500 climate scientists challenge the UN on global warming


A quick holiday fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black!
 
Scroll down to read this post.
 
In past years I have managed to avoid asking for donations for Behind the Black during the holiday season. My finances however now compel me to do a short one-week fund-raiser, from November 11 to November 17.
 
I do not use Twitter for ethical reasons, which I have been told cuts down on traffic to the website. So be it. Furthermore, Facebook has clearly acted in the past two years to limit traffic to Behind the Black, almost certainly for political reasons. So be this as well. Finally, I do not post outside ads, as I have found them annoying to my readers and not that profitable to me.

 

Therefore, I need to ask for the direct support from my readers. If you like what I do here, please consider contributing, either by making a one-time donation or a monthly subscription, as indicated in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

Or you could consider purchasing one of my books, as indicated in the boxes scattered throughout the website. My histories of space exploration are award-winning and are aimed for the general public. All are page-turners, and all not only tell the story of the beginning of the human exploration of space, they also help explain why we are where we are today. And I also have a science fiction book available, Pioneer, which tells its own exciting story while trying to predict what life in space will be like two hundred years in the future.

 

Note that for this week only I am also having a sale on the purchase of the last 20 hardbacks of Leaving Earth. (Click on the link for more information about the book, which was endorsed by Arthur C. Clarke himself!) This award-winning out-of-print book is now only available as an ebook, but I still have a handful of hardbacks available, normally for sale for $70 plus $5 shipping. For this week only you can buy them, personally autographed by me, for $50 plus $5 shipping! Just send me a check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to the address above, with a note saying that the money is for the Leaving Earth hardback.

 

Please consider donating. Your help will make it possible for me to continue to be an independent reporter in the field of space, science, technology, and culture.

On September 23, 2019 letter, five hundred established scientists from across the globe told the United Nations that there is no climate emergency and that it as yet far from certain that human activity is warming the climate.

I should have reported this when it happened, but missed it until today. The letter made six main points:

  • Nature as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
  • Warming is far slower than predicted
  • Climate policy relies on inadequate models
  • Carbon dioxide is “plant food, the basis of all life on Earth”
  • Global warming has not increased natural disasters
  • Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

None of these points is radical or unreasonable. Regular readers of this website will recognize all six, as I have been repeating them all incessantly for almost a decade. They fit into standard scientific practice, which requires solid, reliable, and confirmed data before any theory can be accepted wholesale. None of the models, based on the theory that the rise in carbon dioxide is causing the climate to warm, have worked. As far as we know now, CO2 might have nothing or little to do with climate change. We. just. don’t. know.

Not surprisingly, the letter was immediately attacked by global warming activist Michael Mann (who still tries to pose as a climate scientist though very few buy it). Rather than rationally question these points with data, he simply made an ad hominem attack, calling the letter “craven and stupid” while implying that anyone who signed it was beyond evil.

Worse, the UN itself decided to ignore the letter, instead pushing forward with its global warming agenda designed to destroy capitalism and make us all as poor as the citizens of Venezuela, all in the name of a scientific theory that no one has been able to prove, in any way at all.

Share

23 comments

  • Garry

    “Worse, the UN itself decided to ignore the letter”

    The good news is that the next G7 will not address climate change.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/climate-change-will-not-be-on-the-agenda-of-next-g-7-white-house-says/ar-AAIWoXA?ocid=spartanntp

  • m d mill

    CO2 allows most short wave solar radiation to pass to the surface (basically not absorbing short wave).
    But it does highly absorb the long wave infrared (heat) radiation that radiates back from the surface.
    Therefore, it heats the earth by an amount more than OTHERWISE. CO2 warms the planet, thankfully, and almost certainly by a large amount.
    The decrease in infrared transmission to space calculable based on fundamental absorption physics verified in lab conditions, atmospheric profiles, black-body (or grey-body) radiation, and absorption changes actually observed by satellites, is proven based on solid scientific practice. The temperature change (based on conservation of energy) and sensitivity to CO2 doubling can be calculated by the ModTran program implementation available below, ASSUMING no other positive or negative feedback mechanisms…ie a base line calculation of about 1 degree C per CO2 doubling.
    If humidity increases with temperature (such that RELATIVE humidity stays constant…which seems reasonable), then this value increases to about 1.3 degrees C per CO2 doubling. It is possible this value may be in error due to other (e.g. cloud) feedback mechanisms, however it is these mechanisms that are quite uncertain, NOT the physics of CO2 absorption or direct CO2 warming.
    And interestingly this value of 1.3 is not far from the most likely value of 1.6 calculated by Curry and Lewis using energy budget methods of Otto et al, based on the HADCRUT surface temperature record and IPCC “sanctioned” known power forcings over that time period (a calculation that is not based directly on the GCM simulations)

    Anyone interested in this subject really should play with the ModTran program available below:
    http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

  • Edward

    m d mill wrote: “CO2 warms the planet, thankfully, and almost certainly by a large amount.

    Actually, H2O does more warming than CO2. H20 covers almost all the wavelengths as CO2 and is a stronger absorber in most of those wavelengths. H2O is responsible for 20 times as much warming as CO2.

    Thank the H2O, not the CO2. Of course, both are necessary for life on Earth.

  • John

    The reductionist physics of the absorption of certain wavelengths by CO2 is simple, and can be readily measured and calculated. But to say there are no significant feed back loops in the incredibly complex and chaotic atmosphere is not correct. Atmospheric models in terms of weather and climate are inadequate, even if they can precisely spit out numbers.

    Also the article states the letter was written by 500 “scientists, engineers and other stakeholders”, not climate scientists. I’d call them peers with scientific and engineering credentials, but they will be looked down on by ‘real climate scientists’.

  • Jason Lewis

    Some key points: The greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor, not CO2. CO2 alone can’t produce the scary scenarios. They require feedback in which the heating from feedback is much more than heating from CO2 alone.

    Bob, thanks for posting this. The scare machine is trying to make it socially unacceptable to disagree with the alarmist position. The alarmist now get huge government funding for their activism under they name “climate education,”. Their method is to avoid debating the science by simply declaring that they’ve won the argument.

  • wodun

    They should sue Mann for defamation.

  • wayne

    “Five hundred climate scientists to the UNSG: “No climate emergency. Natural factors cause warming.” Richard A Epstein” (1 of 2)
    https://audioboom.com/posts/7394528-1-2-five-hundred-climate-scientists-to-the-unsg-no-climate-emergency-natural-factors-cause-war

  • wayne

    * Main points

    1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
    2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
    3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
    4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
    5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
    6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
    7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

  • wayne

    2 weeks to Halloween….

    (extended Dance-Version!)
    Greta Thunberg –
    “HOW DARE YOU”
    https://youtu.be/nUb4MovqcBY
    3:15

  • m d mill

    Edward:
    “Thank the H2O, not the CO2. Of course, both are necessary for life on Earth.”
    What you say may be true very generally. But what can we say specifically.

    Using the ModTran program we see that IF the input forcing (power) remains constant and IF the humidity stays constant at its current value and altitude profile (and CO2=400ppm), and if we THEN reduce CO2 to zero ppm, then the temperature of the earth (beneath that atmosphere) must reduce by 6.5 C to maintain thermal equilibrium, even including of water vapor effects. And further if the Relative Humidity remains constant (ie if the humidity of the atmosphere will reduce as temperature reduces…a reasonable assumption), then the temperature must deduce by 11.5 C. This translates to 11.7 F or 20.7 F, respectively.
    Therefore the statement “CO2 warms the planet, thankfully, and almost certainly by a large amount.” is reasonably correct IMO…”ASSUMING no other positive or negative feedback mechanisms…ie a base line calculation”, even including absorption by water vapor.
    I have made this case previously on this BLOG, but it is good to repeat it.

    Anyone interested in this subject really should play with the ModTran program available below to verify their speculations:
    http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

  • m d mill

    John:
    “But to say there are no significant feed back loops in the incredibly complex and chaotic atmosphere is not correct”

    To be clear I specifically did NOT say no significant feedback effects exist, so i was not incorrect. In fact I very clearly said
    only “ASSUMING no other positive or negative feedback mechanisms…ie a base line calculation…” You, in contrast, are stating by logical inference that SIGNIFICANT feedback loops DO exist…can you prove this assertion, are they positive or negative or is this just a guess? I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like to know how you are so certain.

    Also the fact the climate system is chaotically and randomly variable is not necessarily relevant. The movement of a “bag” of air molecule is random and complex…but the gas laws describe the average pressure, temp and density relationships very well.

    I think climatological modelling makes some simplifying assumptions (about long term averaging) that are not unreasonable, but which many are unwilling to acknowledge as valid scientific method, using simplistic and vague (IMO) arguments about complexity and “chaos”.

    Analogy : If you fill a barrel of known diameter with water from a hose flowing at a known rate, you can calculate the rate the barrel will fill quite precisely (and even define an average instantaneous level) even though you cannot predict the chaotic sloshing of the surface at any instant.
    The errors of your knowledge of the exact chaotic surface position do not propagate significantly over time, and thus do not become important, in your exact calculation of the rate of filling.
    A damping factor ultimately “subdues” the addition of chaotic/random signals over a long enough period, keeping the system stable. Or, in other words, in this case physical conservation laws trump chaotic variability… as long as the system is “stable”. The climate is not the same case as filling a barrel, but the idea is analogous.

    My original post was a push back to the idea that the forcing (ie effective power injection) of CO2 is somehow in question…ALTHOUGH admittedly, the existence of negative feed-backs COULD certainly reduce the temperature change, and positive feed-backs COULD increase them. Indecently, the sensitivity values I originally calculated are much lower than most (all?) IPCC GCM simulations. CO2 increases DO increase average global temperature more than otherwise (almost without question)..the question is “how much?”. I have given my “baseline” estimates, others may have there own. But I think it is simplistic and incorrect to simply throw up ones hands and say “we can’t know anything, it’s just to complicated”. In 30 to 50 years this question will be settled…IMO.

  • Jim Davis

    How did the “500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders” of the Washington Times article you linked to become the “500 climate scientists” of your title?

  • Chris

    Hi m d mill

    Are you saying the rate a barrel fills is a chaotic system? I don’t see that but the weather is chaotic as well as the climate. IMHO. I’m thinking the barrel rate fill is a poor analogy for a chaotic system.

    I understand your points on the several ASSUMPTIONS – no feedbacks, steady humidity,…etc. and the relationship of CO2 levels to warming/cooling in your static system (all other variables held constant). (This may be a true analysis although I am not sure that superposition is valid in the chaotic system that is climate.)

    That said, the argument is not that CO2 will cause change but it is what is it’s relative place in the overall set of variables and the structure of the chaotic system of climate. The coefficient for CO2 in the overall chaotic system may be quite small in comparison to the many other factors -many we may not know yet. The climate’s chaotic behavior may change radically over time due to many unknown factors. This is the point: we do not know and should not be making radical changes to our lives, governance and economies on such unknown models.

    The second point I think Bob is making is that we need to have true, confirmed data, as well as honest and competitive review of the theories to solve this issue. If we do not take this approach – true scientific inquiry – we will NOT settle this question in 30-50 years =, or ever unless we literally stumble upon it. Biased “science” kept the earth “flat” and in the center of the universe for a long time. As Bob states the governmental agencies (US, EU and UN) have been biased in the past with support and funding. The 500 scientists represents another crack in the prior “overwhelming” “settled science” on Global Warming or Climate Change. That makes those who want the status quo on climate angry – i.e.Michael Mann

    The call here is not to say we don’t know and can’t know. The call here is to say let’s first be honest in our desire to find the truth. Let’s get true, and confirmed data. Let’s start with skeptical scientific inquiry that has no desired outcomes. Let’s have true review of the theories put forth.

    I think you are trying to argue that we cannot discount CO2 in heating/cooling and that it cannot be discounted offhandedly. I agree it cannot be simply discounted but the full relationship needs to be proved.
    However, the larger issue stated in Bob’s long postings and writing is that the science is not settled and our approach thus far is biased and we need to change that.

  • wayne

    Life, Liberty & Levin
    -Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels
    October, 2018
    https://youtu.be/eGmiRRBFBQk
    36:33

  • Edward

    John wrote: “Also the article states the letter was written by 500 ‘scientists, engineers and other stakeholders’, not climate scientists. I’d call them peers with scientific and engineering credentials, but they will be looked down on by ‘real climate scientists’.

    That’s OK. The ‘real climate scientists’ are looked down on by real scientists and real engineers, who do the real work in the real world and see the reality of situations and the outcomes of solutions to problems.

    We have seen the bogus nature of current climate science and reject it as a science; it is only politics dressed up in a lab coat in order to fool the rest of us.

    m d mill,
    You assume that the ModTran program is skilled, meaning it is valid and gives accurate results.

    One of the problems that climate models have is that no one knows the actual relationship of the feedback between CO2 heating and additional H2O heating. The current assumption by the climate scientists is clearly incorrect, otherwise temperatures would have increased dramatically with the recent increasing CO2 levels.

    Because the dependence of H2O heating on CO2 heating is unknown, your analysis and conclusions, based upon such a model, are untrustworthy.

    Anyone interested in this subject really would have already known this problem and already known that the ModTran program is untrustworthy. I would not and did not waste any time “playing” with that program.

    To all,
    This is a classic example of confirmation bias. m d mill found a program that provides results that he likes, espouses it, and declares that anyone interested in the subject of climate science really should play with it. Determining whether it is a valid program is not one of his priorities.

    Confirmation bias is why the East Anglia climate scientists and Mann believed that they had to “hide the decline.” The decline demonstrated that their proxy for temperature data was invalid. In order to continue using proxy data to come to their desired conclusions, they had to hide that the proxy was invalid.

    Twice I have had to do redesigns because of poor assumptions, required due to lack of factual information. One of those times a colleague warned me that my assumption was incorrect, but being young, I ignored his warning, because I trusted a test I had made. It turned out that my test was performed under ideal conditions and my device operated under real world conditions. He was right, I was wrong, and I had to do a quick redesign and modification of existing hardware in order to stay on schedule.

    A major problem in climate science is that it is based upon two sequential assumptions. First, that CO2 is a major factor in atmospheric temperature. Among other problems, this drives the assumption of the number used for the relationship between CO2 and H2O for temperature; no one knows this number, and no one is really working to find it or to solve the other problems about CO2 being a major factor. Because there has been little to no warming in the past decade or so while there has been a rise in CO2, we know that either CO2 is a minor factor or that other factors are stronger than CO2.

    The second assumption is that humanity is a major factor in increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This seems like a reasonable assumption, because we drive a lot of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) but we also know that CO2 naturally increases after an increase in global temperature, so determining the difference between the natural CO2 increase and the contribution by man is very difficult. There are many factors that influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we just don’t know whether our 2% contribution overwhelms the factors that control CO2 levels.

    If either of these assumptions turns out to be untrue, then the anthropogenic global warming climate change catastrophic environmental disaster scenario falls apart instantaneously.

    One of the problems that the alarmists have is that they just aren’t as concerned that the consequences of CO2 is as catastrophic as they claim. The politicians allow China and India to produce as much CO2 as they want, and they let Brazil burn down its rain forest. I shouldn’t drive an SUV, but entire nations are permitted to do far worse? Even those who pretend to be fooled by the “climate scientists” don’t believe in dire consequences, because they still use powered transportation; use power in their homes, schools, and workplaces; and use goods and services that were produced and delivered using power. They talk as though they have been fooled, but they act as though they haven’t.

    Chris is right. “The call here is to say let’s first be honest in our desire to find the truth. Let’s get true, and confirmed data. Let’s start with skeptical scientific inquiry that has no desired outcomes. Let’s have true review of the theories put forth.” We need to find answers, not work to assumptions.

    1 What is the ratio of natural to anthropogenic factors that cause warming (in addition to CO2)?
    2. Why is warming far slower than predicted?
    3. Can we create climate models adequate enough to set good climate policy?
    4. How much more or less advantageous is increased CO2? Does it produce more plant life and food than danger, and how much CO2 in the atmosphere is optimal?
    5. Just what is the relationship between global warming and natural disasters? What temperature of the Earth is optimal?
    6. How do we return climate science to being a science rather than a political tool that is used to set climate policies that satisfy politicians but harm economies?
    7. What would constitute a climate emergency? What conditions would be cause for panic?

