the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Scientific Warming

Posted by Jeff Id on November 19, 2014

 

Gallopingcamel left this on a previous thread:

Another true scientist wishing that AGW weren’t a religion.

In addition to the obvious and massive benefits that increased CO2 brings to chlorophyll based life on this planet, I actually am beginning to wish CO2 warming was a stronger effect.   It would likely be better for us in the long run if it were.

 

 

 

57 Responses to “Scientific Warming”

  1. omanuel said

    Thanks for posting this video of Professor Happer’s well-founded disagreement with the AGW.

  2. Martin C said

    I agree that AGW is a religion.

    But for the Co2 and warming, it’s all relative. For those in the generally ‘northern’ latitudes, I agree. But for those of us in the deserts of Arizona (meaning the Phoenix metro area), I wouldn’t mind a bit of ‘cooling’. Both Summer AND winter ( . . giving us a better taste of the seasons . .). Yeah, I know, I’m in the minority because of my location . . .

    I guess the best I can do in several years is move north, maybe to Prescott area, or Pinetop . . ! 🙂 🙂

    • Matthew W said

      “I wouldn’t mind a bit of ‘cooling’”

      Hey, what’s your address??

      I will send you a couple of truckload of Chicago cold that I don’t want !!!

    • Genghis said

      Martin, get out of the town and it is fifteen degrees cooler. It is all UHI effect there. Show Low and Pinetop are nice, lived there for a few years.

      I am pissed that the Sun Devils lost last weekend.

      • Martin C said

        Genghis, YES, I have been here since 1978, and KNOW how the ‘urban sprawl’ and growth and UHI affect it. I do like PInetop, and it is close to skiing ! ! !

        . .yeah, it sucked that the Sun Devils couldn’t get their 2nd half going last weekend against Oregon St. Now I am hoping USC beat UCLA this weekend, and then we need to kick the ‘BLEEP” out of those kitty cats from tuSCUM the following week ! ! ! 🙂

        Matthew W, I would LOVE to trade some ( . but not ALL . .) of our current 70 degree weather with a bunch of the snow. !

  3. hunter said

    The climate obsession is not even a religion. It is a mania with no belief structure. That is why I call it the “climate obsession”.
    When they change the name based on marketing studies it is not much of a religion. “Christianity” and “Judaism” have ben name stable for millenia, by way of contrast. We have seen the climate obsessed go from “Global Warming”, to “Climate Change”, and have to revisit both as the evidence declines to support the name. As someone wise once said, a rose is a rose by any other name. Normal climate is normal climate, no matter how the climate obsessed rebrand it.
    The only things the climate obsessed seem to agree on is that CO2 is very dangerous, humans caused the CO2, and taxing carbon will cure the CO2 problem. The fact that sea level rise, ocean pH, temperatures, ice packs, rainfall, storms, droughts, heat spells, cold spells, tornadoes, all have conspired to ignore the climate obsessed predictions only makes the afflicted more angry. Which is the other uniting trait of the climate obsessed: an inability to reflect and consider critically their beliefs. I attribute this to the underlying disorganziation of their belief system.
    There has been no Augustine to challenge the fundamentalists to be flexible in their beliefs and to modify their views based on evidence. The climate obsessed are all in: One either agrees there is a CO2 caused climate crisis and controlling CO2 will alleviate this crisis, or one is a denier, a scum of the Earth.

    • Well said.

      Trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels hurts the poor more than the rich so morality should persuade us (the wealthy nations) not to impede the development of poorer nations.

      I first met Alex Epstein while he was an undergraduate at Duke university. He impressed me then……….even more today. Let me know what you think about this:
      http://industrialprogress.com/moralcase/

    • Tom Fuller said

      Hiya Hunter! How are you these days?

      I don’t think I’m obsessed with climate change, but I do think it’s a real issue as far as potential impacts down the road. (As you well know…). I think we need to watch it pretty carefully. We’re in the middle of a pause right now, but we’ve had two of those in the past century or so that lasted two decades and then temps went right on climbing. If that happens again, don’t you think the alarmists will come storming back full of piss and vinegar and ‘I told you so’s’ all over. Heck, they’re doing it now just because 2014 was a warm year.

      If my blogging about 3000 Quads by 2075 has any validity at all, I think it’s something we need to be aware of, as far as planning goes.

      Anyhoo, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Taiwan. The Great Chinese Firewall doesn’t extend to here, so I can actually get to some of my favorite blogs (how are you, Jeff?)

      • Jeff Id said

        Merry Christmas Tom. The family and I are well although I keep finding ways to stay far too busy. I remember being able to get through to even post on tAV when I was in Ningbo, security must have tightened a bit since then. I have avoided going back for the past several years but expect to visit Shenzhen fairly soon.

      • hunter said

        Tom,
        It is great to hear from you!
        Happy Holidays!
        I hope things in China are going really well!
        Climate is always a factor in planning infrastructure.
        That is not an obsession.
        As to the pause coming and going, that alone should end the panicky obsession of our leaders and thinkers.
        But that would be rational and the climate obsession is hardly rational.

  4. .D o u g. said

    Doug Cotton,

    Your theory has been proven wrong right here. You may comment on the other thread but until you fix the problems, I’m not listening to it any more here.

    Jeff

    • hunter said

      Good job, Jeff.

    • .D o u g. said

      [snip again – I don’t want to deal with you until you figure out basic physics Doug. You proved your own theory wrong so don’t expect me to listen much beyond that.]

      • .D o u g. said

        You don’t have to do anything Jeff. [yes I do, I need to keep snipping. [self snip the rest]]

      • .DC.replying.to..GC. said

        Those who awarded me a scholarship in physics at Sydney University must have thought I had “figured out basic physics” Jeff my boy.
        —–

        I’m sorry Doug but literally everyone here ran circles around your “physics” and you weren’t even able to pick it out. I’m not going to sugar coat it any more Doug…. your ramblings are incomprehensible. Perhaps in your youth you had some clarity but you have none left that I can find. Worse, you are such a narcissist that you prattle on incessantly even when you have discounted your own conclusion. It is a little sad because I don’t want to be mean to someone who has lost contact with reality but you couldn’t keep up with a typical high school student anymore. –Jeff

        • hunter said

          DC,
          If they thought you had figured out the physics, you soon made them regret their mistake, I bet. If you were awarded a scholarship, then you never finished your degree. Did your symptoms start while in school? That is a fairly common presentation, actually. Nothing to be ashamed of. Just get on your meds and things will look better when the dosage achieves the right concentration.

  5. .D o u g,

    Sagan, Pollack, Ramanathan, Wetherald, Caballero, Pierrehumbert et al. have all contributed to our present (poor) understanding of atmospheric physics.

    I was somewhat impressed by Nikolov and Zeller’s pressure based “Unifed Theory of Climate”.
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/unified-theory-of-climate/

    Then I came across the model developed by Robinson & Catling who can explain the temperature gradients in planetary atmospheres much better:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

    I am using Russian engineering software to model planetary surface temperatures which should be of some interest to people who frequent this site given that numerical analysis is preferred to qualitative arguments (hand waving):
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/

    My current project involves the Venusian atmosphere. The immediate objective is to confirm (or falsify) the Robinson & Catling analysis for Venus. After that I plan to extend the R&C model to include a single cloud layer as on Venus.

    In the (unlikely) event that my Venus model performs well I will attempt to extend it to multiple cloud layers as would apply for Earth.

    I hope to meet Tyler Robinson at Duke university in a few weeks.

  6. Alex H said

    Radiation between a warmer surface and a cooler troposphere is cooling the surface. Only radiation from a hotter source can raise the temperature of a cooler target, and only to a maximum as per Stefan Boltzmann calculations. Even those calculations become irrelevant if that target does not meet the definition of a black or grey body that does not gain or lose thermal energy by non-radiative processes, only by radiation. But you can work out the maximum mean surface temperature that radiation could support, and, for 163W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface that mean temperature is around 35 degrees below freezing.

    The whole concept of “radiative forcing” has absolutely no basis in physics. Radiation from a cooler source can only slow that portion of the cooling of a warmer target which is itself by radiation. Radiation from a colder troposphere does not slow the rate of evaporative cooling or conduction across the surface/atmosphere interface. These non-radiative processes can and will accelerate to nullify the reduction in radiative cooling. In any event, one molecule of carbon dioxide in 2,500 other molecules has absolutely minuscule effect on the rate of radiative cooling of Earth’s surface. It does not affect the maximum which must be explained by another process in a completely different paradigm that does indeed operate throughout the Universe.

