Yesterday’s Radio Interview

I was interviewed by Doug Wagner at WMT in Cedar Rapids. Interview starts at minute 41. Doug did an excellent job and asked good questions.

About stevengoddard

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

37 Responses to Yesterday’s Radio Interview

  1. Bryan Wiley says:

    Glad you’re getting more press. I wish I understood why the minority (it seems) are skeptical of climate science and the majority trust the scientists when the evidence blares worthiness of skepticism. I consider myself average intelligence so I would figure 1/2 the people in the world would smell something fishy.

    • Derron says:

      I often wonder the same. It would seem that more and more people are unwilling to question things these days.

      • Mat Helm says:

        It’s always been that way. That’s why people have always used politics and religion to manipulate others. Not that all religion or political causes are bad or wrong. Some are in fact among the best things. They’re like guns I think, in that they can be used for good or evil….

  2. darrylb says:

    I see its 53 minutes. Will listen tonight. Glad you had the opportunity.
    BTW– Reading WUWT and Judy at Climate etc a while ago they were starting to give credence to your reporting station temp foolishness and were indicating more should be coming from other sources. I have not seen anything since. I do not suppose anyone has contacted you!?

  3. Mat Helm says:

    Could someone detail to me how CO2 causes any global warming? Besides creating more green stuff which in turn absorbs more heat from the sun….

    • geran says:

      Yeah Mat, I think Tony was tired. (I don’t see how he does all that he does!)

      His interview at the ICCC 2014 was MUCH better.

      • Huh? I thought it was a great interview.

        • Mat Helm says:

          So did I, not long enough though. But to accept the premise of CO2 as a greenhouse gas falls into the degree trap IMO. As in he who has the highest accolades must be right.

          But as stated in great detail below (and thank you all for that), of course it is. But so is every molecule in the universe. I think what we need is a comparison list of things that have a greater greenhouse effect than CO2. Solar powered batteries come to mind…..

          btw, I’ve got your whole foods beat as a long anticipated Taco Bell just opened here today in my little rural town in NC….

      • darrylb says:

        Mat. only certain molecules, H2O, CO2, O3 (ozone) have the same internal vibrations as the frequencies of IR radiation involved. They must be the same for a molecule to absorb the energy
        Ever see the advertisement with Ella Fitzgerald and a glass? When she sings with the same frequency as the internal vibration of the glass particles (they really are not molecules) the amplitude of the particles keeps getting greater untill the glass breaks.
        Or a simpler analogy, if you are pushing someone on a swing, you must push once each time the swing swings and then the swing goes higher. Anything else and you cannot impart kinetic energy to the swing and you may get a bloody nose.

    • mjc says:

      And that’s the $64,000 question…isn’t it?

      The ‘Team’ says it does so by trappng heat, like a greenhouse…there’s lots of assumptions that go into coming to that conclusion that start with a paper written in the late 1800s by Arrhenius. Then there are lots of models and convoluted math to support that hypothesis, which are not supported by observational data. Followed by huge sums of grant money to study the problem and create better models and adjust the obviously ‘flawed’ observations, to fit it to the models.

      So, basically, it boils down to it’s because ‘we are paid to say man-released CO2 causes warmng, because we say it does’.

    • darrylb says:

      Short Version Mat
      Without the greenhouse effect, life would not be good on this planet.
      1) The sun radiates a spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Visible light is a small part of the spectrum. Infrared (IR) rays are another. They all differ in that they all have different frequencies.
      2) The earth absorbs heat and readmits it in the IR range of electromagnetic waves.
      3) Certain gases first H2O vapor and secondly others including CO2 can absorb certain specific IR waves and then radiate them in all directions, so some goes back to the earth, therefore some are held for a while before going back into space. This radiation from the atmosphere can be detected at night with a simple hand held device. Without this effect, we would have a cold planet like the moon.
      On the moon,temps are extremely hot during the day and extremely cold at night.
      4) Like anything else when there is enough heat in it, it will start to radiate more and then more will go into space, but the system will be at a higher temp. Kind of like keeping hot water on a stove at a certain temp.
      5) It was known 100 years ago the CO2 was saturated with respect to the IR waves it can absorb in the atmosphere. That is, all the frequencies were already being absorbed..
      However, that was before something called quantum mechanics was understood, and I am not going into that here.
      6) A BTW comment, theoretically the lower atmosphere should be warmer and upper colder, therefore there should be a larger temperature gradient between the top and bottom, This temp gradient, is what causes air to move vertically and this causes weather. Without it we would simply have no atmospheric movement, no weather, no life. a dead planet.
      7) The thing is, it so complicate that models are simply way off and there really is not too much observed effect of any kind. There were way too many assumptions and unknowns and unknown unknowns.

    • Gail Combs says:

      There have been two recent comments by physicists that have shed a glaring light on the subject of CO2 back-radiation. To me it was a real EUREKA moment that drives a stake through the heart of CAGW.

      Here on Steve’s blog gallopingcamel (Peter Morcombe) wrote a comment on the subject on May 26, 2014 at 7:00 pm

      ….While I am a physicist, I am not a climate scientist. My field is quantum electro-optics; I have been building lasers since 1970 for fun and profit, starting with dye lasers and finishing with the HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source):

      I only mentiion this as my understanding of the way that lasers work causes me to doubt the single layer radiative transfer model used by Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann and others when they claim a “Forcing” of several Watts/square meter caused by CO2.

      The main absorption lines for CO2 that relate to the capture of thermal IR from the Earth’s surface are in the 4 and 15 micron bands. The corresponding frequencies are 75 and 20 Tera-Hertz. The periods are 0.013 and 0.050 femto-seconds.

      As you correctly point out, these periods are shorter than the mean time between molecular collisions by at least seven orders of magnitude. However, a molecule cannot emit a photon unless it has first been raised to an “excited state”. The lifetime of these excited states is typically measured in micro-seconds or milli-seconds.

      If left undisturbed, excited atoms or molecules will eventually give up their excess energy via radiative transitions to lower energy states or via collisions with other molecules. When total pressure is low, radiative transfer dominates so the outgoing radiation is absorbed by CO2 (or water vapor) is re-radiated isotropically. This means that half of the outgoing radiation is returned to the surface exactly as claimed by Trenberth & Co.

      In the troposphere the mean time between collisions is quite short (~200 pico-seconds) so most of the outgoing IR radiation absorbed by complex molecules will be lost in collisions before a photon can be radiated. This means that in the lower atmosphere it makes no difference whether the energy is transfered by radiation or by convection. In either case the energy is retained in the troposphere.

      Currently, I am a big fan of the Robinson & Catling atmosperic model:

      Dr. Robert Brown of Duke wrote, this comment over at WUWT on May 28, 2014 at 10:21 am verifying Gallopingcamel’s understanding of the physics.

      ….This isn’t the right question. The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

      The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away, but it is not like an elastic scattering process such as occurs in specular reflection within clouds. In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface.

      Even this is oversimplified. Because of pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to. That means that there is a steady CO_2-mediated “leakage” even from lower altitudes directly to space from the edges of the monotonically decreasing-with-height absorptive bandwidth. It also means that there is a MAJOR change in atmospheric absorptivity/emissivity with simple high and low pressure centers as they move around, as well as a modulation of the size of the emission-wing “hole”.

      Grant Petty’s book can walk you through much of the physics.

      If I read this correctly, CO2 WILL absorb the IR photons in the correct wavebands but the overwhelming pathway is for the energy to be transfered to the rest of the atmospheric molecules warming them. At that point, since hot air rises the energy is carried up. Of the small number of CO2 molecules that do emit a photon instead of transferring energy via a collision, a second ‘reaction’ is for the excited CO2 to emit at frequencies “in the wings” half of that energy escapes through the emission-wing “hole”. Therefore the “Downwelling radiation” from CO2 is a tiny fraction of the amount the Climastrologists are claiming. AND since “LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule,” additional CO2 in the atmosphere means diddly squat.

      • darrylb says:

        Thank You Gail, I must have gone somewhere an completely missed this.
        My main area of study is physics and I tend to think quantitatively first, and yet I never even considered time of molecule travel between collisions vs time for photon emission.
        A Eureka moment for me too.
        BTW- I have for a long time considered long time energy storage (fossil fuels) vs so called current clean energy and the quantities of energy we use.
        I do not see how eventually we will have anything other than nuclear energy as our main source. The greens are so foolish.

        • darrylb says:

          I should proof read before I hit the post button!

        • Gail Combs says:

          I agree about nuclear power. I would like to see Thorium developed.

          I can see a nuclear plant from my window if I stand up and look, so I am not a NIMBY as so many Warmists are.

      • Mat Helm says:

        My degree is in electrical engineering, so I do luv the details. But they make for a hard sell to the low info crowd. I would think that a simple alchemist level experiment could easily show the increase, such that there is, relative to other gases, a long with oxygen it’s self…

  4. darrylb says:

    I should add, no skeptical scientist doubts any of what I wrote.
    I am very skeptical of any significant human caused warming,
    However, I think a sad part of this is that we are overlooking humans causing problems
    due to land and water use and more.
    The huge aquifer under seven (at least) states in the U.S. is gradually being depleted.
    There is so much crap about global warming that something like this never gets mentioned.

    • mjc says:

      And part of that depletion can be blamed on the global warming craze…because it’s being used to irrigate ‘biofuels’. There are millions of acres that are now being used for biofuel production that require water…

      • Gail Combs says:

        Not to mention corn is a heavy feeder and planted relatively far apart so you get a lot of erosion and fertilizer pollution especially since farmers have torn up the grass filter strips and tree wind breaks to plant more corn.

        If we have another mega-drought the US will be in a world of hurt because the methods to prevent massive erosion (grass filter strips and tree wind breaks) have been abandoned.

        • darrylb says:

          Gail, honestly not totally here. Corn is planted very close together now and at least locally we are trying to do some things (and losing money). to prevent soil erosion.
          Negative things were done two to four decades ago.
          In Minnesota, it involves trying to remake some marsh lands. and riparian strips.
          I do not like taking marginal land with the idea of making gasahol or whatever.

        • Gail Combs says:


          I was talking in the midwest flatlands. For the distance between rows, at least here in N.C. it is 8 inches to a foot of bare ground.

          Hall County having to police farmers who plant in the road rights of way

          Plowing trees and native grasses on land held in conservation to plant more corn will reverse decades of work to prevent crop-related pollution, scientists say.

          State researchers suggest that Iowa farmers will put 500,000 acres now in the Conservation Reserve Program back into production, as a result of the demand for corn-based ethanol and rising corn prices…

          “These are historic changes that have people worried about the environmental consequences,” said Bruce Babcock, director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University…..

          In fact, 20 pounds of soil washes away for every gallon of ethanol made, according to Duane Sand, a consultant to the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit conservation and land-preservation group. His soil-loss figure is based on erosion data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Inventory, and industry data on corn yields and ethanol production per bushel.….

      • darrylb says:

        Quiet, I have a few acres of farmland and the corn and bean prices skyrocketed
        Sorry about food prices being higher!

        • Gail Combs says:

          I have a hundred acres and have several neighboring farmers asking if they can plant corn and soybeans – The answer is NO!

        • darrylb says:

          I only have about 20 acres of farm land and a little more to walk through. Congrats on your firm stance on the land.

        • Gail Combs says:

          darrylb, my land was rented tobacco land and lost all of its top soil (over two feet in 50 years.) It needs to stay pasture for another twenty years to fully recover.

    • That is the maddening part. Real conservation and solving actual problems taking back seat to this idiocy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You are so correct. It makes me see red. It is why on some issues I side with the liberals, if they are true conservationists.

        • John M says:

          Gail, noticed your comment on your pastures. If you desire, you can easily rebuild your soils in only a few years using various mob/rotational grazing techniques. Greg Judy at Green Pastures Farm has written a few books speaking about mob grazing, and there are many others that have been promoting these concepts over the past 20 years.

          Makes for interesting reading, and there are some good videos available online. Good Luck and certainly don’t wait 20 years, you can rebuild your soils quickly and your pastures can be useful and productive immediately!!!

        • Gail Combs says:

          John M,

          Thanks for the information. I do use intense grazing and rotation but unfortunately I am in the south on a hill where the thunderstorms can dump up to an inch of rain in an hour or less.

          Up north (N.H.) I could york rake a seed bed plant grass and the soil would stay put even on a slope. Down here the first storm took all the seed plus 2 inches of composted manure and dump it down the hill headed towards the river. My next try was disking the land leaving it very rough and tossing seed out. That worked and it only took a year for the field to go from ankle breaking to smooth.

          Unfortunately I have horses (as well as my sheep and goats) and they are not very good for building an even layer of top soil without harrowing and spreading the fresh manure can cause more of a worm burden. — Decisions, decisions

        • John M says:

          Hi Gail:

          Just saw your reply; don’t know if you’ll receive this but, in reading your comments, I’d highly recommend perusing Greg Judy’s site and purchasing his books. And no, I don’t know him nor have any connection to him.
          His books and methods are proven and easily understood, and don’t hurt the wallet too much. These methods involve cattle, of course. Tight, managed mobs equals great soil. And worms are your friend! Best of luck.

      • John M says:

        Yes that’s the site. Great stuff. And check online for various videos discussing the same. Lots of hands-on documented trials and research. Nothing like the climate crapola, of course!! Real people actually experimenting and adjusting-what a concept!

  5. Brad says:

    “Researching the researchers.” I like that.

  6. Eliza says:

    Great interview. I was surprised although that SG (as almost 100% agrees), that human Co2 would cause any atmospheric warming. As I understand during some ice ages the earth had atmospheric(ice core data) levels >1000’s ppm Co2. I probably at this stage am the only person on earth that believes that excess Co2 actually produces cooling as a negative feedback so much for that.LOL In the lab, Co2 does cause warming but the Earth is not a lab its probably a living organism when it comes to atmospheric gas feedbacks. At least I disagree on one point with SG at last! LOL

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s