed journals. By the standards of your own advocacy you are clutching at straws with a non-published, non peer-reviewed, error-filled ‘paper’ that is trying desperately to appear credible. Your ‘paper’ doesn’t even attempt to address the key sceptic point that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide would have a vanishingly small effect on heat transport by conduction, a point that no credible scientist would dispute. I have made my position clear in a comment I added after my article was published. My views are more aligned with Lord Monckton: the impact of CO2 as a driver of climate is proven to be minimal, at best. I feel G&T make a bullish, if slightly over-stated case, but do prove there exists no mechanism that you alarmists can point to that causes catastrophic climate change. The game is up my friends – there exists a decadal trend (1999-2009) of no global warming, contrary to the AGW hypothesis. Thus, if there is no correlation there can be no causation.
The G & T paper has been published now, too. As for the “peer review” process, it has always depended on absolute independence and anonymity of the reviewers, and the Warmist Team is much more like a “buddy review” circle-jerk than anything resembling anonymous independence.
Side note: good article reviewers don’t last long. A recent study of review quality found that after about 5 years the reviewers’ work degenerated irremediably. Neither coaching nor exhortations to do better made any difference.
[...] Of course, Algoracle’s theories, and those of the rest of the Glo-Bull Warming believers, have been proven by a German scientist to be complete violations of the simple rules of [...]
Incredible that the article ended with the statement:
heat rises, it does not fall. QED
Yikes! Anyone even remotely acquainted with physics knows this statemnet is completely false. We are all aware that HOT AIR rises, but HEAT, in the form of IR radiation, travels the same as light. Kinda makes you wonder about the reliablity of the rest of the article.
Try this: heat disperses, it does not concentrate. The “rises” is simply the way that works in a convective system. Look up “heat death of the universe” to see where it all ends.
And dispersion definitely applies to IR and every other form of radiation.
I personally do not believe in “Global Warming.” I mean, if certain geographic regions can have seasons, why not the planet with or without man-made gases. As for the poles – some say they’re melting, others are saying they are growing thicker.
Lest we forget those active volcanoes spewing ash into the atmosphere. Others have said dogs are the greatest threat, probably due to farting like cattle. Then there are the methane pckets that escape from the oceans. Or the fish/ ocean life converting oxygen to CO2 that has to go somewhere when the ocean surface evaporates. And don’t plants need CO2 to make the oxygen we need to breathe? If we lower the CO2 emissions, do we cut off our nose to spite our face in cutting down our oxygen supply? Just a thought.
Global warming is anything but man-made.
Just for the record..
I think it’s safe to say that I – like most of the posters here – do not have a degree in advanced mathematics or atmospherice physics etc. and so must rely on the advice of others to a large extent in evaluating much of the scientific literature. This is not entirely weird as we are forced to rely on the expertise of others every day whether it be an auto mechanic, computer tech or brain surgeon.
But it’s very dissapointing to visit these blogs that inevitably wind down to pissing contests where people pit their ‘peer-reviewed’ knight against the other side’s peer-reviewed angel of death and any attempt to ascertain any semblance of truth in the matter gets lost in a blizzard of bullshit. Cliff’s last post which begins with the assertion “I personally do not believe in “Global Warming” is a perfect example..as if Global Warming was a matter of belief.
I am an engineer, with six years of college and a broad background in physics and math. Also a pilot, with a good education in weather systems. My engineering experience includes 28 years of automated equipment design – with temperature measurement instrumentation being a common element in many designs.
My background in instrumentation is what got me involved in this debate to begin with. My “BS” sniffer is pretty acute, and the claims made by global warming advocates about knowing temperature trends to within 0.1 deg. set off some alarm bells.
You could write an engineering thesis on just measuring accurately the average temperature of the water in a drinking glass and get it right to within 0.1 deg. With the state of instrumentation today, and the dynamic situation just in a glass of water (assuming it is cold water and the room temp is warm), it is almost impossible to get it to within the nats ass that warming advocates seem to know the earth’s temp. to.
As far as the site you referred me to (450 more lies from the climate change Deniers); it is full of the typical dismissiveness that liberals subject their opposition to – but without much in the way of actual data.
Take the first one for example. (NOT peer-reviewed)
Claiming that E&E is not a peer-reviewed journal. If you actually went to the journals website, which I did at:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
you would see the peers listed – mostly professors and some Phd’s. These are the folks that review the articles prior to their publication in the journal (do we actually have to explain this?)
In the usual dismissive tone the blogger then says that ‘E&E is a sort of vanity press for the Deniers, cited by one Wag as “where bad science goes to die.”’ Who is the wag? Are wags relevant in this discussion? Do you base your opinion (oops there it is again) on the statements of wags?
But perhaps the most revealing is yours and others use of the word “denier”. This implies that you see it as more of a belief issue than a fact-based issue.
Engineering is a reality-based discipline. Most engineers have scars on their ass where mother nature left a mark when they chose to ignore the facts, and based their decision instead on a belief.
Global warming is a belief in search of facts. Just like socialism/communism, reality doesn’t fit the belief, so believers have to suppress information, modify data, propagandize the public, etc, in order to prop it up.
As I said earlier..’most’ of the posters..I’m sure there are people here – like yourself – who do have the ability to actually understand the science..
So, Kurt..you would then be able to explain to a lay person like myself exactly why AGW is nothing but a ‘belief in search of facts’..I find it difficult to ‘believe’ that the thousands of researchers world-wide who are and have been working on this for years are part of a socialist plot to take over the world and that there are no facts to be found in all of those thousands of data sets. Do you, as a person with some expertise in this area, read papers – peer-reviewed or not – from both sides and find them to be equal in either their stupidity or brilliance? Or do you find that there is actually a preponderance of truth to be found on one side or the other? Or have you basically dismissed the AGW side as being a hoax or conspiracy and don’t bother reading anything from them?
And this whole issue of peer-review (and the resulting pissing contest) Because all the papers and research are done by people..real human beings with biases and yes, even idealogies, and then is reviewed by other human beings with biases etc., would it not be the case that these biases are going to appear in the journals..The fact that they are professors or have Phds does not necessarily mean that their review means anything. So now we not only have scientist lining up on one side or the other but peer reviewers and journals doing the same. I’m sure you would agree that there would be some journals that have more legitimacy than others. How in hell do we ever arrive at something solid (at least as solid as human knowledge can ever be)..at least as a benchmark from which we can move forward? We would have to have God doing the peer reviews. I mean consensus does play some part does it not? There is consensus that the earth circles the sun..that the planet isn’t flat..that E=mc2.. And scientists didn’t just vote on these things..they were empirically arrived at.
In short, after all the opinons expressed on this and a thousand other blogs by people who, in the main, neither read nor understand a lot of the ‘science’ I find that it’s impossible to come down on either side of the fence.
Meanwhile, the Polar ice is melting, glaciers are shrinking, the temperature is going up, sea-level is rising.
And with all due respect, the fact that you are a pilot and familiar with weather systems does not mean that you have any special knowledge regarding decadel (decadal) trends in temperature or paleo climate history etc..
And as to my use of the term ‘denier’..I use this term because it is a perfectly suitable psychological term referring to our tendency to push from our consiousness unpleasant facts or things that we don’t want to deal with and has no religious connotations whatsoever.
You talk of engineers having scars on their ass as a result of their choosing to ignore the facts. Ignoring facts is what I’m referring to when I use the word denial.
On the other hand..much of what I’ve read from the ‘denialist’ side is very much ideological in that there are constant references to conspiracy theories involving the Bildebergs, the Club of Rome, a socialist plot to suck money from capitalist economies etc etc..These ideas seem to me to be totally faith-based and without any basis in reality. They may, indeed, be true..but the evidence really isn’t there.
Again,I would repeat what I mentioned at the outset. In your considered opinion, there is absolutely no factual information to be gleaned from the thousands of data sets that have been produced over the last 40 or 50 years and AGW is a hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists working together in a socialist plot to take over the world.
I would be interested in continuing the dialogue if it is possible to avoid ideology and ad hominum personal attacks..and I’m not suggesting that you have done so.
Actually the models on which the IPCC (and therefore EPA etc.) policies are based depend on 3 tightly linked data sets, which have assiduously been kept from public (scientists’) access by every stratagem Jones, Mann, et al. could concoct. And which, if the email from “Harry” who was tasked with organizing them is to be credited, are horribly corrupted and problematic — almost beyond remedy.
And there are telling little events like the Russians’ recent innocent query about why the dataf from the coolest 40% of their weather stations was discarded. And from many others about how it can possibly make sense that the adjustment to reporting stations engulfed by urban heat islands could up UPWARD instead of down.
And so on.
There is a very small knothole through which all the critical information has been squeezed, and it has been seriously mangled in the process.
Errratum:
“could BE upward …”
“Actually the models on which the IPCC (and therefore EPA etc.) policies are based depend on 3 tightly linked data sets, which have assiduously been kept from public (scientists’) access”
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
Those IPCC data sets are the processed and massively edited ones that are the source of the difficulty. Real data, please, not Fudged Factors! LOL
Well stated, Steve.
Your definition of “denier” fits exactly what global warming “believers” are doing with the facts. Pushing away anything inconvenient.
You are right of course concerning your comment about me being a pilot – the weather is not the climate. However it does provide me with some insight as to how cyclical the weather is. The same thing can be said of the climate. It has been going through its cycles long before we were here. Ice core proxy temperature data clearly shows that we are in the midst of a very long warming trend that started long before we were burning fossil fuels. During most of this trend, temperatures have been higher than they are now.
During the ice ages however, the earth has been much less habitable. What is now the midwestern US was under 1000 ft of ice. All of my state (Washington) was covered in ice.
The proxy data is showing that this situation was much more the norm for this planet, yet it undergoes these periods of warming too. The warming periods are now known to be the result of very long period oscillations in the earth’s orbit.
While CO2 can be shown to be increasing, it does not have near the ability to block or absorb radiation that water vapor does. See http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf figure 14. Plus water vapor is present in 10-20 times (depending on relative humidity of course) the amount that CO2 is.
The warmists so want to believe that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, because it means they can then impose control over the things they don’t like.
Its that simole.
I meant “simple” – late night typing
Here is some great evidence of just how bad it is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
The programmers own notes showing that data is being removed in order to “hide the decline”
QED
Wow there Kurt
You had me going for a minute. Thought you were going to have a rational discussion from an engineering/science perspective highlighting the important point about the ability and need to accurately measure data etc. Then you started in about liberals and communists etc. Now that’s hardly rational is it? And it does tell everyone that you are VERY right-wing politicially. So, we all know what your cultural belief system is – at least in general terms.
So you base your decisions on facts, not beliefs huh? So how about you discard the ‘right-wing’ cultural bias that you obviously have, and start talking facts and evidence.
Do you believe that the climate is changing, or that temperatures are increasing/ decreasing /essentially staying the same?
What is your evidence for that view?
Do you believe that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing / decreasing / essentially staying the same?
What is your evidence for that view?
Do you believe that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation (as does CH4 and H20), and that this is primarily responsible for the Earth’s climate being as warm as it is (ie the ‘greenhouse effect’)?
What is your evidence for that view?
Would you accept that changing the levels or ratios of any of those substances in the atmosphere could cause the climate to change?
What is your evidence for that view?
Do you believe the Earth’s climate changes in response to natural forcing mechanisms?
What is your evidence for that view?
Do you believe that non-natural forcing mechanisms could also cause a change in climate?
What is your evidence for that view?
That should do for now. But I would love to learn your views, since you are a rational, educated person, and have obviously considered all of these things before coming to a conclusion on the issue at hand. So please, educate me.
I would be happy to comply. but since I run two small businesses, I don’t always respond here immediately. Your sarcasm is unnecessary.
I have been talking facts and evidence – they remain the same regardless of my political point of view. As far as that goes, my conservative beliefs are much more in line with the founders of this country than any liberal’s. I’m in good company.
The concern about socialism/communism is a very rational one. I was married to a woman from the Ukraine. I made a number of trips to Russia and Ukraine, and saw first hand the lasting damage that the left wing oppression created there. My ex and other Soviet ex-patriots have voiced the concern that the propagandizing of this country is just exactly like what happened in the USSR. Concerns about that, and recognizing that are quite rational.
Lets start with the most important questions shall we?
They would be, is the earth’s temperature rising?, and if so, will that cause lasting damage? (regardless of the cause of the increase). If the answer to the second part is no, then it doesn’t matter whether we are causing higher temps or not.
One of my main points is we can’t answer this question accurately. The surface temperature measurement stations that are supposedly the gold standard in this country are actually in poor shape.
Go to http://www.surfacestations.org and look at the map that shows the CRN rating for each station. You can see that most of them have errors of 2 deg C or worse. Another concern is that ever since IPCC was formed, temp. measurement stations have been removed. Figure 6 in the following reference http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf shows that surface stations went from a high of 5800, down to less than 1500 today. Why? Would you not want to have more not less stations in order to settle this question? Russians recently asked why they (IPCC) removed most of the coldest stations from the data gathered in Russia. The same thing is happening here. The coldest stations are being removed from the record. In addition data is being removed from some records, while the remaining data has offsets added to it. We are not being provided with the rationale as to why.
We do have enough data to at least get some idea of trends. But we have to go back further than the 100+ year record that we have so far.
The only way to do this is by proxy data. Tree rings don’t work well because there are too many variables other than temperature that affect ring growth. The best way is by ice core data. Ice cores taken from antarctica and greenland (see
http://www.climategate.com/hockey-stick-in-perspective ) and data from the Sargasso Sea (see http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf figure 10) clearly shows that we are in the middle of a 10,000 year warming trend, and that the natural result of coming out of the “little ice age” is for the earth to warm! The Hockey Stick analysis above shows that for most of the 10,000 years, the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Where is all the catastrophic damage from that? All of the earth’s species were still here when we arrived on the scene.
The record shows that we are overdue for another ice age, and the current 10,000 year warming trend dwarfs the infamous “hockey stick”. The trend obviously started before any man-made effects.
So we can conclude that any warming trend is not out of the ordinary, and based on precious trends, it is not going to cause the damage that warmists would like us to believe.
should read “previous trends”
I actually asked for evidence Kurt, not the opinions of bloggers on other sites. You are an engineer, and should know the difference. So I will ask again, what is the evidence for your beliefs re climate change?
We do not have to go back more than 100 years to determine whether the climate is changing. That 100 years is enough. If the instrumental records show an increase over that period – and they do – then you have to ask why. That’s what scientists do – and if you are a good engineer you would do the same.
Oh – I know this is supposed to be a discussion about climate change, but your assertion that the founding fathers were not liberals is – to put it bluntly – nonsense. Some were conservative, some were liberal, and some were (gasp!) atheists. And some of them were even scientists. They certainly were radical – you know, declaration of independance and all that.
And if you are concerned about ‘left wing oppression’, I assume you would be equally concerned by ‘right wing oppression’ – you know, Hitler and Franco etc.
Climate change panic is an ideal tool for anyone wanting to take control away from individuals, or from sovereign jurisdictions of any kind. Energy use and consequent CO2 production are respecively the metaphorical carotid artery and jugular vein of the productive and consumptive activities of the planet. Control them, and you control everything. An ideal tool for the Uber-Cratic types, don’t you think?
Hence the heavy push to write “binding treaties” and impose “compensation” on the most productive and powerful economies regardless of the more and more evident flimsiness of the scientific justifications. The resemblances to the current US Administration and Congress’ pressure to Legislate in Haste and Repent at Leisure are too glaring too miss.
S/b “respectively”
Consider this: The tie to fossil fuels is the REAL control mechanism. It’s tightly managed by a handful of über-rich people/nations, prices can be managed beyond any market to regulate (Enron in CA) and is based on hard-to-get (thus, managed) resources. The more you want, the more YOU can be controlled.
On the other had, switching to renewable sources actually creates MORE freedom. The Sun is dumping free energy on us every second—harness that and the marginal cost for generation drops to near zero. Nearly free energy—imagine what that means to the average person! The, imagine what that means to the current oligarchs.
Horse pucky. The grotesque inefficiency (= wasted costs) of the green alternatives chokes off all manner of genuine advances and ameliorative coping mechanisms in the free market of ideas and technology. See Bastiat’s “the unseen”.
Further, CO2 control is NOT pollution control, because it is a valuable resource, not a toxin or poison.
Mandas –
The evidence I gave you is in the form of graphs of data – not
someone else’s opinion. Did you actually look at the graphs?
You’ve heard “there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics”. Well to that you can add graphs. By changing the scale I can create whatever impression I want. Yes, we do need to go back more than 100 years – because it gives a much truer picture of what is happening. Algore’s famous “hocky stick” is misleading because it only gives a very small snapshot, and it is based on faulty instrumentation.
I haven’t heard you refute the ice core proxy data. Can you?
Most of today’s liberals believe in abortion, gay marriage, forced redistribution of wealth. Hardly a description of the beliefs of most people in the 1700′s. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the Contstitution were christians. A few were not.
Sorry man, but you need to make your beliefs match the facts – not vice versa.
BTW – Hitler was a left-winger. Got his start in the labor party, was thrown in prison – where he wrote “Mein Kampf”, later when he got out, he and others started the NAZI party. “NAZI” is an acronym. In German it stands for National Socialist Workers Party. The labor party and socialist party are left-wing organizations.
Another left-wing hallucination bites the dust.
RE Vostok:
Yes, CO2 follows temps in the past which means that there are feedbacks—increase temp, allow more CO2, increase the temp,…
Of course, all this means is that, in the past, those past warmings may have other causes, but CO2 helped bring them up faster than they would have without it.
For the claim that “we’re just in an inter-glacial period”, look back at those previous ones—they’re much shorter than our current high temps.
Now, have a look at
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=41&tstamp=200709
which adds in the current CO2 levels. So, here’s a thought: we came out of an ice age and at that same time, we start over-pumping the atmosphere with CO2 causing levels never seen before [in the last 400,000 years]. And you think that has no effect on the system?!
You do know that pretty much all the O2 in the system was created, as waste, by critters much, much smaller than us, right? And they pretty much killed themselves off with their own waste? I’d like to hope we are collectively smarter than prehistoric pond scum…
Hitler was ‘left wing’ huh? That will surprise everyone else in the world. I know it says ‘Socialist’ in the acronym, but then the DPRK stands for the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, and Fox News has News in its title.
And graphs are not evidence – exactly for the reason you gave in your post. Get some evidence!!!
And you really need to read up on what the founding fathers actually believed in. They may not have believed in the things that are considered liberal today, but what they believed in then was VERY liberal (you know, all men are created equal etc).
“Statist” is a more useful category than socialist or fascist, and includes both. I recommend de Bueno’s lectures on the matter; “Selectorates”, inner coalitions, and Dear Leaders are common to both. Tight control of the disposal and distribution of “Public Goods” is the means and the end of both.
It is also characteristic of both that the instant the end of the lifespan of the First Citizen Leader is visible, the inner coalition undergoes a violent convulsion of bloodletting and self-exile until a successor emerges.
Put not your faith in princes, whether self-selected Social Justice arbiters or children of tyrants.
I’ll repeat this one in case you missed it -
Here is some great evidence of just how bad it is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
The programmers own notes showing that data is being removed in order to “hide the decline”
More facts, in the programmers own words. What more do you need?
QED
Yes; just to remind everyone, the decline to be hidden was the sudden downward divergence of tree ring proxies in the ’60s from recorded temps. The reason this is fatal is that it invalidates all assumptions about paleo-records based on ring data. Which are crucial to the “Hockey Stick” hoakum.
The decline, as Brian H points out, is simply a divergence between actual temps and tree-ring-computed temps. Of course, that doesn’t start happening until the 60′s which leaves about 100 years where there is still good correlation. So, opposed to what Brian H says, the divergence does NOT invalidate its use.
Pathetic. The divergence (unexplained) invalidates the entire data stream. If the previous correlation was so good, the data it matched should be used directly. But the deep paleo-record of rings is meaningless.
Of course, it is known and obvious that tree growth is affected by numerous other factors, notably rainfall, so it was a lousy proxy in the first place.
In any case, the scientific CRIME is changing the nature of the data graphed without notice or explanation. Neither Klassen nor Jones nor Mann can be excused for condoning that.
Clearly Brian H does not understand the difference between correlation and causation. That the tree-ring data correlate with temp for 100 years pre-1960 yet diverge beginning in the 60′s does NOT imply they diverge for times before the correlation as well. Granted, the post-60′s divergence is, as yet, unexplained but, again, the correlation for 100 years before that shows that it isn’t a lousy proxy during that time nor, all things being equal, before then.
Since they tell us why they are minimizing the effect of that proxy for post-60′s (i.e. the “hiding of the decline”), there is no ethical issue (much less ANYTHING that could be prosecuted as criminal).
Pathetic AND ignorantly condescending!
The point, “Dr.”, of the correlation study is to establish the rings as a measure of temperature during periods when thermometer readings are unavailable. Such “proxy” measures require reliable correspondence. That the post ’60s records do not correspond, for unknown reasons, renders their use for any pre-thermometer period (which is the whole point of reporting them) invalid and insupportable.
There is no issue of “causation” involved. Your strawman is aflame in your hands.
Also, I consider conservatism to be revolutionary, in this time of go with the flow, don’t question AGW, lemming-like behaviour.
Actually thinking for one’s self and looking at the whole picture.
Wow – revolutionary.
Evaporation, atmospheric version:
Since the atmosphere is not closed, but is open to space, it has always seemed obvious (or apparent, anyway) to me that molecules at the top of the atmosphere that are “kicked” away from the planet carry energy, and are in effect “evaporating” and producing cooling. There is no inherent limit to how many molecules there are slammed up to 7 mps escape velocity by Brownian motion/collision, so the atmosphere must therefore be COOLING the planet in a way which a radiating surface in a vacuum could not.
Therefore there is no such thing as an overall blackbody radiative balance for a planet with an atmosphere.
Don’t ‘assume’ Brian, read:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jpp9101.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5510/1939
Neither the “entropy budget” nor the specific O2 losses from the atmosphere related directly, but it was interesting reading anyway. Entropy is lack of contrast and organization; I’m just talking about one avenue of energy flow: molecules (whether H2, He2, O2, or other) lost from the top of the air envelope. It takes energy to eject them, which necessarily implies cooling of the ejecting source.
Discussions of local entropy balance are of limited value; it is an increasing quantity only on the universal scale. Many local negative entropy processes, not least of which is life, are encompassed and permitted within that overall trend.
Further to the above, as a thought experiment one could envisage a celestial body which absorbed all incoming radiation, was heated up, and balanced the energy account by ejecting matter (gas molecules or any other) without radiating anything much at all.
It’s only the total energy which must be conserved (balanced), not the radiation — blackbody, greybody, or other.
Errratum:
“could BE upward …”
Excellent info source:
http//mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/index.html
(Robert Clemenzi’s site)
e.g.:
“The Atmospheric Heat Pipe I’ve presented above provides a major negative feedback mechanism that works to reverse any possible effects from increased CO2 – however, some climate models actually consider the feedback to be positive.”
The world is seeing that this whole man made hoax is just that, a hoax!
Mario..
Just out of curiosity..what sort of hoax would a non man made one be?
I guess he omitted the quotes, and shortened the phrase. Should say “man-made climate change” hoax.
Happy now?
Do you always deal with Mario’s slips for him. What if he actually meant man-made fur hat hoax?
For you I have my 3M Scotch Brand motto: “Tape it and Stick It!”
I figure that if the Communist Program of 1928 called for a worldwide environmental program to control people, they knew how best to control people. Hitler admitted that a fearful society was easy to herd.
Assuming there is a Global Warming problem, in a free country, the people have to make the distinction between whether the solutions to the problems are for the benefit of the few or for the benefit of all society, and then decide what individual freedoms we want to surrender for those solutions. Under a dictatorship, government decides what freedoms we surrender for the best interest of society.
Our system of government was created to protect the individual from the decieved collective, because the collective will was usually the will of a few seeking ways for the rest of society to work for them. I can’t think of one politician, including Hitler and Stalin, that ever said what they were doing wasn’t in the best interest of society.
Just for fun, here’s a surprisingly à propos poetic masterpiece spoofing Longfellow’s “Excelsior” (Latin for ‘ever upwards’) (Read aloud in a Northumbrian accent):
Uppards
by Marriott Edgar
‘Twere getting dusk, one winter’s night,
When up the clough there came in sight,
A lad who carried through the snow,
A banner with this ‘ere motto…
‘Uppards’
His face was glum as he did pass,
His eyes were shiny… just like glass,
And as he went upon his way,
He nobbut this ‘ere word did say…
‘Uppards’
And people sitting down to tea,
They heard him plan, as plain can be,
They thowt ’twere final football score,
As this ‘ere word rang out once more…
‘Uppards’
A policeman on his lonely beat,
He stopped the lad up t’ end of t’ street,
He said, “Where’t going wi’ that theer?”
The lad just whispered in his ear…
‘Uppards’
“Don’t go down t’ clough.” the policeman said,
“It’s mucky road for thee to tread,
Canal’s at bottom… deep and wide.”
“That’s not my road.” the lad replied,
It’s… ‘Uppards’
A young lass stopped him further up,
She said “Come in wi’ me, and sup.”
He said, “I’m takin none o’ yon,
Besides… I must be getting on…
‘Uppards’”
Next day some lads had just begun,
To tak’ their whippets for a run,
When dogs got scratching in the snow,
And found flag with this ‘ere motto…
‘Uppards’
That set them digging all around,
And ’twasn’t long before they found,
A lad whose name they never learned,
Whose face was white, whose toes had turned…
‘Uppards’
‘Twas very plain for to behold,
The lad had ta’en his death o’ cold,
He’d got his feet wet early on,
And from his feet the cold had gone…
‘Uppards’
This story only goes to show,
That when the fields is white wi’ snow,
It’s inadvisable to go…
‘Uppards’
And here’s the original doggerel by Longfellow:
EXCELSIOR
by
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1841)
The shades of night were falling fast,
As through an Alpine village passed
A youth, who bore, ‘mid snow and ice,
A banner with the strange device
Excelsior!
His brow was sad; his eye beneath,
Flashed like a faulchion from its sheath,
And like a silver clarion rung
The accents of that unknown tongue,
Excelsior!
In happy homes he saw the light
Of household fires gleam warm and bright;
Above, the spectral glaciers shone,
And from his lips escaped a groan,
Excelsior!
“Try not the Pass!” the old man said;
“Dark lowers the tempest overhead,
The roaring torrent is deep and wide!”
And loud that clarion voice replied,
Excelsior!
“O stay,” the maiden said, “and rest
Thy weary head upon this breast!”
A tear stood in his bright blue eye,
But still he answered, with a sigh,
Excelsior!
“Beware the pine-tree’s withered branch!
Beware the awful avalanche!”
This was the peasant’s last Good-night,
A voice replied, far up the height,
Excelsior!
At break of day, as heavenward
The pious monks of Saint Bernard
Uttered the oft-repeated prayer,
A voice cried through the startled air
Excelsior!
A traveller, by the faithful hound,
Half-buried in the snow was found,
Still grasping in his hand of ice
That banner with the strange device
Excelsior!
There in the twilight cold and gray,
Lifeless, but beautiful, he lay,
And from the sky, serene and far,
A voice fell, like a falling star,
Excelsior!
____________
Ahh here’s Steve and Mandas with their Spanish Inquisition questioning technique……never answers…never proof………..just ask bullshit questions designed to obfuscate, or point us to believer sites to baffle us with more bullshit….what a dynamic duo.
[...] German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory” guest article by John O’Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory [...]
[...] German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory” guest article by John O’Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory Global warming is a hoax-John Stossel reports [...]