    Interestingly, the policy makers tell us that capitalism is bad for the environment and global warming, but it is the capitalist United States that is increasing its economic output while at the same time reducing CO2 emissions, and it is the socialist countries, such as China and India, that are increasing their CO2 emissions.

    What the policy makers tell us does not match the real world situation.

    We have a coming ice age. The historical data shows that we are due for one any millennium, now. We were warned of it by the policy makers when I was young. At the time, it constituted a climate emergency, and we set many policies to combat it. Then we were warned of global warming, and no matter what happened, it was proof of warming (less snow one year or more snow the next did not matter; both were signs of warming).

    Now we are tasked with stopping the eternal natural changes in climate, because these natural changes must necessarily be man caused. The “problem” changes with the changes in nature, but the “solutions” are always the same.

    No wonder there are so many skeptics.

  • commodude

    I’ll take my information on global warming from an ACTUAL credible source. You know, a racecar driver…..

    https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/27851453/lewis-hamilton-urges-people-go-vegan-take-climate-change-seriously

    “Extinction of our race becoming more and more likely as we over use resources,” Hamilton said in one Instagram post of a series.

    “I’m sad to see so many people, even close friends ignore what is happening daily.

    “Honestly, I feel like giving up on everything. Why bother when the world is such a mess and people don’t seem to care?”

    You just can’t argue with a source like that. Guess I’ll just go curl up and wait to be cooked by the CO2 in the atmosphere.

  • John

    The linked program looks like a neat calculation tool, it’s nothing more than that. There are plenty of feedback mechanisms, poster above even mentions some, a simple web search can give plenty. I doubt the effects any one can be accurately quantified, so I’m sure they’re ‘averaged out’, you know, like filling a barrel with water.

  • m d mill

    John:
    The barrel analogy is simply meant to show that a complex random variation can be occurring in addition to long term deterministic trends, not a model of the climate…as i specifically stated. Can you prove SIGNIFICANT feedbacks exists; is the sum of these positive or negative? I think most feed-back mechanisms (NOT forcings) are highly speculative, and you are simply speculating. As specifically stated, my calculation of sensitivity is a baseline estimate, a starting point, NOT highly speculative, based in fundamental physical principles, but assuming no significant feedback mechanisms. You can then include assumptions about feedback as you like.

    Edward states that i have found a program that “provides the result he likes”…how does he know which result i would like?
    To all:
    This is a classic case of Edwardian bias…Edward assumes something about someone, that he wants to believe, to strengthen his case, but certainly does not know, then states it as fact.
    Edward has done this for years, and it is a deplorable tactic. In fact i would agree with most of his comments, and the comments of others above. I am not a climate alarmist, am a skeptic of the alarmism, and agree completely with the statement “The call here is to say let’s first be honest in our desire to find the truth. Let’s get true, and confirmed data. Let’s start with skeptical scientific inquiry that has no desired outcomes. Let’s have true review of the theories put forth.” , and that is exactly what i am trying to doing. The baseline sensitivity values i have calculated are far lower than most (all?) GCM simulations, as i specifically mentioned.

    I recommend this Modtran implementation because it is available to the public and easy to use.(Thanks to U.Chicago!!!)
    It provides an atmospheric transmission calculation based on fundamental priciples, it is not a climate model.
    It does not provide heating results (as edward seems to claim}–temperature is an input not an output. It determines transmission given a certain concentration of given atmospheric molecules and atmospheric profiles (no molecules are given special importance, water or CO2). It provides transmission results nearly identical with other transmission programs i have used. I do believe it is a good representation of transmission, because i believe it is based on fundamental principles of absorption and emission for these molecules, and that the scientists who have worked on these transmission models (based on experiment) for years are competent and sincere (and far beyond my competence).
    Edward says “the ModTran program is untrustworthy”…prove it. I believe this is another case of Edward stating something as fact which he cannot prove, and does not know, and is not competent to determine.
    You can believe the Modtran calculations (or others like it), the result of years of dedicated research based on fundamental principles of experimentally proven physics, or you can believe Edward. You decide.
    I would strongly recommend any serious investigator play with this Modtran implementation to get a feel for the actual effects of CO2, water vapor and other molecules on outward transmission of longwave radiation.
    If Edward is to smart to do so, well who really cares?

    http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

    I repeat: CO2 increases DO increase average global temperature more than otherwise (almost without question)..the question is “how much?”. I have given my “baseline” estimates, others may have there own.

  • Edward

    m d mill,
    You asked: “how does he know which result i would like?

    He knows because you used the program to make two points and draw a conclusion; that “I have made this case previously on this BLOG, but it is good to repeat it.” No assumption or bias is needed to make an accurate conclusion, you have stated it very clearly.

    This is a classic case of Edwardian bias…Edward assumes something about someone, that he wants to believe, to strengthen his case, but certainly does not know, then states it as fact. Edward has done this for years, and it is a deplorable tactic. … I am not a climate alarmist, am a skeptic of the alarmism …

    What an interesting statement. You declare that you are not an alarmist but a skeptic. Why would you say such a thing unless you assumed that I thought you an alarmist? I don’t know what I said that would lead you to believe that I think you are an alarmist, and I now wonder whether you are making assumptions about me. As far as I see — and the way I actually think of you, you are misinformed about several facts, and you make statements based upon that misinformation. The misinformation gives you a bias, and you are perfectly willing to work and report to that bias. CO2 is not the important warming factor that you believe it to be.

    Not only does H2O do much more warming of the Earth than CO2, but the climate models assume that with temperature rise (presumably due to CO2) there will be a dramatic further increase in temperature due to an increase in H2O in the atmosphere. We have no information that confirms this, and since the models have failed in recent years, we have evidence that either this effect is not as strong as assumed or that there are other stronger factors involved.

    I never called Modtran a model, just a program. I don’t know what I said to make you think that I think otherwise. If you look in the lower left corner, you will see that ground temperature actually is an output.

    Modtran may provide transmission results nearly identical with other transmission programs you have used, but does it use the same assumptions that are unconfirmed? With nearly identical results, it probably does.

    and that the scientists who have worked on these transmission models

    Wait. Is it a program or a model?

    Edward says “the ModTran program is untrustworthy”…prove it.

    I already have, but then again, you are using a program that you have not proved works.

    If Edward is to smart to do so, well who really cares?

    It looks to me like you do, m d mill. But then, maybe I’m not really smart enough to notice such things.

    I repeat: CO2 increases DO increase average global temperature more than otherwise (almost without question)

    It looks to me as though I am using that small amount of left over room of uncertainty. Also, which “otherwise” does CO2 increase temperatures? Is it more than the known amount or is it more than some other, unstated, amount?

  • Max

    I am disappointed, the “modtran” does not have a “night setting” when earth emits IR radiation without solar interference. The atmospheric/altitude heating graph on the right is consistent with day. At night, without UV and x-rays heating up the upper atmosphere, The temperature descends to 300° below zero in a parabolic curve. Any computer simulation that neglects 1/2 of a 24 hour cycle is purposely hiding 1/2 of the data. Why?

    For example, a single hair on my head will block sunlight and capture longwave radiation. How much UV protection is depending upon the length of the hair and the thickness as compared to the surface area of my head.
    Carbon dioxide is 4/100 of 1% of the atmosphere. That’s one molecule for every 2,500 air molecules. A sample so small that any difference CO2 could possibly make cannot be measured. The molecule size is only slightly larger than 02 and half the size of H402 (normal water) which because of its size has a larger IR bandwidth overlapping CO2.
    The earth has an average of 30% cloud coverage +/- A equivalent of 300,000 ppm.
    Why would anyone in their right mind talk about that one hair protecting the top of my head when I have a thermal hat that protects me day or night? The radical hair Nazis?

    Carbon dioxide has nothing whatsoever to do with climate or the weather. There is just not enough of it. Nor is there anything humans can do about either. No matter how much they raise our taxes.

    When they talk about how much CO2 (hydrocarbons) you can burn to stay warm, how much carbohydrates you can eat to stay alive, how much CO2 you can exhale before you’re over your quota, know that death is near.
    80% reduction in carbon dioxide of the green new deal is nothing less than 80% reduction in the demand for carbon. Which can only be achieved with an 80% reduction in the population. The green new deal is a doomsday cult.

    After all the death do you think anyone will be sad? No. They will erect monuments to themselves re-writing history as the ones who saved the planet and lead the population into 1,000 year dark age. Ayn Rand’s “anthem” seems like prophecy rather than fantasy.

  • Max

    I just thought of something from another angle, even though carbon dioxide retains very little heat in the IR spectrum because of its low amount, when combined with hydrogen sulfide from the ocean, humidity/water vapor it forms a very thick clouds that even visible light has a hard time penetrating. By itself CO2 is nothing. But when combined with other factors it becomes the recipe for a thunderstorm and perhaps even global cooling. Water always cools, that’s why we sweat.

  • commodude

    Water doesn’t always cool, sweat at 90% humidity doesn’t evaporate, therefore, doesn’t cool.

  • m d mill

    Edward:
    The results of Modtran calculations are what they are…they are not what I “want”.
    You do not know what values I want, but you state I only recommend or “like” Modtran because I like its particular results, and state that as a fact…a despicable tactic you often use
    I do not want any particular value, just the physical reality.

    Atmospheric transmission models based on physically proven processes, such as Modtran and others, and the transmission effects of increasing CO2 as a function of frequency, are now verified by satellite observation, as well as on their fundamental physical basis. If you don’t accept this as likely, it only reflects on your unreasonableness, not reality.

    You say you have proven the untrustworthiness of the Modtran results..I missed that, show that proof again.
    Atmospheric transmission is a reasonably mature uncontentious science, please prove the experts all wrong and your expertise.

    Modtran is a computer program that uses a model of atmospheric transmission, it is not a climate model…I don’t know what your problem is.

    I am a currently a skeptic…that is a factual statement about me, not you. I do think you or others MAY erroneously think i am an “alarmist” (eg “…CO2 is not the important warming factor that YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE.”), so i state my position for clarity. But I did not state that thought, and certainly not as a fact, as you do.
    Your comments on this are inane.

    Ground temperature is an assumed input which the user can adjust by selecting location or temp offset (that ground temp should not have actually been placed in the output box)…if you look closely you will see this.
    You are simply wrong again… I can only guess if you will admit it.
    If you do not understand this you do not understand the program, which is why you should play with the program.
    Incidentally this program will prove your statement about effects of water vapor, which i assume you have gotten from transmission models!! directly or indirectly.

    “I repeat: CO2 increases DO increase average global temperature more than otherwise (almost without question)” I assume your claim to not understand the meaning here is simply a churlish response, and not actual shallowness of thought…but i will restate it:
    I repeat: CO2 increases DO increase average global temperature more than would occur under the exact same conditions without the CO2 increases (almost without question). The question is how much.

    Again,I recommend this Modtran implementation because it is available to the public and easy to use.(Thanks to U.Chicago!!!)
    It provides an atmospheric transmission calculation based on fundamental principles, it is not a climate model.
    It does not provide heating results (as Edward seems to claim)–temperature is an input not an output. It determines transmission given a certain concentration of given atmospheric molecules and atmospheric profiles (no molecules are given special importance, water or CO2). It provides transmission results nearly identical with other transmission programs i have used (by which i mean it is not an outlier of a mature science). I do believe it is a good representation of transmission, because i believe it is based on fundamental principles of absorption and emission for these molecules, and that the scientists who have worked on these transmission models (based on experiment) for years are competent and sincere (and beyond my expertise).

    I guess you ARE right about one thing..I do apparently care what you say on this topic because absurdities about this important topic should be rebutted, in principle, wherever they occur.

    P.S. ice cores have shown atmospheric CO2 levels relatively constant over 10’s of thousands of years, and then shoot up almost “vertically” at the time of industrialization and the 20th century population explosion….a true hockey stick responce. Further the oceans are moving towards acidic (ie less basic), indicating they are a net sink of atmospheric CO2, not a source. Your statement that increasing atmospheric CO2 is reasonably not anthropogenic is simply another absurdity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *