the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

What is

Posted by Jeff Id on October 31, 2014

Reasoned dissent is the theme here

In the face of consensus, atrophy and fear

Reasoned implication, reasoned deconstruction

Common sense, nothing more

nothing less.


22 Responses to “What is”

  1. Jeff Id said

    I am so tired of weak minded criticism of AGW, and I’m so tired of poorly considered left-wing support for AGW.

    There are so few bloggers who seem to understand the limitations of the science. It IS a science, it can be modeled, CO2 does warm, the planet can react to heat, it can be a problem….

    but it isn’t!


    • hunter said

      Your post on this is almost poetic.
      Very nice.

    • Dave Lowry said

      RE “Jeff Id said: Frustrating”
      “Skepticism of Anthropogenic Global Warming Doom” (on October 28, 2014), was excellent as it demonstrates that the oceans can cool the world easily at any time. Could it be that fighting war at sea have influence climate significantly in the last 90 years twice? The claim I found in a book published in the USA in 2006 (online, and nervous ever since. Even if only a little bit true, AGW climatology would get serious problems. It would increase the fear for climate change by human activities in the marine environment significantly.

      • Jeff Id said


        The author of the book you reference, Arnd Bernaerts, used to guest post here once i a while. I was never convinced that ships could do enough to change the mixing, but there is a lot of cold water readily available for minimal energy expenditure. There was a crazy concept for envirowhacko geo-engineering where a ship would launch water into the sky to make clouds. I wondered why not just exchange cold water from the deep with surface water for minimal energy expenditure. Either way it seems a waste of time for a climate sensitivity of 1.3C/doubling but the advocate crowd has the world convinced that we must do something!!

      • hunter said

        I fail to see how maritime activities, even with the large ships we now use, could impact the world’s oceans enough to alter the climate.That seems even more unlikely than CO2 increases triggering massive climate change.

  2. phi said

    Forgive me this comment without much arguments but I just wanted answer your opinion with another opinion:

    “It IS a science”
    This is clearly a pseudoscience guided by predefined conclusions.

    “it can be modeled”
    Not so certain. One of the most important elements is the relationship between temperature gradient and radiative structure. It is not modeled and, to my knowledge, no one claims to be able do so.

    “CO2 does warm”
    By itself, no. Only its cooling effect in the atmosphere is able to warm the surface. Unfortunately, due to the essential and complex convection behavior it is not possible to quantify the effect of an increase in CO2.

    “the planet can react to heat”

    “it can be a problem…”
    Obviously. Announced sensitivities could have significant adverse effects, even the relatively low value that you support.

    • Jeff Id said

      I like it! Phi.

      Critical aspects of temperature tends can be modeled, at least with a big enough modeling thing. More personally I believe it can be modeled with a computer and reasonable math.

      • M Simon said

        But you can’t model from first principles. You need short cuts. Parametrization. And then you have to pick the right ones. And then you run into trouble.

        Turbulence alone confounds the whole endeavor. Sure you can model it. But exactly? No. No two runs – starting from slightly different data will be the same. Or even similar. Unlike F=ma. And people think that because we can do F=ma well, there are no limits.

      • Jeff Id said

        The limit of your model fidelity depends on what you are trying to resolve. If you are trying to resolve the effects of the wing tip vortices of a hummingbird flock on climate, you need extreme resolution. If you want to resolve the short term trend from CO2, even one dimensional models can work. Belief in the model no matter the complexity, requires a bit of faith that you got it right.

  3. omanuel said


    You may not agree with my reasoning, but I am convinced the very survival of mankind is now threatened because CHAOS and FEAR of worldwide nuclear annihilation in AUG-SEPT 1945 convinced world leaders to take totalitarian control of the globe by forming the United Nations in OCT 1945 and hiding the source of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in 1946 in cores of:

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets, like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way

    The AGW (anthropologic global warming) tale is a direct result of the false SSM (standard solar model of H-filled stars) in 1946.

    See links posted on:

    • omanuel said

      I urge members of the Swedish and Norwegian Nobel Prize Committees, the UK’s Royal Society, and the National Academies of Science in the US and other countries to immediately end sixty-nine years of public deception (2014 – 1945 = 69 years) about the primary source of energy [1] in cores of galaxies, stars, some planets and atoms of ordinary elements heavier than ~150 amu.

      It is in their best interest to correct the error now, before climate change awakens the public to the real danger of an approaching ice age.

      “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014)

      • hunter said

        You are as bat sh*t crazy as Doug Cotton.

        • omanuel said

          Please address the experimental measurements and observations.

          • Jeff Id said

            Have you tried to approach a physics blog with your analysis rather than copy-paste the same links over and over on climate blogs? The field has a different nomenclature, different training and different problems. I’m an aeronautical engineer with an interest in light and climate, it has taken years of reading to be able to parse papers on climate models and the tropopause and paleoclimate, and I don’t have as much understanding of particle physics. Not that I wouldn’t mind delving into it someday, I doubt I will live long enough. The reason I ask is that they may want you to make a case for the argument and see what falls out. Maybe you could even start your own blog, while the internet isn’t permanent, data has a longevity beyond many forms of rock. 😀

          • omanuel said

            Thanks, Jeff.

            Most physics blogs do not like unconventional physics. Physicists are reluctant to consider conclusions in the manuscript, “Solar energy,” based on:

            1. Information about abrupt changes in astronomy and nuclear physics after WWII from autobiographies of Sir Fred Hoyle and Paul K. Kuroda, aka Kazuo Kuroda, and

            2. Nine pages of precise data indicating the post-WWII changes are both in error.

            Neutron repulsion causes heavy atoms to fission and neutron-rich cores of stars to emit neutrons that decay spontaneously in ~15 minutes into hydrogen that stellar winds carry away to interstellar space.

            My credentials include a PhD in nuclear chemistry, a NSF Postdoc in space physics, a Fulbright grant for advanced studies in astrophysics at the Tata Institute for Fundamental Research, and several years service as a reviewer for Physical Review Letters.

            Hopefully the editor and reviewers of Advances in Astronomy will respond constructively.

          • hunter said

            Like Doug, you offer nothing but summaries and judgements. Over and over and over ad nauseum. You offer nothing to reply to, just like your Australian colleague, Doug. Your conspiracy delusion- about physics being corrupted so as to be used to justify a UN take over the world- is as crazy as the idea that people like Jeff Id or Anthony Watts are paid cynical disinformationists to enable the Koch brothers and big oil to profit from the world roasting due to CO2. Maybe even crazier.
            Let’s not get into the complicated and sad parts of your life.
            But please stop. You make real skeptics look bad.

          • omanuel said

            Hunter is invited to address measurements on

            1. A meteorite at the University of Chicago in 1975 that revealed excess Xe-136 associated with primordial He when meteorites formed at the birth of the solar system:


            2. Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1995 that revealed excess Xe-136 still associated with primordial He in the giant, outer planets today:


            [The latter data are dated 1998 when NASA finally released them instead of 1995 when NASA acquired them.]

  4. Brian H said

    He has his own blog, probably with only double-digit readership. That’s why he thread-bombs wherever he’s not banned.

  5. Thomas Fox said

    It is unbelievable to any person of sound mind that 3% in 4 thousandth of Co2 in air can possibly be a dangerous pollutant to change the complex world climate ?
    A sense of porportion of this gas is not clear to any persons void of scientific or physical understanding of how things function ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: