Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Archive for the ‘AGW Hypothesis’ Category

Is there a Greenhouse Effect?

Posted by greg2213 on May 13, 2013

Atmospheric physicists disagree.

Both sides claim the other doesn’t know their thermodynamics. (Is that why I heard it called ThermoGodDammics in college?)

Nice article on how greenhouses (real ones) really work.

On Facebook, for more “discussion:”

I don’t have the physics or the math to really dig into it and I’m just going to sit back and read the stuff as it comes to my attention. However, I do suspect that a lot of the “discussion” is due to poor choice of terminology and a smearing of definitions.

For example: Can a cooler object warm a warmer object? You’ll be warmer inside your Igloo than you will be outside of it and you’ll be warmer in a nice coat or blanket than without. Yet all are cooler than you and they still “warm” you. But does the atmosphere and IR work the same way?

I think everyone agrees the the atmosphere is warmer with an atmosphere than without, right? And with much less day/night variation than it would have with no atmosphere (eg: the moon.)

And from there it gets more interesting… 🙂

So, I’m going to link to the “Yes!” and “No!” posts as I find them. This post will be updated periodically. Perhaps a conclusion or common ground will be reached, someday. Till then, I’m reaching for the popcorn.

(update note: I’m on the “yes” side, though “greenhouse” is a lousy term.)

(Another update note: Can a “greenhouse gas,” in theory, back-radiate to warm the surface? Yes. (See below.) Does it? I say yes. Is CO2 a significant player in this? No, water vapor vastly overwhelms CO2.)

Yes, There IS a GH Effect.

Dr. Roy Spencer has challenged the Slayers (of the GH effect theory, to either “put up or shut up.”

Eschenbach on the The R. W. Wood Experiment

No, There is NOT a GH Effect

Principia Scientific responds to Dr. Spencer’s challenge.

Climate of Sophistry responds to Eschenbach



Radical New Hypothesis on the Effect of Greenhouse Gases: Michael Hammer, an engineer who specializes in spectroscopy, is also sceptical of the GCM but his criticism is more fundamental.  In the following paper, using the basic laws of spectroscopy, he shows that a significant portion of energy loss from the Earth’s surface is by direction radiation to space at wavelengths not absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion
 Luboš Motl: SciAm, Gavin Schmidt despise climate facts American Thinker: The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
On WUWT: Simple experiment shows that a hotter object can, in fact, be warmed by a cooler one. Light bulb experiment. two

I think this sums it up very nicely. 

OldWeirdHarold says: (wuwt comment, from the light bulb experiment) May 28, 2013 at 9:51 am

Years ago, in a statistical mechanics lesson in P-chem, the prof, after wading through an insufferable derivation, drew an interesting conclusion. In a hurricane, over 40% of the molecules are moving against the direction of the wind. If they were all moving the the same direction, they’d be moving at the speed of sound.

The conceptual error that the Skydragons are making is failing to distinguish between individual dynamics and population dynamics. Just as a large percentage of the molecules in a hurricane move against the wind, a large percentage of the photons can and do move counter to the net heat flow, which implies moving counter to the thermal gradient.

The Second Law is an emergent phenomenon that applies to populations. It doesn’t apply to individual particles.

And this: 

(link) GE R&D center developed an incandescent bulb back in the late 1980′s (and GE lighting commercialized it in the 1990′s) that placed a spherical clear glass shell around the filament. The shell was coated with a multilayer (anywhere from 15 – 30 separate layers) optical filter that reflects mid infrared back onto the filament, while allowing visible light to pass through. The result is that a lower filament current can achieve the same filament temperature, thanks to the mid infrared energy being reflected back to the filament. This results in a 15% – 20% increase in lumens/Watt.

GE’s research into IR reflecting films

And I think this one ends the discussion about “back-radiation.”

It is well known that the efficiency of incandescent lamps could be greatly increased if the radiated energy in the near IR region could be returned to the tungsten filament and REABSORBED.

Posted in AGW Hypothesis, CO2, Greenhouse Effect | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Skeptic Strategy for Talking About Global Warming

Posted by greg2213 on May 31, 2011

Ira Glickstein, PhD, has posted an interesting article at WUWT on how Skeptics should discuss Global Warming with “Astute Audiences.” Based on his article, I’d label Dr. Glickstein as a “luke warmer” rather than a skeptic, but it’s well worth reading.

What should a responsible Skeptic say to an astute audience? When recently invited by the “Technology, Engineering, and Science Plus” group in my community to give a talk and answer questions, I knew I would have an attentive room of tech-savvy professionals. However, they might not be fully tuned in to the details of the Global Warming controversy. Furthermore, they were likely to have opinions closer to the supposed “mainsteam science” orientation than mine.

The Rest: Skeptic Strategy for Talking About Global Warming

So here is my 1 cent worth regarding various points. Dr. Glickstein’s comments are in bold.

I assume by “Astute Audience,” and the example above, that he’s talking about audiences capable of understanding the discussion, even though they might not be fully up to speed on it.

I distinguish their reasoned views from the far out, unscientific rantings of people I refer to as Alarmists and their equal and opposite reaction opponents, who I call Disbelievers.

If we’re talking about just the science here, then maybe this statement is Ok. However, no one on the “disbeliever” side is even remotely es extreme as those on the Alarmist side. Let’s face it, “there is no global warming” is far closer to actual fact than anything put out by the alarmists, given the size of the error bars for any measured warming.

The reaction is hardly equal or opposite. Now, if the disbelievers were arguing that we’re falling into an ice age at 2-6C per century, and demanding massive government action, etc., to fix it, then he might have a point. Actually, the warmists were arguing exactly that in the 70s. (It’s a cyclic media supported hysteria that will cycle around again in a few years.)

He attributes part of the current warming to CO2, which is probably a reasonable assumption, but first… let’s explain the prior warming periods and the catastrophic warming at the end of the last ice age, none of which were CO2 driven. Those need to be explained before the CO2 assumption is regarded as fact. The “We can’t think of anything else” argument is a poor excuse.

How much of the rise in CO2 is attributable to human use of fossil fuels is also estimated differently. Warmists would blame humans for nearly all of it, while Skeptics would say less than half.

Maybe I’m just a disbeliever, but it seems to me that a skeptic would want proof that CO2 (or any factor) drives the warming, not assumptions. That experts in the field have estimates ranging from essentially zero to 6C or more means that there is no proof. Just conjecture. It also doesn’t explain how the 30’s, the MWP, and prior periods were warmer.

If the “climate sensitivity” was several degrees then the Earth wold have burned up long ago.

I am quite sure that Global Warming is REAL

Sure, as long as we’re talking about that .6 to .8C and the flattening of temps over the last decape plus. And that the error bars of the measurements are rather large and that there is some evidence of data fudging.

However, the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels and human actions are PART of the Cause.

Yeah, maybe. Prove it in regards to how the current warming is so much different from the greater (and much greater) prior warmings.

We cannot fight something with nothing, so we need something more than a passive policy of do nothing because nothing is necessary.

Say what? We need an aggressive policy of countering the amazingly bad policies being proposed by the alarmists.

Therefore, I favor reduction of the carbon footprint by efficiency, conservation, recycling, and so on, plus the introduction, if and when economically practical of so-called “Green” energy, including Nuclear, Water, Wind, Biomass and, particularly, “Clean” Coal.

Sigh… Nothing wrong with been a reasonable green. Clean air is a nice thing to have. CO2 isn’t the demon, though. Wind, as direct power generation, will probably never be practical.

If nothing else, these will do minimum harm and, if successful, will reduce US dependence upon foreign oil...

What will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is using our own resources of coal, gas, etc., until some form of nuclear/fusion power becomes available. Wind is pretty worthless for direct power generation and solar/biomass are niche projects.

The consequences of another oil embargo by disgruntled countries would be farm more damaging than Global Warming. We won’t achieve energy self-sufficiency with these cute little green ideas and Eurpoe is kindly demonstrating how economically damage a green economy is.

You may be surprised that I favor some version of a straight Carbon Tax, collected at the mine, well, and port, with the proceeds returned on an equal basis to citizens and legal residents...

Oh please. So we get to pay more so that an already grossly overfunded government can lavish more money into pet projects and then somehow tease us by offering to return some money that’s already been spent? At best any money returned will be from the IOU collection, as it is with Social Security.

To be fair, his remark on the tax wasn’t regarding Global Warming, but was to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. Still, I think it’s a bad idea.

As one commenter says, “The unintended consequence of a carbon tax is, that once enacted, it will never go away, but grow into another pile of tax money that will be tossed to special interests.”

Now, if it was signed into law and if it could be enforced that all of the money collected would go into, oh, say, fusion research, then I might hold my nose and reluctantly agree to it. But no, he seems to like the socialist redistribution idea.(Ooooo… I used the dreaded socialist word. Gasp! Does anyone actually believe that any of that money would go back to the people who actually paid it? After the Gov takes its cut?)

This commenter makes a good point:

I see no harm in supporting research into alternatives, but that would not require another new tax. All we would need to do is transfer the funding currently wasted on global warming modeling the derivatives based on that modeling. There’s many billions there.

Another says:

  • Increased energy prices and/or rationing are highly damaging to developing countries, which need cheap, abundant energy in order to lift their peoples out of poverty.
  • “Carbon” taxes are regressive taxes (they hit the poor more than the rich).
  • The practical social consequences of “anti-carbonism” can fairly be described as undesirable (if not downright evil). Among these consequences are increased world food prices brought about by bio-fuel policies in the USA and the EU, which cause hunger and starvation.

This one puts it well:

The science side of the AGW debate is quite simple: If the reliability of the published temperature record is open to question; and if the reliability of the General Circulation Models is open to question, then the fundamental premise of AGW is therefore open to question. (source)

Overall, the post and comments make for a fascinating discussion. I think his basic analysis of the issues is generally Ok and his solutions are…lacking. I see no value in meeting the alarmist halfway and I see no value in mitigating Global Warming until such time that it’s proven that GW is actually more damaging than beneficial and that we actually can mitigate it. Until that time I think any such monies are far better spent on improving the lot of the poor people of the world, bringing them affordable power and food.

Links to stuff:

Posted in Debate, The Case Against | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Hockey Stick Killed by Fire, Is It Enough?

Posted by greg2213 on May 30, 2011

Like Jason, in Friday the 13th, the Hockey stick refuses to die. Destroyed time and time again it still returns, wagging a festering finger at us, warning us to mend our ways or The Wrath will descend upon our unworthy heads.

So Willis E., on WUWT, takes another shot at burning the monster down:

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The discussion of the 1998 Mann “Hockeystick” seems like it will never die. (The “Hockeystick” was Dr. Michael Mann’s famous graph showing flatline historical temperatures followed by a huge modern rise.)

Claims of the Hockeystick’s veracity continue apace, with people doggedly wanting to believe that the results are “robust”. I thought I’d revisit something I first posted and then expanded on at ClimateAudit a few years ago, which are the proxies in Michael Mann et al.’s 2008 paper, “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia” (M2008).

This was another salvo in Mann’s unending attempt to revive his fatally flawed 1998 “Hockeystick” paper. I used what is called “Cluster Analysis” to look at the proxies. Cluster analysis creates a tree-shaped structure called a “dendrogram” that shows the similarity between the individual datasets involved…

Here’s the rest: Kill It With Fire

As a reminder, here’s how the climate math works in the CAGW division. Then, of course, one can argue that the hockey stick and its resurrections actually damaged the AGW case.

Posted in AGW Hypothesis | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Periodic Oscillations in Millennial Global-Mean Temperature

Posted by greg2213 on May 17, 2011

New peer-reviewed paper ignores CO2 as a climate mechanism, concentrating on other cycles, instead. The Abstract (emphasis is mine:)

Time series of solar radiation and north Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) index were used to analyze their causality relationship with various periodic oscillations in reconstructed millennial global-mean temperature series. The three long-term periods of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Little Ice Age (LIA) and recent Global Warming Period (GWP) were distinct in the temperature series. 21-year, 65-year, 115-year and 200-year oscillations were derived from the temperature series after removing three long-term climatic temperatures. The phases of temperature oscillations significantly lagged behind oceanic SST and solar radiation variability. The recent decadal warm period was caused by the quasi-21-year temperature oscillation. At this century-cross period, the four oscillations reached their peaks simultaneously, which did not occur during the last millennium. Based on the long-term trend during the GWP and the four periodic oscillations, global-mean temperature is expected to drop to a new cool period in the 2030s and then a rising trend would be towards to a new warm period in the 2060s.

I think I’ve seen that conclusion in a few places before, from anyone who’s looked closely at ocean/solar cycles. Seems to me that if the 1990s warming was caused by these cycles coinciding, then the 2060 warming won’t be nearly as large. Brrrr…

The full PDF is available as a download from the site, look for the PDF link on the right side of the page. Go here for the paper.

Posted in Falsified | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

This Sums it All Up Quite Nicely

Posted by greg2213 on April 10, 2011

An article by David Evans in the He sums up the whole thing very nicely.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

Read the rest: Climate models go cold

Posted in Falsified | Leave a Comment »

On the Lie of “Climate Change Science”

Posted by greg2213 on March 22, 2011

A very nice, step by step, dismantling of the “science” of climate change. He also explains why Global Warming became Climate Change.

In all of human history, what was believed and promoted by the majority of service intellectuals (high priests) in each civilization was only created and maintained to support the hierarchy and the place of the high priests within the hierarchy. To believe that the present is any different regarding any issue managed by our “experts”, whether in medicine, psychology, cosmology, economics, law and governance, population health or ecology, is pure distilled idiocy.

Never mind that the whole climate change scam is now driven by the top-level financiers newly eyeing a multi-trillion-dollar paper economy of carbon trading and that this is the reason it’s now a dominant mainstream media and corporate messaging presence [1].

Never mind that this paper economy of carbon trading will be the largest financial extortion enterprise since the invention of the US-centered military-backed global finance structure of predation itself.

Never mind that establishment scientists are service intellectuals who virtually never diverge from supporting power, who at best look for sanitized and hypothetical “problems” that do not threaten hierarchy and who feed their false self-image of relevance [2][3].

The rest: On the gargantuan lie of climate change science

Posted in The Case Against | Leave a Comment »

New Paper: Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

Posted by greg2213 on January 1, 2011

From WUWT:

Author: Paulo Cesar Soares


The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.

Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.

The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

Here’s the rest, including a link to the full paper: New paper – “absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2″

And a comment that I thought was really interesting, given all the reliance on correlation (which is still a necessary starting point:)

Anything is possible says:

If you extend back to 1958, the co-efficient of correlation between CO2 and HadCRUt global temperatures is 0.907.

How significant is that?

Well put it this way : The co-efficient of correlation between the number of Home Runs hit in MLB and HadCRUt global temperatures over the same time period is 0.885.

Make of that what you will!


Posted in CO2, Falsified | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Today’s Temperatures are Actually Quite Cool

Posted by greg2213 on November 14, 2010

Another one down, another one down, another one bites the dust…

From the No Trick Zone:

Scratch off the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research from the alarmist list. No kidding!

The European Institute For Climate and Energy has a new piece written by Raimund Leistenschneider that takes a look at two interesting papers dug up from 2003. I wonder if Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber are going to feign amnesia on this. Big hat tip to NTZ reader Ike!

Rahmstorf 2003 paper shows pronounced cooling

The paper by Prof Stefan Rahmstorf confirms that today’s temperatures are actually quite cool compared to temperatures earlier in the Holocene.

The rest: Rahmstorf/Schellnhuber Confirm No Anthropogenic Climate Change!

As a commenter on that site notes, if you look at the very bottom right of the second graph you’ll see the hockey stick.

Posted in Falsified | Leave a Comment »

President Vaclav Klaus: Climate Control or Freedom?

Posted by greg2213 on October 23, 2010

From WUWT (Bold is from the original, red is mine)

The Climate Change Doctrine is Part of Environmentalism, Not of Science

It is a great honor for me to be here tonight, getting a chance to deliver the inaugural lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation to such a distinguished audience.

Even though it may seem that there is a whole range of institutions both here and overseas which bring together and support those who openly express doubts about the currently prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and who dare to criticize it, it apparently is still not enough. We are subject to a heavily biased and carefully organized propaganda and a serious and highly qualified forum here, on this side of the Atlantic, that would stand for rationality, objectivity and fairness in public policy discussion is more than needed. That is why I consider the launching of the foundation an important step in the right direction.

We should keep saying very loudly that the current debate about global warming –and I agree with the Australian paleoclimatologist Prof. Carter that we should always speak about “dangerous human caused global warming” because it is not “warming per se that we are concerned with”[1] – is in its substance not part of the scientific discourse about the relative role of a myriad of factors influencing swings in global temperature but part of public policy debate about man and society. As R. M. Carter stresses in his recent book, “the global warming issue long ago ceased being a scientific problem.”[2]

The current debate is a public policy debate with enormous implications.[3] It is no longer about climate. It is about the government, the politicians, their scribes and the lobbyists who want to get more decision making and power for themselves. It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the global warming dogma has become one of the main, most costly and most undemocratic public policy mistakes in generations. The previous one was communism.

Here’s the rest

Posted in The Case Against | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Greens Jumping From the CAGW Ship

Posted by greg2213 on July 27, 2010

It’s so good to see bits of rationality creeping into the left side:

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt is a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa (as green as they come), and has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. He runs a radio show, and speaks with many activists and NGO’s around the world. He claims that the “activists in the developing world, who need to directly defend their own neighborhoods, they understand that this global warming thing is an invention.

The rest is at JoNava: Exodus from the Big Scare – She also includes some other very green names who have jumped the CAGW ship.

The Dr’s full post covers several big lies, one of which is warming. It’s an interesting read. He doesn’t say much about corrupt government, rather he seems to focus on the corporate world and banking. To my view the banking word is only part of the story. Sure, they’re greedy, but no less so and no less powerful than the individuals making up the various corrupt governments of the world. Heck, Comrade Castro is said to be a billionaire. Still, it’s an interesting post and he makes some good points.

Posted in Jumping Ship | Leave a Comment »