    Radiation from the cooler troposphere cannot be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. Even those calculations overstate the temperature because the surface is simultaneously losing energy from some of the solar radiation by non-radiative processes. You need to explain how the necessary thermal energy gets into the surfaces of Earth, Venus etc. And you need to do this in keeping with the laws of physics, as I have done successfully and in agreement with empirical data.

    • Jeff Id said

      Alex,

      I agree with the outcome but I wonder, does radiation from the Moon warm or cool the Earth compared to the space beyond?

    • Jeff Id said

      The effect may be quite miniscule as I have so often written, but I believe the 1ish C delta per doubling of base forcing is reasonable. Negative feedbacks can reduce that amount but it is still non-zero positive.

    • hunter said

      Alex,
      Please update these physicists that they are all wrong and that you have it all figured out:
      https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/scientific-warming/#comment-206259

      • Alex H said

        I don’t take the credit but I suggest you read what I wrote here.

        Dr Alex Hamilton
        (Physicist)

        • Jeff Id said

          Alex,

          I read it and you are simply wrong. The physics are completely invalid and even a cursory examination will find them sophomoric.

          Shocking really…

          Just an Aeronautical engineer….. but whatever.

          • Alex H said

            I don’t respond to assertive statements that lack even a single word of evidence, let alone any counter argument based on valid physics. Greenhouse gases have a net cooling effect because their radiating properties rid the atmosphere of excess energy and also lower the temperature gradient and thus the surface temperature. I suggest you read my first comment again, because I never implied that carbon dioxide warmed the surface. You will not be able to fault the physics in that book.

          • Jeff Id said

            I don’t respond to assertive statements that lack even a single word of evidence that “obviously” contradict basic physics. I could eat the book alive, but that is a pastime for another man.

        • hunter said

          Doug,
          You sock puppeted your own book review.
          Low class, dude.

  7. hunter said

    Happy Thanksgiving wishes to all here who celebrate this great holiday.

  8. CoRev said

    If you’ve reported the hunting results I’ve missed it. Well?

  9. stan said

    Jeff, you should do a post on what we can learn about global warming journalism from what we’ve seen from the media in reporting on Ferguson (and Trayvon). It’s all the same dishonest work product put out with the same dishonest ‘standards’ by people with the same political ideology who are committed to ‘making a difference’. Facts don’t matter. It’s all about the narrative. “Fake but accurate” is standard operating procedure.

    For them, everything is political. Everything. And the political impact is all they consider in their reporting.

    • hunter said

      Stan,
      That is an interesting insight. I might offer this perspective: everything is political, but not all people sacrifice truth to their politics.
      Sadly it would seem tha there are too many people willing to sacrifice their integrity for their perceived political goals.

      • stan said

        Hunter, my comment was about the news media. We have the journolist e-mails, the climategate e-mails, and the ‘confessions’ of reporters and editors who have worked very closely with favored politicians and favored special interests. Global warming isn’t some kind of unique, special case for journalism. It’s just another political cause that’s part of the environmental cause which is part of the standard left-wing cause. Lonborg nailed it.

        They cover Ferguson and Trayvon, Obama and Christie, Michael Mann and Keystone, the Kochs and Soros, will the same slant. Always.

        • hunter said

          Stan, I do not disagree. But I am an optimist and hold out hope that enough journalists and political types are not participating in this great corruption to eventually see this failure corrected.

          • Tom Fuller said

            One of the alarmist tropes is that scientists would get rewarded big time for finding great gaping holes in theory. I don’t know if that’s true–I think they suffer from a herd mentality. But journalists, on the other hand, would be rewarded greatly for finding those holes. Heck, Mosher and I were amply rewarded and we didn’t even find gaping holes in theory… just ethics…

          • hunter said

            Tom,
            Pielke and Curry and Lindzen demonstrate that yet another alarmist claim is fantasy. And the media response to the work you and Mosher did demonstrates the alarmist claims about media.

