Adding More CO2 Goalkeepers

NHL goalkeepers already save more than 90% of shots, so adding more goalkeepers could increase their save percentage by a maximum of 10%.

Knut Angstrom figured out 100 years ago that almost all of the LW radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths is already absorbed by the existing atmospheric CO2. This means that adding more CO2 has minimal effect on the earth’s radiative balance.

Climate experts assume that adding more CO2 will increase the amount of “trapped heat” – but it is same problem as hockey goals. Almost all of the LW radiation in CO2 bands is already being absorbed, so adding more CO2 has less and less effect with each increment.

Another way of looking at is as a window blind which absorbs 99.9% of light coming through the window. Adding a second blind has very little effect, because almost all of the light is already absorbed.

Alarmists assume that additional warmth due to added CO2 is basic physics, because they don’t understand basic physics.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Adding More CO2 Goalkeepers

  1. dfbaskwill says:

    “Alarmists assume that additional warmth due to added CO2 is basic physics, because they don’t understand basic physics.”

    Should read:
    Alarmists assume that additional warmth due to added CO2 is basic physics, because they don’t understand anything at all but where their bread is buttered. Or something similar. hee hee

  2. Password protected says:

    Morpheus: The Warming is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

  3. Robert Austin says:

    When I cite the logarithmic response in radiative physics, the eyes of the believers glaze over, they go into a trance and recite the 97% of scientists canard. The window blind analogy is easy to understand by the science deprived, but if you don’t use sciencey words, you get the “you are not a climate scientist” response. It makes you wonder if/when it turns out that CAGW is a crock, will these same believers be severely disappointed.

  4. Joseph says:

    I love the hockey reference. My prediction: Bruins vs. Kings Stanley Cup Final.

  5. A simple way to measure this might be with an IR camera. The effect of a GHG is, in the end, simply shifting a photon’s path in a random direction. If we could filter an IR camera to only see in the CO2 blocking band (14-18µm), then the distance we could see an object in a camera before it turns gray due to noise from other scattering could be used to determine optical distance. In other words, up close, the object should have high contrast. At a longer distance, the contrast will diminish, and at a very long distance, almost all photons from the object will have been scattered, and we will cease to observe it against background noise. From these measurements (assuming, say, 0 to 255 values of the pixel), you could determine the number of layers and thus optical distance. Then you could do the same on a very high humidity day, and also on a very dry day / in the desert, and determine the effect of H2O / non-H2O by comparing contrast.

    I suspect we would be able to see a very long distance in IR before it becomes washed out. And when it becomes washed out, it will be almost entirely by H2O scattering. Perhaps the CO2 optical engineer could help us out (Malcolm Wright?)

    • squid2112 says:

      Doesn’t matter, in almost all cases, the ground is warmer than the atmosphere above it. A cooler object cannot make a warmer object even warmer. I makes no difference how much of that IR is re-emitted back to the ground, it cannot warm it.

    • Morgan says:

      Morgan Wright but that’s OK.

      15 microns is very far from the optical region of IR. For an IR camera as you describe, you can photograph IR from around 750 nanometers to 2 microns with any old camera, you just change the “film” (you use a CCD that absorbs optical IR and just change the filters. The way we select which bands of near or “optical” IR to photograph is mostly done with filters).

      But this would not help if you want to photograph in the 15 micron (mid IR) region because the camera is warm and radiates IR. Any camera that can photograph 15 microns would be photographing its own radiation unless you cool it with liquid nitrogen. For far IR even liquid nitrogen isn’t cold enough, you have to cool it with liquid helium.

      • Morgan says:

        …and because the lens itself would have to be cooled, and bathed in liquid nitrogen, which has its own index of refraction and optical aberrations, and since most glass and plastic lenses are not transparent to all bands of IR anyway, it gets complicated when you try to use lenses. The optics is simple if done with mirrors instead.

  6. Ron C. says:

    The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that heat (Infra-Red or IR radiation) passes from the surface to space.

    1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.

    2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.

    3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.

    In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.

    This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides the radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.

  7. Cheshirered says:

    A pint glass of beer represents a full CO2 molecule.
    The volume of that glass is it’s absorption capacity.
    The beer in the glass is the quantity of CO2 that is actually absorbed.
    Pouring more beer into the already full glass doesn’t increase absorption capacity.
    The pint glass can only hold 1 pint.
    The surplus beer simply overflows.
    Just like additional CO2 isn’t absorbed, but instead overflows back into space.

    Sound about right?

    • Gail Combs says:

      “Just like additional CO2 isn’t absorbed, but instead overflows back into space.”

      ERRRRrrr do you not mean IR of the correct wavelength?

      After rereading that I thing the Beer got absorbed by you. {:>D

  8. Steve Case says:

    CO2 without feed backs should run the temperature up 1.2C° per doubling of concentration in the atmosphere. Whether that actually happens or not is another story. The issue is in the feed backs.

    • Morgan says:

      @Steve Case, Lindzen is going with 1.2C per doubling but I’m thinking is has to be less. Use this brain excercise….If there was a doubling from 200 to 400 ppm, and one from 100 to 200 and 50 to 100, 25 to 50, 12 to 25, 6 to 12… I figure about 7 doublings on this diagram,

      which multiplied by 1.2 each gives us 8.4 degrees, which is more than the total CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect. I think CO2 only accounts for 3 degrees total which means around .4 C per doubling if there were 7 doubling going back to where it starts becoming logarithmic.

      Would appreciate any thoughts on this idea.

      • The CO2 climate sensitivity is essentially zero, not even 0.1 C per doubling. See:
        CO2 Climate Sensitivity Vs. Reality

        As I commented On Jo Nova’s site yesterday:

        It’s zombies all the way down, on the alarmist side, no matter how “expert” the righteous harangue (they are merely desperately trying to sell the world a worthless and tyrannical idea, with nightmare images having no substance whatsoever). As I have been saying since late 2010, ever since my seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (whose utterly simple and definitive demonstration has been determinedly denied by even the “lukewarm” skeptics, including you, Jo Nova) there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists. Anybody who says, “Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and will warm the atmosphere by SOME amount”, just doesn’t know the first thing about the problem of atmospheric warming–which, as the Venus/Earth comparison shows, is by direct absorption of incident solar IR radiation, not by heat from a warmed planetary surface. Uneven heat from the surface just drives the weather, as it seeks to escape to space; it doesn’t affect the global mean surface temperature of the atmosphere, which is due to a stable vertical temperature distribution (quantitatively known, for a century or more, in the Standard Atmosphere) caused entirely by a predominant hydrostatic condition of the troposphere, not by the detailed makeup of the atmosphere (including CO2 or other “greenhouse” gas levels, or even cloud cover) or planetary albedo. Simply: The “experts” cling to false theories and thus know nothing, and so the system is broken–that is the tragedy we are living through now, and the reality everyone is avoiding, each in their own way.

        • matayaya says:

          So, what about Mercury? The face of Mercury is hot for sure, but with no atmosphere, the average temperature of Mercury is less than Venus. It is not “just the sun.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        I go with Dr Brown of Duke University’s point of view. The climate is remarkably stable (due to feedbacks) until enough factors change to kick it from one stable state to another. This change happens quite rapidly.

        For example the change from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene happened in three years. Between the end of the Eemian and now there have been either 24 or 26 Dansgaard-Oeschger events, reliable, dramatic and completely unavoidable global climate change events that average 8-10C global temperature changes in from just a few years to mere decades (with outliers ranging to 16C)

  9. Eric Simpson says:

    What we got is CO2 not acting like the warmists say it does. Throughout history.

    We are talking in the last 18 years when CO2 levels have been fortunately rising steadily but temperatures have been stable. A stable climate, that’s no scare monger’s dream. And in the last century + where we have had nearly identical rates of temperature change in periods of low and more recent higher CO2 levels. This, and the recent stable climate, does not comport with the hysteria of the Chicken Littles. Further, going back hundreds of millions of years, we’ve seen through various proxies that CO2 has risen to as high as 7000ppm but there has been no runaway greenhouse effect and in fact temperatures have dropped and we have entered ice ages when CO2 was at atmospheric levels many times what it is today. And, looking at the ice cores from up to hundreds of thousands of years ago, it’s the same thing, clearly CO2 has not historically been causing temperature change, or at least we have zero evidence of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

    We need to put this point about CO2 at the front of our efforts to defuse the doomsayers. It’s not just about the feedbacks. It that CO2 is doing effectively nothing. That’s what the evidence is.

      • matayaya says:

        You fancy yourself a skeptic, but blindly go for a Zbigniew Jaworowski? Fascinating to see where some of you are really coming from. Jaworowski’s devotees include the Lyndon Larouche cult. You really want to be in bed with that crowd. Be an American. Besides his thoroughly debunked ideas of CO2 and ice cores and that we are presently entering an ice age, he has written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a “stupid and fraudulent myth,” and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline. He also regularly promoted the use of DDT long after most folks were happy to see it go.
        I think you buy the global cooling thing he promoted, I’ll wager you 50 bucks on that one. I bet within 5, maybe 10 years, you all will be crying uncle on that one; just like back in the early 90s some folks in your footnote list were still saying tobacco was harmless.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I do not give a flying flip about anything but Jaworowski’s well reasoned argument about CO2 migration and that is based on my ow experience as a chemist.

          I also notice you are Attacking the Man not the science and say nothing about Dr. Glassman’s articles.

        • matayaya says:

          “Attacking the Man” often takes precedence with you guys over the science. I see Steve has a fresh swipe at Hansen. Bad habit, I admit. I am not a scientist and your being a chemist does not automatically defer status on you as a climate expert, but we are mostly is the social-political realm here, so that’s ok.
          The first mistake Jaworowski seems to make is his premise that people working with ice cores must be a bunch of idiots. He makes an issue of the “brittle zone”. Legitimate issue. He wasn’t the first to consider it. The best way to address that is with a comparison, one with a brittle zone and one without. That has been done and brittle zone is still shown to be useful. Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone.
          If you read the accounts of how these ice cores are collected and analyzed you see the care and expertise comparable with a brain surgeon being used. Jaworowski was a professional contrarian. One says white, he says black; one says up, he says down. At least he can be credited in getting the scientist to check, and recheck the issues regarding the “brittle zone”. It is settled science now.

      • Ron C. says:

        @matayaya

        Nice rant. Now try playing the ball instead the man.

        What do you say about CO2?

        • matayaya says:

          Thanks for teeing me up. Seems each individual poster on this site has their own unique individual opinion about CO2. The most amusing is the guy that ignores Venus’s atmosphere and says Venus is hotter than Earth because its closer to the sun. Turns out that the average temperature on Venus is even hotter than Mercury.
          Some folks that consider themselves skeptics seem to be suckers for thoroughly debunked oddballs. It’s sacrilege to suggest such a thing on this site, but I’ll stick with the mainstream science of the IPCC. This link a good little primer on CO2. ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm

        • Many people on both sides of the debate think that Venus is hot because of its proximity to the sun. The stupidest theory I have heard is James Hansen’s PhD dissertation, in which he blamed the heat on aerosols.

        • Ron C. says:

          @matayaya

          You need to get out more and exercise your critical intelligence. Your link is only about CO2 concentrations, nothing about effect on climate.

          Skeptics are ordinary people who are simply asking for proof that rising CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. The proofs that have been offered are not convincing.

          Claim: “The climate models show CO2 drives warming.”
          Answer: Models are not proof; they are built on the modellers’ assumptions, which require proving.

          Claim: “The models can not explain warming from 1978 to 1998 unless CO2 is included as a driver.”
          Answer: Arguing from ignorance is not proof of anything.

          Claim: “The models show that the globe will warm by 1.5 to 4.5C this century.”
          Answer: The models are all running hot compared to the datasets, even those with unexplained “adjustments”. If this is proof, it goes against the models.

          Then there are the supposed proofs of the GHG atmospheric warming effect.

          Claim: “CO2 radiates heat back to the surface, making it warmer.”
          Answer: Both the surface and the air have kinetic energy, so there is an infrared flux between them. But, on balance, the direction of warming is from the surface to the air, not the other way around.

          Claim: “CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, delaying the cooling of the surface, resulting in warming.”
          Answer: CO2 is IR active and unable to store energy it absorbs. The energy is either instantly shared with O2 and N2 molecules, or is reemitted. O2 and N2 are not IR active and do slow the surface cooling.

          Claim: “CO2 raises the emission level, causing the troposphere to warm all the way down to the surface, and the stratosphere to cool.”
          Answer: Analysis of radiosonde data shows no effect from increasing CO2 on the temperature profile of the atmosphere.

          As Patrick Moore said, if there were an actual proof of man-made global warming, you would see it everywhere.

        • matayaya says:

          Ron C This explains the mainstream view of CO2 rather well.
          http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

        • Ron C. says:

          @matayaya

          Yes, that is the mainstream theory, dating back to 2007 in your link, a theory which is unfortunately unproven.

          Extensive analysis of radiosonde data shows little effect from CO2 upon the temperature profile in the atmosphere up to mid Stratosphere. Here is current empirical research.

          “It can be seen from the infra-red cooling model of Figure 19 that the greenhouse effect theory predicts a strong influence from the greenhouse gases on the barometric temperature profile. Moreover, the modelled net effect of the greenhouse gases on infra-red cooling varies substantially over the entire atmospheric profile.

          However, when we analysed the barometric temperature profiles of the radiosondes in this paper, we were unable to detect any influence from greenhouse gases. Instead, the profiles were very well described by the thermodynamic properties of the main atmospheric gases, i.e., N 2 and O 2 , in a gravitational field.”

          While water vapour is a greenhouse gas, the effects of water vapour on the temperature profile did not appear to be related to its radiative properties, but rather its different molecular structure and the latent heat released/gained by water in its gas/liquid/solid phase changes.

          For this reason, our results suggest that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is very small, perhaps negligible. At any rate, its magnitude appears to be too small to be detected from the archived radiosonde data.

          Open Peer Rev. J., 2014; 19 (Atm. Sci.), Ver. 0.1. http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/19 page 18 of 28

        • matayaya says:

          Ron, you make my case. We are not the climate experts, we have to seek out what rings true to our ears. We have to trust someone else. You layout the results of one study using weather balloons that makes no mention of all the other ways we know what we know. A solid study will address the evidence that contradicts.
          It sounded good, no problem. But I need more to not be skeptical. At the bottom of the study was a statement seeking peer reviews. No one has peer reviewed it yet.
          Your a skeptic? You would trust this one paper and ignore the thousands of other papers on the same subject have been thru rigorous peer review. Some skeptic.

        • Ron C. says:

          Matayaya, you are a true believer.

          I point you to evidence that your theory isn’t working in the actual atmosphere, and you cannot question your theory. Where is your proof? Consensus? Peer Review? You need empirical evidence.

        • matayaya says:

          Ron, it’s not my theory, it’s the consensus of the vast majority of climate science experts. Yea, I know, the word “consensus” is a buzz word for you to take off on. I guess that’s a dead end for us.

        • Ron C. says:

          Yes matayaya, we’ve reached a dead end.

          You share in the assumption of CO2 global warming, and without evidence, I will not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      First I said my own experience because analytical chemists toss their glassware after each use because of the absorption/migration issue. Also I have used solid, liquid and gas chromatography. All these methods use differential migration of chemicals through the substrate. Therefore the idea that CO2 would stay put for millions of years DOES NOT COMPUTE.

      Then there is the CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere issue. CO2 is heavier than air and has many many sources and sinks all over the earth. As a chemist who has gone nuts trying to get chemicals to mix in a mixing vat with motorized mixing, the idea of CO2 being ‘well mixed’ really stretches my credibility.

      From Jaworowski:

      The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere. This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite….

      There are four other arbitrary assumptions behind the CO2 glaciology.

      1. No liquid phase occurs in the ice at a mean annual temperature of −24°C or less (Berner et al. 1977, Friedli et al. 1986, Raynaud and Barnola 1985).

      2. The entrapment of air in ice is a mechanical process with no differentiation of gas components (Oeschger et al. 1985).

      3. The original atmospheric air composition in the gas inclusions is preserved indefinitely (Oeschger et al. 1985).

      4. The age of gases in the air bubbles is much younger than the age of the ice in which they are entrapped (Oeschger et al. 1985), the age difference ranging from several tens to several ten-thousands of years.

      More than a decade ago, it was demonstrated that these four basic assumptions are invalid, that the ice cores cannot be regarded as a closed system, and that low pre-industrial concentrations of CO2, and of other trace greenhouse gases, are an artifact, caused by more than 20 physical-chemical processes operating in situ in the polar snow and ice, and in the ice cores…

      Only recently, many years after the ice-based edifice of anthropogenic warming had reached a skyscraper height, did glaciologists start to study the fractionation of gases in snow and ice (for example, Killawee et al. 1998), and the structure of snow and firn which might play a first-order role in changing gas chemistry and isotopic profiles in the ice sheets (Albert 2004, Leeman and Albert 2002, and Severinghaus et al. 2001). Recently, Brooks Hurd, a high-purity-gas analyst, confirmed the previous criticism of ice core CO2 studies. He noted that the Knudsen diffusion effect, combined with inward diffusion, is depleting CO2 in ice cores exposed to drastic pressure changes (up to 320 bars—more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure), and that it minimizes variations and reduces the maximums (Hurd 2006)….

      REFERENCES:
      Berner, W., Bucher, P., Oeschger, H. and Stauffer, B., 1977. “Analysis
      and interpretation of gas content and composition in natural ice,
      Isotopes and Impurities in Snow and Ice.” IAHS, pp. 272-284.

      Friedli, H., Lotscher, H., Oeschger, H., Siegenthaler, U. and Stauffer,
      B., 1986. “Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2
      in the past two centuries.” Nature, Vol. 324, pp. 237-238.

      Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.M., 1985. “An Antarctic ice core reveals
      atmospheric CO2 variations over the past few centuries.” Nature,
      Vol. 315, pp. 309-311.

      Oeschger, H., Stauffer, B., Finkel, R. and Langway Jr, C.C., 1985. “Vari-
      ations of the CO2 concentration of occluded air and of anions and
      dust in polar ice cores.” In: E.T. Sundquist and W.S. Broecker (eds.),
      The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Arch-
      ean to Present. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.,
      pp. 132-142.

      Killawee, J.A., Fairchild, I.J., Tison, J.-I., Janssens, L. and Lorrain, R.,
      1998.
      “Segregation of solutes and gases in experimental freezing of
      dilute solutions: Implications for natural glacial systems.”
      Geochim-
      ica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 62, No. 23-24, pp. 3637-3655.

      Albert, M., 2004. “Near-surface processes affecting gas exchange: West
      Antarctic ice sheet.”
      waiscores(DOT)dri.edu/MajorFindings/
      AlbertRes.html.

      Leeman, U. and Albert, M., 2002. “Microstructure characteristics of
      snow and firn at sites on the International TransAntarctic Science
      Expeditions,”
      EOS. Trans. AGU, p. S52.

      Severinghaus, J.P., Grachev, A. and Battle, M., 2001. “Thermal fraction-
      ation of air in polar firn by seasonal temperature gradients.”
      Geo-
      chemistry Geophysics Geosystems, An Electronic Journal of the
      Earth Sciences, Vol. 2 (July 31), paper number 2000GC000146.

      Hurd, B., 2006. “Analyses of CO2 and other atmospheric gases.” AIG
      News, No. 86, pp. 10-11.

      Click to access zjmar07_1.pdf

      So much for the no water assumption:
      Scientists Find Life Buried Under An Antarctic Lake
      Another
      The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

      • matayaya says:

        You raise two interesting questions.
        You say CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. You say it is heavier than air and should stay near the ground. Seems like a good point. Some of the following is pharaphrased or copied from http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/is-co2-well-mixed/ First, the air can be sampled from many different altitudes all around the globe and the fact is, CO2 is well mixed. There are dozens of CO2 sampling station records from sea level to mountain top, from pole to equator showing that CO2 spreads evenly throughout the global atmosphere. They can even see the CO2 rise in the southern hemisphere lags behind the CO2 rise in the northern hemisphere by a few years as most anthropogenic CO2 is produced in the north where the majority of fossil fuel combustion takes place and it takes some time to spread around. The annual CO2 rise and fall from plant growth and die off is also noted.
        Why does CO2 mix if it is heavier than air; wind. The atmosphere is very windy and the turbulence easily dilutes many kinds of gases and overpowers any small differences in buoyancy. The fact is “air” is not a single gas, it is a mixture of many. If the atmosphere layered itself out according to the relative molecular weights of its components we would not have air as we know it anywhere.

        The second question on ice cores has all the complexity of the temperature record. I don’t expect to change any minds with the following. I see a parallel in the discussion of the accuracy of the temperature records Steve regularly questions and your discussion of the accuracy of the ice core data. It’s the raw data vs analyzed data thing all over. On one side, raw data should be taken at face value. Anomalies should be included just as they present themselves in the record. The other side wants to analyze, smooth, homogenize the raw data and anomalies to see if there is a more nuanced, underlying trend can be discovered. One side calls that fraud, the other side calls it normal science.
        The sources you site seem to presume the AGW side don’t recognize all the issues of corruption in the raw data. I think they do, they include the problems with the raw data and recognize anomalies for what they are in their consideration and analysis. They still think something useful can be learned that helps move the science forward. The certainly don’t think ice core data should be completely discarded. The reason they are confident with their conclusions is that many independent efforts using many different ice core samples from around the world result in similar conclusions.

  10. matayaya says:

    Gail, the links to the Glassman articles don’t work. Avery

    • Gail Combs says:

      The links were
      http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

      http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

      They will not connect for me today either the whole website seems to be down (several links have given me trouble)

      Hopefully it will be back up soon. I reread parts of his article a week or so ago.

      Here is one of the articles. Interesting that Duck Duck lists it but Google does not…

      Unfortunately that is only the paper and is missing all the comments found on the other link. I feel the comments are almost as important as the paper because if a scientist can not defend their ideas, I see no reason to place high credibility on them.

  11. matayaya says:

    Certainly Venus is hotter than Earth because it is closer to the Sun; but Venus is hotter than Mercury because of it’s atmosphere.
    You seem to have a personal grudge against Hansen. If you ever want people to have a fair hearing of Hansen’s contributions to climate science, here is a good place to start. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/#more-7152

    • Morgan says:

      And here is a good place to end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8

      He’s a lunatic. He’s Timothy Leary without the LSD.

      • matayaya says:

        I agree he makes the mistake of trying to over simplify and gives you all plenty to work with. I think a common mistake you all make is time scales. Hansen is pontificating “what ifs” a century or two out and you all think he means next week.
        I looked at your link, now check out my link for what Hansen has gotten right.

        • David A says:

          You are simply wrong. Hansen’s scenarios had to do with GHG concentrations, not time His scenario C, assumed a basic ending of additional GHG. Human emissions followed “A”, and GHG followed , “B” ( showing he failed to understand how the atmosphere would handle human emissions, and warming is below scenario “C, and getting worse. These are basic facts you do not need a HD to understand.

          Also, the simple fact is hurricanes , heat waves, droughts, snow cover changes, etc.etc , all the disasters are NOT HAPPENING! Instead the world’s food supply is growing 15% more effectively, while using no additional water, DUE TO THE INCREASE IN CO2.

          What from above to you disagree with?

    • Hansen’s dissertation on Venus was in the “world class stupid” range.

      Venus proximity to the sun has almost nothing to do with the high temperature. Jupiter also has very high temperatures in its lower atmosphere.

  12. If anyone needed evidence that matayoyo has absolutely no clue what he/she is talking about when asked a question about CO2, he/she can only come up with a link to “real climate” from 2007 that misses the point entirely, doesn’t involve any actual evidence (just a bunch of hand-waving “because I said so”), & is unverifiable. Oh, wait, no, the author at “Real Climate” says, “You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts” which, as it turns out is not what has happened in the intervening 7 years since that codwallop was spewed forth. The prediction was wrong (no warming despite an increase in CO2) so the author is wrong.

    I guess yoyo could also link to some more good, hard science at “Mother Nature News” & “Business Insider”

    So, Matayoyo, here’s your challenge: provide a good, solid physics-based answer, including math, typed up here (not just some link to another thing that doesn’t say what you claim it says) that answers why despite CO2 rising there has been no actual warming in the atmosphere.

    • matayaya says:

      It doesn’t matter what I say, your stovepipe brain will miss it. I’m not, nor need to be the climate expert. I defer to the experts. If you had an intellectually curious brain, you could easily get where I am coming from.

      • Morgan says:

        Ooooh I get it. Hansen didn’t mean that the oceans would boil next week. He meant a century or two out, that the earth would turn into Venus. Ok I understand now.

      • geran says:

        I have an intellectually curious brain, and I see where you are coming from–planet X2E14.

        (Yeah, I know they haven’t discovered that planet yet….)

        • matayaya says:

          One starts with the social comments, the other has to respond. Discussion would be so much more pleasant and procuctive if everyone could keep their social stuff to themselves and just stick to the subject we are supposed to be discussing.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Since I worked with the “experts” and found they have feet of clay, I prefer the Russian proverb: Trust but verify and for very good reason.

        US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds
        Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal
        Summary: US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies.

        ….Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.

        The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn — and therefore officially expunged from the public record — between 2000 and 2010.

        A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification).

        The highest number of retracted papers were written by US first authors (260), accounting for a third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud.

        Doesn’t say much for the ethics of American scientists does it? Unfortunately my real world experience backs this study up. Especially when there is a paycheck or advancement involved.

        How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

        Abstract
        The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys….

        A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

        Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

        I find that truly sad. We depend on scientists to be honest and trustworthy with a high code of ethics and in return for tax payer or consumer dollars they betray us.

        Dean may face data fraud charges
        ….Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him.

        Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006 when he worked at the University of Groningen. In 14 out of 21 PhD theses where Stapel was a supervisor, the theses were written using data that was allegedly fabricated by him….

        In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the “corruption” from “the money flood” of government grants.

        Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society
        When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

        Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue….

        How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

        It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist….

        A Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2011 from APS in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.” Enough physicists have either resigned or protested so the APS has decided to revisit their position that “global warming is occurring.” A workshop with six climate experts will convene They have appointed three skeptics. The invitees were Judith Curry, Bill Collins, Ben Santer, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy

        More at http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/

        (I resigned from the American Chemical Society after forty years as a member for the same reason.)

        • matayaya says:

          I guess this post of yours is a generic response to the other discussions you and I were having that you did not follow thru with. You current post is all social, no science, maybe political science. The first part I was agreeing with you as you seemed to be explaining why the anarchy of human beings doing research needs a referee, or the words you all hate, “peer review”. Science would not have evolved nor be in the continually evolving state it is without peer review. It is basic to the scientific method. You all deride it as “pal review”, but your saying that repeatedly does not make it true. Peer review is a brutal process that helps good science emerge from bad science. Besides, like democracy, while it can seem like a bad process, where is there a better process? You prefer to go back to pure anarchy? The descriptions of fraud you all toss about just don’t ring true. It rings political.
          Like every thing else, such as vitamin supplements, homeopathy, astrology, etc., we must evaluate information best we can and make the best judgement of its quality. With science, we must read, read, and read some more. We must cast a wide net for information. Do this for enough years, then the blade of truth seems to seep through all of the information we consume. We get better at recognizing the truth and what is bogus. Still, as human beings, we will still disagree as to whether the glass is half full or half empty. Neither side has a monopoly on truth or wisdom.
          You won’t read it without a filter, but the IPCC is high quality research. The writing is crisp and detailed. It’s logic is transparent. The presentation is such that any other researcher can independently repeat the process and confirm the results. IPCC qualifies it statements. If they don’t know something for sure, they say so.

          That said, sourcing material on this site can make for interesting and informative reading, but I have learned no one changes their views over it. It’s best to just state in our own words what we are thinking. Your sources in your current post are the “usual suspects” that I see being debunked repeatedly. Sorry. I’m sure you will say the same of the IPCC. I’m getting older, I read a lot and truth to me rings a certain way.

      • It doesn’t matter what I say

        Exactly. You are an empty can tied to the back of a 1953 Buick rattling down the road. Everybody notices you, some people yell for you to quit making so much noise, but there isn’t anything valuable about the noise you make, you’re just there to get the attention you never got when you were a child. Don’t worry, we won’t talk about you when you’re gone, we won’t remember you, & we won’t even care to look up why you’ve left.

        You don’t understand climate, you don’t understand what we post, & you can’t be bothered to learn, but you sure can respond to everything everybody says with more clanking & rattling.

  13. geran says:

    Well then, the “subject we are supposed to be discussing” is that alarmists do not understand physics. That kind of puts them on another planet, no?

  14. matayaya says:

    Bottom line is, temperatures have risen rather fast in a short amount of time and natural explanations can’t account for it all.

    • Morgan says:

      No they didn’t matablahblah. After the Younger Dryas they rose 14C in 40 years. You are worried about 0.8C in 150 years.

      Where on this graph do you see any unusual warming?

      • matayaya says:

        I’m sorry you take offence to what I have to say. I appreciate Steve not denying me my First Amendment rights.
        The historical warm periods you show on your graph must be referring to localized temperatures, not global averages. You should source your graph so the information can be independently verified. The IPCC says with “high confidence” the past 400 years have not been warmer than today and that the past 1000 years, “medium confidence” have not been warmer than today. That includes the Medieval Warm Period.
        What happen during the Younger Dryas 13k years ago hardly supports the “anything but CO2” argument of today. No one knows for sure what caused the YD, but the earth was coming out the ice age and the best theory is of a large amount of melting ice and fresh water suddenly dumped into the ocean disrupting the ocean circulation.
        NOAA says this: “The Younger Dryas occurred during the transition from the last glacial period into the present interglacial (the Holocene). During this time, the continental ice sheets were rapidly melting and adding freshwater to the North Atlantic. Just prior to the Younger Dryas, meltwater fluxes into the North Atlantic increased dramatically. In addition, there was probably a short-lived period of particularly high freshwater flux about 13,000 years ago resulting from a large discharge of freshwater from a glacial lake in North America. Scientists have hypothesized that meltwater floods reduced the salinity and density of the surface ocean in the North Atlantic, causing a reduction in the ocean’s thermohaline circulation and climate changes around the world. Eventually, as the meltwater flux abated, the thermohaline circulation strengthened again and climate recovered.”

        You may not be aware or concerned with the effects of the warming climate of today and how those effects could become more serious in the next 50 or 100 years from now, but our descendants will certainly be concerned.

        • I’ve got an experiment for you. Try posting a skeptical remark on Joe Romm, or just about any other alarmist blog.

        • matayaya says:

          It would help if I could see a sample of what you tried to post. I agree there are many sites out there not as free-wheeling as yours that strictly tailor their product . On second thought, your site gets tailored as well, not by you but some of your abusive devotees. I read Red State every day but Erickson won’t let me post. I had not seen Joe Romm before.
          For what’s its worth, I was surprised to see a Tweet from you posted prominently on Huffington Post yesterday next to the frozen Great Lakes picture. Huffington fits your “alarmist” category.

        • matayaya says:

          Judith Curry is a “skeptic” that post regularly on “alarmist” sites on a regular basis without getting turned down. The difference in you and her is that she accepts most of the basic science of AGW, but says the effect is small and natural effects are dominant. That is a defensible position.
          You seem to be saying that global temperatures have not risen in any significant way. You say that the science that underlies the AGW position is fraudulent, Curry accepts the basic principles. Curry critiques the quality of the science being done but doesn’t call it out right fraud. You make going on a site like Romm’s like a dispute between Mohammed and Jesus. Everyone loses. You want to “debate” the basic facts and integrity of the scientist, Romm think the basic facts are settled science and the integrity of the scientists is just fine. Romm thinks he doesn’t need you as much as you need him.

        • tom0mason says:

          Sorry matayaya but “The IPCC says with “high confidence” the past 400 years have not been warmer than today and that the past 1000 years, “medium confidence” have not been warmer than today.” is a worthless appeal to a supposed authority. The IPCC high confidence is worthless, take any predictions (or in their mealy mouthed word projections) from the last xx number of years and see what a waste of time money and effort the IPCC is.

          All climate variation is well within the norm bounds of nature, and none has been shown scientifically to be caused by man
          xx is any year you like.

        • matayaya says:

          Neither you nor I are climate experts so we have no choice but to “appeal to worthless authority” as you put it. Us laymen must read far and wide and then slowly but surely hone in on what resonates as truth to us. We can’t just invent our own theories out of whole cloth. That why I think these discussion are best when we stick to basic science that we are all weak in and need to learn more about. Veering off into the social stuff can be satisfying, but is ultimately useless. I’m as guilty of that as you are.

        • tom0mason says:

          I do not have to be an ‘expert’ to recognize that some railway engineer and his cohorts have come up with a modern version of phlogiston. The evidence against the UN is everywhere and only those who wish to be willingly conned or are too dumb, or disturbed, to not know better would agree with it. You choose.
          The basic science is that the UN-IPCC assertions are NOT BASED ON SCIENCE – IT’S POLITICS.
          Science is a free and open exchange of ideas, not the frightening prognostications of coming doom based on unverified and unvalidated computer programs!

          CO2 variations happen quite naturally so get over it.

        • There aren’t any climate experts, because no one understands the climate. Some people get paid to pretend to be experts, and push government propaganda.

        • Morgan says:

          Matayaya you said about my link to the Piltdown Mann graph, “The historical warm periods you show on your graph must be referring to localized temperatures, not global averages. You should source your graph so the information can be independently verified.”

          Interesting that you claim the graph shows localized temperatures even before knowing the source. I did the graph myself but the temperatures in the graph are from the GISP2 study of ice cores at the Greenland Summit, using water isotopes in the ice cores as a proxy for northern hemispheric temps. The reason it’s not local is the moisture that snows in Greenland’s Summit comes from all over the northern hemisphere. None of the moisture comes from the Greenland Summit so it’s not a local proxy at all.

          Water is made of 1H and 2H, as well as 16O, 17O and 18O. Water with any of the heavier isotopes has a higher boiling point due to its mass. When the earth is warm, more heavy water gets into the atmosphere from evaporation sites around the world, especially the tropics. When earth is cooler, there is less 17O and 18O in the water vapor, and hence, the snow in Greenland. It’s not local, the proxy depends on the temperature at the evaporation sites, not Greenland temps. No water evaporates at the greenland summit because it’s -40 up there. Greenland temperatures are totally irrelevant. Richard Alley did the study when he was honest and before he sold out to Big Climate. His study originally treated the ice cores as a temperature proxy, as did everybody else (why else would they do the study) but lately he’s been calling them a local proxy and only show Greenland temperatures, because Big Climate has been paying him to say that. He’s been making a lot of money lying about science lately, he’s in a class with Piltdown Mann and Muppet Hansen. I ask you this…..why would anybody care about the temperatures at the Greenland Summit? Why would they drill 2 miles into the ice and work so hard at measuring isotopes just to find out how cold Greenland was? They didn’t. They all know it’s a hemispheric proxy, but now are lying through their teeth about it. Local proxy my arse.

        • Morgan says:

          Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming due to back radiation, but it also causes increased cooling from the TOA. The difference is, the warming diminishes due to the logarithmic nature….we double the level of CO2 for each increment of warming depending on climate sensitivity…but the amount of cooling from the TOA is not logarithmic, so a doubling of the CO2 will double the cooling. We will reach a point when cooling is greater than warming, so the long term effect is cooling. CO2 is its own negative feedback.

  15. Morgan says:

    http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

    I was led to the link above, a discussion from 2007 that supposedly debunked the logarithm effect of CO2 warming. Let me paraphrase their excuse (since you know it can’t be a valid reason) the best I can:

    “OK, the CO2 band at 15 microns is totally blocked or “saturated” in the lower atmosphere by CO2, but high up, where the air is thin, it’s not saturated, so adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 at the TOA, which would warm the earth greatly.”

    And I’m wondering, isn’t the TOA where radiation goes into space? Isn’t that where, uh, increasing CO2 would INCREASE COOLING?? I don’t mean to shout, but AAAAAGGGGHHH!

    • matayaya says:

      Morgan, When he says high in the atmosphere, I think he means high in the troposphere. That varies from 8 k at the poles to 20k at the equator. Top-of-atmosphere, TOA, is 100k. The simplistic way I understand his premise is that adding CO2 is like adding another blanket near the top of the troposphere, holding heat nearer the earth’s surface and preventing some heat making it to the stratosphere.

      • When he says high in the atmosphere, I think he means high in the troposphere

        God, you are painfully stupid. You linked to that article, Matayoyo. Did you read it? Did it say what you just typed?

  16. Gamecock says:

    Matablahblahblah says, “I appreciate Steve not denying me my First Amendment rights.”

    You have no rights here, dumbass. You don’t even know something as simple as the First Amendment.

  17. Morgan says:

    I made a video of myself proving once and for all, that the warming effect of CO2 is diminishing with respect added CO2, and put it on youtube. This should settle the argument and shut the alarmists up for good.

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 )

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