    • Jeff Id said

      I couldn’t agree more with your media analogy. Global left-wing media has gone way beyond anything a normal person could possibly consider reasonable behavior. I can’t understand just how they plan for their product to continue to be sold when they continually debase themselves. Besides the low ratings, a fair fraction of the death of print media is due to the fact that stories are regularly distorted beyond reason. Hopefully people will simply shut it off, but it seems to me that there are far more people still listening than a healthy society could expect. I absolutely don’t understand how people can accept nonsense as truth. Are they really that stupid? Some are but stomping around about the really stupid black kid who attacked a cop with a gun……I don’t know about you guys but when a cop points a gun my way and tells me to stop – I probably will listen. Now that choking death and the 12 year old boy, those are things that the police should be more than a little ashamed of.

  10. Dr Alex Hamilton said

     

    To those who genuinely want to understand what explains all planetary temperatures in their tropospheres and any surface:

    Firstly, you need to understand how and why gravity forms a density gradient. Why don’t molecules keep on falling? The answer lies in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve. When such equilibrium evolves it has maximum entropy, and that means there are no unbalanced energy potentials and so no further net movement of energy or matter across any internal boundary in, for example, a column of air.

    This happens when molecules tend towards having the same kinetic energy when they collide. This is why temperatures even out in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy is the same for all. However, in a vertical plane molecules with downward components in their velocity gain kinetic energy between collisions. But when they next collide they must have the same kinetic energy as the one they collide with at a lower level.

    So this state of thermodynamic equilibrium also has a temperature gradient because molecules at lower levels have greater kinetic energy in order to maintain the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    You should never confuse this state with an isothermal state which evolves only in a horizontal plane. Likewise, the corollary of the Second Law that heat transfer is always from hot to cold also applies only in a horizontal plane.

    This is a critical point, because when new thermal energy is absorbed at the top of a planet’s troposphere it will disrupt a former state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Gravity then attempts to restore that equilibrium by, in effect, dragging more molecules downwards and actually causing heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions below, and eventually into the surface.

    This then is the extra energy which James Hansen thought had to be explained by back radiation. It is very obvious on Venus that such extra energy is required to warm its surface (by about 5 degrees) during its sunlit hours, but it also happens some of the time on Earth, because solar radiation does not fully explain our mean surface temperatures either.

  11. Another Ian said

    Jeff,

    More from Galloping Camel here

    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/

  12. stan said

    Jeff,

    re — your comment at Climate Audit — “It’s like arguing with the advocate lawyer. There is always an argument, whether it makes sense or not is not really relevant to the existence of the argument, and we shouldn’t take the fact that the argument is made as an indication of character of the lawyer making the argument. After all, it is simply the lawyer doing his job and it is the jury’s job to judge the veracity.”

    This has become increasingly true about politics and the left. There seems to be the attitude that any argument that works with voters is good, regardless of how untrue it is. And the attitude has infected otherwise good people who strive to be assets to their church and community. I have an old college friend who has been the Democratic candidate for Congress from his district and does a lot of commentary in the media. He is an ardent supporter of the honor code. Good person. Smart. Yet, he will parrot whatever egregious BS that the DNC puts out no matter how slanderous or unsupportable by the facts. I think he is so convinced that Democrats are on the side of the angels that it is inconceivable that one could disagree.

    We see the same kind of mindset from a lot of climate alarmist scientists. They are so convinced that they are saving the world that it is inconceivable that those who oppose them could ever be right about anything. Ever.

    • Jeff Id said

      I completely agree but as is often the case, I cannot understand how anyone actually agrees with the statements being made. The relentless attacks on industry and capitalism as the purveyors of poverty in the face of all evidence to the contrary is a prime example. It really is beyond my understanding that anyone in the world could take the position that evidence shows that AGW is dangerous or that building things more efficiently makes people poor or taking money from those building things and giving it to the poor will make the poor more wealthy or giving government more power gives us more freedom.

      We humans are a very dumb animal and there are a lot of low-morality people willing to take full advantage of that fact.

      • omanuel said

        Relentless attacks on industry and capitalism are as simple as 1, 2, 3:

        1. Aston’s PROMISE & WARNING (12 Dec 1922) and CHAOS and FEAR (Aug-Sept 1945) triggered formation of the Red Matrix of Deceit to save the world from annihilation.

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf

        2. Both political parties endorsed plans – probably implemented by the Geophysics Sections of NAS and RS. Hence no reply from either party to direct questions, like “Why Did Our Government Deceive Us?”

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf

        3. The spiritual concept of invisible forces that sustain the physical universe is compatible with force fields from the Sun’s pulsar core that made our elements, birthed the solar system and sustains every atom, life and world in it today [See “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014)].

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

        Relentless attacks on capitalism and industry are part of the plan to rule the world the way Stain ruled the old USSR.

      • Frank said

        It seems to me that if we had a lot more successful “capitalist exploiters of the masses”, the labor force participation rate would rise, unemployment would fall – driving up the wage needed to secure the services of middle and lower class workers, and tax revenues (especially Social Security) would rise.

        • Jeff Id said

          As a society, we need to make the commitment that people’s time comes at a premium cost. People can argue about how best to achieve that, but in my opinion the argument has already been settled by demonstration.

    • hunter said

      Stan and Jeff,
      Do not forget that Gruber, architect of Obamacare, depends on the stupidity of democrats to sustain his side’s programs.

      • stan said

        Gruber and Obama are perfect examples of what I was pointing out. They were willing to tell any lie regardless of how egregious or stupid to win passage. And their politicians, advocates and voters were willing to affirm every single one of the lies and then make excuses to justify them when they could no longer be defended as true.

        The lies were treated by the true believers (including my friend) as absolute truth until they couldn’t be true. Then they don’t matter. And the law is still great … even if it doesn’t do any of the things it was supposed to do and regardless of the horrible damage caused to the country.

        Gruber and Obama would make great members of the hockey team. They wouldn’t have to change a thing.

        • Jeff Id said

          Gruber was being honest in his speeches. I was surprised about some of the reaction to it though. He just said what we all ready knew.

          What is insurance if it isn’t transferring money from the healthy to the sick? Of course the law is a tax… duh! And of course the American voter is stupid. We wouldn’t have anything like our current liberal party if they weren’t. The whole party is about powerful central government and limited freedom, all disguised with a “liberty” message. I literally had an immigrant asian tell me that she voted liberal because it is for liberty. She explained that liberal means liberty.

          It isn’t that there wouldn’t be a counter party if people were smarter, it is only that not enough people would be fooled into voting that way so the messaging would be completely different.

  13. gallopingcamel said

    Jeff Id said
    December 23, 2014 at 11:03 am

    “The Boehner RINO’s aren’t any better.”

    Depressing but true. That is why I did not vote last month after having voted in every election since I was granted citizenship in 1993.

    I won’t be voting in 2016 unless there is a candidate who is in favor of at least a few of the following:

    1. Balanced budgets. No more increases in the federal debt limit.
    2. Term limits. Nobody should serve for more than eight years in any elected office.
    3. Equal treatment under the law. All citizens should be equal. Special deals for elites such as our Congress and Senate should be abolished.
    4. Repeal the “Affordable Care Act”. Failing that eliminate all “Waivers”, especially those enjoyed by our ruling elites.
    5. Defund at least one useless or corrupt government department per year. In order of priority here are my recommendations. The Department of Education, the IRS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture. Which departments do you want to eliminate?

    As an immigrant I am in favor of a speedy (and inexpensive) process for granting work permits. It should take no more than six weeks to be granted (or denied) a work permit. Under the present system it took several months and many thousands of dollars in attorney fees to get my “Green Card”. Then it took ten years to obtain citizenship because I followed the laws of this country. I am outraged to find that people who disrespect our laws should be treated better than law abiding folks.

    Employers who hire undocumented workers should be sanctioned under existing laws. We have laws that would discourage illegal workers but the Bush and Obama administrations chose not to enforce them.

    A republic is a nation of laws. How do you describe a country with an “Executive Branch” that chooses which laws it will enforce? In such a country is there any point in having a “Legislative Branch” or a “Judicial Branch”? Dominance of the “Executive Branch” equals dictatorship. Whatever happened to “Checks and Balances”?

    • M Simon said

      The DEA. Cannabis cures cancer. About 586,000 Americans die of cancer every year. That looks like mass murder to me. After than any of the other agencies. All of them.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: