A physics view of climate change
A short, total rebuttal to climate alarmism
by Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics (Daily Inter Lake and NewsWithViews)
Aztec priests told people they must cut out their beating hearts to bring better climate for their crops. The people believed them.
Today’s climate priests tell people they must cut out their CO2 emissions and pay penances to other nations, like China, to save our climate. The people believe them.
It’s time for you to think for yourself.
I will show you physics “secrets” that will change everything you “believe” about climate.
The real climate debate is about the scientific method. This is the critical “philosophy” part of science that most people and many scientists do not understand.
To help us understand the scientific method, let’s drop in on a fictitious federal murder trial in San Francisco.
Federal criminal court procedures are similar to the scientific method. The prosecution needs a unanimous vote by the jury. Only one “Not Guilty” vote defeats the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution accuses Smith of shooting and killing Jones.
The prosecution enters evidence to support its case. Smith owns a gun similar to the gun that killed Jones. Smith once publicly threatened Jones. Etc. The evidence looks bad for Smith. The prosecution rests.
Does the defense try to refute all the prosecution’s evidence? It does not need to. The defense only needs one contradiction to the prosecution’s case to win. The defense proves Smith was in New York at the time of the shooting. Game over.
The scientific method works the same way. You may propose an idea, like our CO2 causes dangerous climate change. You may show evidence to support your idea. But the defense only needs to show your idea has one mistake or one incorrect prediction to prove your idea is wrong.
Some climate alarmists’ claim their idea is true because of a “preponderance of evidence.” This is not the scientific method and it leads to the wrong conclusion.
The scientific method says we can never prove an idea is true. We only can prove an idea is false. To approach truth, we discard fiction. Since we can never discard all fiction, science is never settled.
Let’s drop in on another fictitious trial.
The prosecution claims human CO2 emissions cause climate change. The prosecution introduces the following evidence:
- Humans have burned carbon-based fuels in meaningful quantities since 1950.
- Global temperatures have been mostly rising since 1950.
- Climate models embody the alarmist idea.
- Climate models predict human CO2 will cause future temperature rise.
- Consequences are dangerous sea levels, hurricanes, etc.
Looks bad for CO2 but let’s hear from the defense.
The defense requests dismissal of consequential evidence, like sea levels, because consequences do not prove causation. The judge agrees. Consequential evidence dismissed.
The defense calls its witnesses.
Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics, explains the scientific method. You get an idea or hypothesis. You use your idea to make a prediction. If your prediction is wrong, your idea is wrong.
Dr. Albert Einstein testifies we must compare predictions of climate models to new data. Einstein’s relativity idea predicted our sun’s gravity would bend light from a star by a precise amount. Einstein said of the scientific method, “Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”
Dr. John Christy compares climate model predictions since 1979 with real data. Climate models do not agree among themselves, and the model average predicts global temperature will increase 3 times faster than recorded climate data. This inaccuracy is like missing your deer shot by 3 deer lengths. Both points prove the models are wrong.
So, like Smith, human CO2 is innocent. Climate changes but CO2 does not cause the climate change. Case closed.
In only 603 words, we proved the alarmists’ climate hypothesis is wrong.
Therefore, it is a cult religion. The US government and its agencies like the EPA have forced the alarmists’ climate cult religion on the American public in opposition to the First Amendment to our Constitution.
However, for your entertainment, the defense continues with some atmospheric “rocket science.”
The defense calls Dr. Judith Curry. She says the real issue is “What causes climate change? Humans or nature?”
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi explains his peer-reviewed papers that show water vapor and clouds adjust to changes in CO2 to keep Earth’s greenhouse effect constant. His predictions match observations. Therefore, CO2 can’t change the greenhouse effect and can’t cause global warming.
Question: Would Earth be an ice-covered planet if it had no CO2?
Miskolczi: The water phase diagram shows ice sublimation would add enough water vapor to produce today’s greenhouse effect, with or without CO2.
Dr. Murry Salby is the author of the 666-page, 2012 textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” He uses advanced physics and math to analyze CO2 data. Salby proves temperature, not human CO2, causes the change in atmospheric CO2. Salby’s conclusion does not depend on theory. It results from proper data analysis.
Dr. Willie Soon is lead author of a 2015 peer-reviewed paper that shows our sun, not CO2, drives climate. He shows plots of temperature, total solar irradiance, and CO2 from 1880 to present. The plots show Earth’s global temperature correlates with total solar irradiance but not with CO2. The lack of correlation of Earth temperature with CO2 proves CO2 does not drive temperature.
Dr. David Evans, an expert mathematician, found climate models contain a serious error. Climate models use the old Arrhenius assumption that Earth responds to CO2 change like it responds to change in solar radiation. The Arrhenius assumption is incorrect. Climate responds much differently to changes in CO2 than it does to changes in solar radiation. When Evans corrects for this model error alone, climate model temperature predictions decrease by 80 to 90 percent.
Dr. Ivar Giaever won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. He is a Democrat who puts scientific truth above partisanship. He testifies the alarmist climate change idea is pure pseudoscience. He says climate alarmists have made their idea a new religion and therefore can’t question it. He shows many conflicts of the alarmist climate idea with the real world of physics.
The defense rests.
The prosecution can’t produce any witnesses to counter the testimonies of Feynman, Einstein, Christy, Curry, Miskolczi, Salby, Soon, Evans, or Giaever.
The judge pounds the gavel.
Our CO2 does not control climate. CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon is not a pollutant.
The best way to “address” climate change is to do nothing.
This is an approximation of how our solar system has traveled through spiral arms in our galaxy. New astronomical information suggests our galaxy has only two spiral arms and our solar system traveled around our galaxy twice as fast. Either way, the key point is Earth’s climate cooled when it was inside a spiral arm and warmed significantly when it was outside a spiral arm. We are currently in the Orion-Cygnus spiral arm.
When our solar system exits our present spiral arm then it will likely warm by about 10C. Our concerns about a 0.1C warming pale in comparison. For now, we are in an “ice-age” climate.
I think the best way is to find the laboratory experiment that stands between pseudoscience and science. Then get competent physicists to perform it.
I have thought of numerous. But will the warmists understand?
The dumb part is that for a relative pittance, the science can be settled in a lab.
I have found no evidence of any thermodynamic experiment than demonstrates *any* greenhouse gas does anything to trap heat. Nobody has done them. I did find russian paper from the early 1970s describing kinetic cooling of CO2 by IR laser. The mountains of radiative transfer data have been measured within IR reflective chambers with IR pumped in.
The lack of experimental data on GHG thermodynamics is negligent.
Experiment to test Back Radiation of CO2
1) Construct 2 identical 1m2 earth boxes 6?in. Deep. Fill with desiccated sand.
2) construct a darkroom inside an unconditioned building(ambient T around 70° F?) to contain the 2 earth boxes and to shut out all light and other radiation; also a wall is needed between the boxes to block possible IR from CO2 interfering with the other box
3) construct 2 helical coils of flexible water tubing fixed at ?3in from the bottom of the boxes
4) connect input ends of tubes to a hot water tank with identical length tubing
5) connect the output end of tubing to a set of valves, one to return hot water to source, the other to fill identical catch basins to measure the volume of water
6) install 2 'clouds' constructed of non-infrared blocking glass; 1m2 x ?6in.( or polyethylene film?)
7) Locate the clouds at a height of 2? meters above the sand boxes to avoid restriction of convection; the dark room should be well ventilated at the top of the walls by large apertures covered with shrouds
8) saturate the sand boxes with identical quantities of distilled water ?20gal
9) place thermocouples in the center of each box, (thermocouples in clouds, pressure gauges?)(chart humidity?)
10) Circulate hot water through each box until a steady temperature of 90° F is achieved
11) fill one cloud with CO2 ; the other with a natural air mix (20/80%) of Oxygen and Nitrogen; (saturate the room with Oxygen and Nitrogen to drive out water vapor and trace gasses?)
12) stop the circulating water and open the valves to the catch basins
13) maintain the temperature in each box at 90° F by flowing hot water whenever the temperature declines by 0.5° F, all the while charting the temperatures for both boxes
14) Maintain experiment for x? Hours
15) premise – if the CO2 can warm the box beneath it by back radiation then that box will require less hot water to maintain temperature; (convection may heat the 'clouds'; can be diverted with a clear poly film). May any physicist who maintains warming effect of back radiation from CO2 calculate the warming effect please at equilibrium.
At last! A simple but wholly accurate precis of the scientific method. It is mid term secondary education foundation material and is well known in lab training and in further scientific progression for professional status.
How the draining well did corruption of the process, material and method become accepted?
Perhaps Green Greed; Misguided Power Complex; Deliberate Political Persuasions; Shaky Left Leaning or maybe pure ignorance filled with words but with lack of thought?
Pick any three and stir well – issue press releases of the results – buy up promotion companies, news bulletins, previously eminent magazine and publications and programme space………………… and then apply for a juicy grant to cover the cost.
Climate IS Affected by Sun and Oceans eg ''El Nino''….and the Jetstream at the moment South of Iceland Giving mild temperatures. When it Shifts North Expect Fog,Frost,Snow.
Hockey Stick favoured by Climate Alarmists proved to be fixed by emails by EastAnglia University in 2009….
Piers Corbyn Produces 85% accurate future forecasts by AstroPhysics. Bill Foggitt (died 1996) Used 150 years of Farming records 87% Accurate, Met Office Climate Alarmists 82% Accurate..
Also diesel, favoured by Greens &Lib-Lab-Cons, has proved A Worst form of pollution than Carbon dioxide,necessary for all Life?
UK WOrst storm 1703! No Cars
Excellent! I have always thought that the legal analogy provides an easy way to address the lynching of atmospheric carbon dioxide. My Russian astrophysical colleague, Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, picks up the same analogy:
"Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global and very prolonged temperature drop."
Whatever we may think of the Russians otherwise, they certainly do a fine job with physics.
Thanks for your efforts to explain this subject in terms that non-scientists should be able to understand. That is vitally important in a world where scientific illiteracy is rampant.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Let me add some more scientific reasoning.
The climate change that we are experiencing is typical of the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. Models have been generates that show that climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans and hence Mankind does not have the power to change it. We are in an interglacial period and are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than a thousand years ago. There is nothing unusual about it to indicate that Man might be the cause.
Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth's surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth's atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback's which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth's climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O's cooling effects.
The entire so called, "greenhouse" effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth's and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet's proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2's radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.
This is all a matter of science
negative feedbacks
first principles
But the rest is right!
Excellent explanation!
great post
let’s look to the moon surface: without any CO2 and H2O we have at the sunny side 390k (116,85 C) and on the backside 95 K (-178,15 C). So the “greenhouse gases” water vapor + CO2 actually are cooling in the daytime and warming in the night time, or are temperating the temperature near the ground.
Call for a Debate on the Climate
My Comment Post on The Australian Newspaper (Monday 14th Dec 2015)
Article:
Paris Climate Deal: Turnbull Stares Down Dissenters – by Jared Owens
Jim
Australia should lead by providing $20 to $30 million for a debate. Malcolm Turnbull should call a debate between the Warmists and Skeptics (10 best from each side). Pay them $1 million each, to ensure there is no excuse for not showing up. Provide 5 judges to run the "inquiry" with rules of evidence and ability for cross examination. If a scientist is found to be in contempt of court (lying, evasive, presenting false evidence etc.), they would lose part or all of their $1m fee, and be thoroughly exposed professionally. Provide airfares accommodation and support staff for as long as it takes (minimum one month period). Provide expert witnesses to help the judges understand the finer details of the science (it is not that hard). The judges would then provide a finding on the evidence presented.
Basic questions to be addressed: Is the science settled? Is there proof that CO2 controls the temperature of the planet. If the temperature does rise, would that be good or bad for the planet? Is higher CO2 a benefit to plants and the production of food crops? Where is the proof that bad things are supposedly happening now? How much of the rising CO2 is anthropogenic, and how much is natural from seawater and volcanoes etc.? How accurate are the temperature data sets, and why have they been adjusted substantially over the past 25 years. The list goes on.
We need to sort out this global warming religion before we waste any more money on a non problem. The fact that the warmists' have always declined to have a "full-blown" debate, speaks volumes for where the truth really lies. All the minor media run debates over recent years have clearly been won by the skeptics.
Anyone who has followed this AGW war between scientist, knows there is no such thing as 97% concensus; and that the science of climate and CO2 is definitely not settled. The only people against having such a debate, would be those who view the AGW issue as a religion, not a science. All true scientists know they must debate and defend their theories. To date all we have had is "group think" from one side of the issue – the IPCC led scientists who enjoy very high salaries and lavish life styles.
Let us call the debate – think of the tourist dollars that would flow into the city selected for the venue; and think of the millions to be made from the television rights. This could be bigger than the soccer world cup (certainly less corrupt).
This talk about climate change , CO2, carbon foot print, are right out of the communist handbook, called the watermellon gang. These communist are against religion, family, property rights. on the family , in 1970 , the average family own one vehicle, there were 49 million families and only 52 million registered vehicles, today with the same amount of real families ( meaning father, mother, and children) there are 200 million vehicles. Most Americans are in DEBT , these are the reasons the family , religion, Constitution are dying. I do have one problem , how much air polution are these vehicles producting. Then we are force to burn corn in our vehicles. That corn could be use to feed humans in poor countries, feed cattle, so the price of beef would not be so expensive, so the mother could stay at home rearing her children, and fathers working out side the home.
Environmentalism is not just climate change , it is about control.
The uninformed, uninterested, ignorant , politically slanted or just plain stupid media that is the biggest roadblock to the public understanding the CAGW issue!
i.e.,
The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial cartoon this morning.
Teacher asks: "What is the square root of nine?".
Student Answers: "Three…But with the right research funding, I can make it anything you want.".
Caption?
FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING SCIENTIST
Hundreds of thousands will see the cartoon. How many will ever see the actual data?
Let say, (A) asserted the world is flat. Is it possible to prove the earth is not flat? If your answer is 'yes ', then (B) can assert the earth is not flat. Now is it impossible to prove (B) is right? Of course, it is not.
I imagine that you are saying, but (B) used 'not' in his assertion. Therefore, there is no contradiction. OK, what if (B) asserts that earth is curved? Is that impossible to prove? Is it impossible to prove that earth is approximately spherical?
Still not convinced? What if (B) asserts that black swans exist? Is that impossible to prove? Of course, it isn't. All that is needed is to observe a black swan.
Many things have been proven by science. The earth orbits the sun, comes to mind. I had one person assert that "no, the earth does not orbit the sun, because it orbits the Milky Way", as if one precludes the other.
Another person said I was wrong, because we cannot be certain of anything, even one's own existence. If that is true, then one cannot prove anything to be false either.
Yes, it is much easier to prove things false that true, but that has not prevented science from proving many things, such as the existence of gravity, electrical charge, electrons and black swans, even while not being able to explain them fully.
And finally, they call Doug Cotton who has proposed a totally different explanation of planetary temperatures that is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the resulting maximum entropy production. Doug shows that his hypothesis can be used to explain not only the observed temperatures in several planetary systems, but also the required heat flows to support those temperatures which are calculated from his hypothesis and confirmed by observation. Doug also uses his hypothesis to explain and quantify the radial temperature gradient formed by centrifugal force in a vortex tube – a similar process as happens due to the force of gravity in a planet's troposphere. So far no one anywhere has produced any evidence that refutes Doug's hypothesis. And of course that hypothesis in itself, if correct, refutes the radiative greenhouse conjecture. You only need to call upon the laws of physics to refute the greenhouse guesswork.
Dear Doug,
You need to explain to your audience here that your rejection of the Greenhouse Effect is far from mainstream physics. Carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere do absorb infrared radiation at certain wavelengths, and before the excited rotational or vibrational state of the molecule can relax, it collides with another air molecule. This thermalizes the energy at that level for re-emission in a thermal spectrum. The resulting thermal emission is completely isotropic. All of this is COMPLETELY consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
The problem with the Global Warming paradigm is that CO2 is a small part of the overall Greenhouse Effect, which is in turn but one phenomenon of the many phenomena that drive our climate.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
And yet with all of the people who are beginning to understand that man made CO2 doesn't cause dangerous global warming, nobody ever seems to mention what to me is the ultimate absurdity of this entire shameful affair:
Why is anyone afraid of WARMING in the first place? WARMING IS GOOD!
The ONLY type of climate change that poses any threat to man and his fellow earthly creatures is extreme cooling! And why is that? Because plants (crops) don't grow well in cold climates, and all animal life on earth depends upon plants to survive.
CO2 is plant food……
But CO2 is not carbon. Saying it is is like calling H2O "hydrogen"…
What the AGW fraudsters are doing, is trying to trick low information voters into believing that CO2 is the same thing as "Soot"
According to Wikepedia, "Soot is a black powdery or flaky substance consisting largely of amorphous carbon, produced by the incomplete burning of organic matter."
CO2 is a clear, odorless and tasteless trace gas that all plants need in order to grow.
The atmosphere's current CO2 levels (380 ppm) are nowhere near the danger level. CO2 levels in crowded night clubs often reach 3,000 ppm to 4,000 ppm. The US Navy tries to keep the CO2 levels that their crews breathe in submarines under 8,000 ppm, however occasional levels of 10,000 ppm only cause slight headaches in most people exposed to them.
There's a reason why today's hi-tech farmers add extra CO2 into their greenhouses.
CO2 is good!
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar!
fs
This is an alternative scenario. However, you might recognize some of the details.
– – – – – – – –
I am a world-wide authority in the new science of 'Very Large Pothole Events' (VLPE). I am not officially qualified in this new science because, as yet, no universities offer degree courses for it. However, I did gain a Master's degree in Zoology, and I have written two papers about these curious events that were peer reviewed by Siberian pothole experts.
Some people say that there have not been any VLPE's for the last 18 years despite the steadily increasing magma activity levels in the Earth's crust. Those people are obviously not aware of the phenomenon that is now being called 'Deep Underground Pothole Events' (DUPE) [No, not as in 'duped'!]. I am confident that Pothole Events are still happening. We just can't see them because they are deep underground. I believe it won't be long before the Events will resume on the surface. My research indicates that the first country to see their return will be New Zealand.
I have discovered that a huge, very deep pothole five miles across is going to appear in the North Island of New Zealand within the next few years, or within the next several years. There are strong indications that the appearance of the pothole will be preceded by catastrophic volcanic eruptions.
The New Zealand Government must begin evacuations from the North Island volcanic areas as soon as possible because I am 95% certain that the VLPE will be followed by other Large Pothole Events, probably under the nearest towns and cities. The output of my many computer models closely verify this prediction.
– – – – – – – –
Since I haven’t said how or why any of that is possible I hope you won’t just assume that I am correct… even if you are told that a certain percentage of scientists believe that it is true. Those scientists are either being misrepresented, or they are not using the very long established scientific method. Consensus and belief are absolutely not regarded as being a part of the method. Followers of it would need some proof, or empirical evidence, that backs up the extraordinary claims. Otherwise, I could say something like: “I’ve found a new species of apple tree that has the apples falling upwards!” and everybody would believe me without question.
The take-home-lesson is: *Just saying it doesn’t make it true*, especially if the 'authority' or doomsayer is likely to make a profit (or gain something) out of the doom saying.
Ref: William Haas:
Radiation transfers energy from a high value to a lower value position. Thus, the interaction with other molecules of the atmosphere (as in "roughly a billion interactions with other molecules") will gradually equalize until some higher energy force interferes with the gradient.
As I understand it, the molecular vibration of the CO2 molecule is in a direction and phase equality with that of the infra red radiation. There are said to be 2 narrow bands of reflected infra red in association with this (I will call it "trapping") but more likely a form of interference, making any transference gradient less efficient than in a quieter environment. However, CO2 can dissolve in water. A large part of the contacts will be water or vapour thereof. In such a case, will the loss of energy to solution and thus a lower activity of the molecule make the remaining transfers more efficient since the water "wrapping" around the "trapping" will, in itself be active in the equilibrium motion and must interfere with the efficiency of the remaining vibration state. Added to this conduction and convection loss process will be the activity within cloud levels and electrical charge interference further disrupting true initial frequency bands. Surely, each stage (probably random on the stairway to the heavens), will rapidly reduce any large values of "trapping" to a state of proper equilibrium.
So much for the hypothesis, but a platform such as the scientific discussion within this theatre is better than the peer reviews apparent within IPCC processes.
As my teacher used to say – "digest, deliberate and discuss" (but be quiet at the back there!).
The physics arguments should be sufficient, but (and politicians understand this) most of those arguments will fly over the head of most jurors. (However, it should definitely those folks who are warmist/alarmists and consider themselves to be credible scientists. They are either incompetent or are LIARs.
There's one simple statement that can be made about the science. There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER had any impact on the earth's temperature, even over geologic periods when co2 level was several TIMEs higher than now. In fact, the only correlation (tracking both up/down changes) shows temperature variation happening first, and 800 to 2800 years later, very similar variations in co2 level. This correlation obviously eliminates the possibility of an existing opposite correlation supporting the alarmist position.
And what about earlier warming periods? The alarmists feel it necessary to DENY that Medieval Warming Period was likely warmer than now, and was a global phenomenon; this in spite of 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies with new confirmations arriving almost weekly. (Now that's a real "consensus" !) And what about REAL data, such as the Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently uncovering one or more splintered tree trunks, still in their original position (and dated 1,000 years old? How about the same in the Swiss Alps, now uncovered and showing the remnants of 4,000 year old forests? And, finally the 6,000 boreholes around the globe distinctly showing the MWP trend?
Of course, Ed is correct. It is glaringly clear to those physicists that truly understand Thermodynamics (fewer than many physicists realize) that AGW is a political hoax with nothing to do with real science of any kind. It is a political circus to entertain weak minds and push leftist politics (i.e. We need more government).
Well, despite having an MS in atmospheric science, I'll refrain from commenting on the scientific inaccuracies here, since the biased jury pool has already come to its conclusion. In a real trial, none of the commenters here would make it past jury selection, since their bias is self-evident.
However, I do have a JD and experience as a criminal defense attorney, so I will comment on the various problems with your legal analogy. As somewhat of an aside (as one who has both tried jury cases and written peer-reviewed journal articles) I would strongly suggest to you that even an attempt to draw an analogy between our legal system and the scientific method is probably not a good idea. As one of the commentators remarked, science often flies right over the juror's head. Now, a jury of scientists in a scientific case?….hmmmm.
Now, as another opinion made reference to above, starting off with the premise of "We can only prove an idea is false" you really lose all credibility from the start, since anyone with even the most basic understanding of evidence and logic knows this is a fundamental logical fallacy–One cannot prove a negative! (so…your case unfortunately is thrown out from the outset).
Next, you probably should take note that the legal system *does* make an effort to remove bias in the process, including things like voir dire or venue changes, judicial recusal etc. We try not to allow people with a personal 'stake' in the outcome from taking part. Ideally, one would love to see a forum where the jurors and all parties were demonstrably not Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative…and who had no direct or indirect financial or other personal stake in the decision. Of course, the chance of me seeing such a discussion anywhere on the internet (much less an Ed Berry blog…) are about as likely as a blizzard hitting death valley tomorrow. Hope springs eternal though…
Presenting a one-sided argument does not win you any points, especially when the 'other side' of the debate suspiciously seems to be presented by the same side. For example, climate models that seem to disagree on the amount of warming (and yet, no mention of models that predict a cooling climate…hmmmm)
Finally, as you certainly know, in your hypothetical the prosecution would not rest, but instead would not only cross-examine the heck out of your 'dream team' of so-called experts, demonstrating their clear bias and destroying their credibility, then counter their claims by presenting 5 times the number of rebuttal witnesses, all of whom have considerably more credence in the scientific community.
I anxiously await your blog on how political bent destroys ones ability to rationally analyze a scientific proposition. I won't hold my breath, though.
Dear Stan,
You wrote
Your statement contradicts logic known since Aristotle, as further explained by Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and all good physicists today. My correct statement of this part of the scientific method is taught in Philosophy of Science courses. I learned it from Professor John Kemeny at Dartmouth. Kemeny learned it directly from Einstein.
For example, it is impossible to prove a climate model is correct but it is possible to prove a climate model is wrong.
Your invalid critique negates all your critique of my article.
To put this concept in a criminal legal setting, the prosecution presents a hypothesis and attempts to "prove" the hypothesis is true. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The defense needs only to show one contradiction to the prosecution's case to prove the negative that the prosecution is wrong.
Even if the prosecution prevails it does not prove the prosecution is correct. That's why new evidence, like DNA, can later prove the prosecution's hypothesis is wrong.
The legal system uses the same fundamental logic as the scientific method. No one can ever prove a hypothesis is correct because it only takes one contradiction to prove it wrong. If such a contradiction is absent during a trial that does not prove no contradiction exists.
Obfuscation (your background in law has addled your brain)
You're being too generous. Global temperatures have been rising from the mid 70s to about 1998. There is no way anybody can overlook two weather satellites which show there has been no additional temperature increase for the past 18+ years (although the current El Nino may have some impact on that.)
Dear GoFigure,
Of course I agree with you about temperature data. My point is more fundamental. I can be "generous" with many details and still nail my argument. So why even bring up stuff I don't need?
All I need to show is one contradiction between the climate models and reality to prove the climate alarmists' case is wrong. I don't need to make it more complicated.
Your argument is certainly valid,
But I'm sure some alarmist will take advantage of your generosity by using it against you (and all skeptics) by claiming that even you agree, our current warming began in the 1950s. (Ridiculous, since there was a cooling from the mid 40s to the mid 70s), but skeptics will be distracted and (assuming they believe you are credible) waste time rechecking their own understanding …..
Dear Stan:
The UNIPCC climate scientists and other various government sponsored climate scientists ( such as the Ben Santer types that proliferate our universities and government sponsored research groups) have posited specifically, that increased human production of carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change, and that it is leading to continuous warming of the earth. Let us call this certainty as "P" and the continuous warming "Q" hence, as presented, we have "if P, then Q". Or, "not Q, not P", which we know as the contrapositive. This is where we find the failure of current government scientific reasoning. "Q" has been level for a few decades, hence, not "P" prevails. Human production of carbon dioxide is NOT the main driver of climate change. Pretty simple logic to ignore, or try to manipulate as many lawyers do with the English language….if it don't fit, you can't convict type of rational thinking that enters into many courtrooms I suspect. Regards, CW
Dear CW,
You are right on target. I see you know some symbolic logic and you used it correctly. Notice there are two applications here: past and future.
Soon et al used past observations to show the correlation of temperature with CO2 was so bad as to reject the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature.
Christy showed how future projections of climate models do not match new data. This also rejects the hypothesis, or what I called the "idea" in my article.
All the confusion about the Greenhouse Effect, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the required heat flows needed to explain the ocean surface temperature need be no more, for all is explained here* with correct physics. Solar radiation reaching the ocean surface does not explain the surface temperature. Back radiation does not penetrate oceans by more than a few nanometers, so it does not explain the temperature either.
I have, and I predict it will be common knowledge within 10 years.
* https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
"But the defense only needs to show your idea has one mistake or one incorrect prediction to prove your idea is wrong."
This is false.
Dear John,
Sorry, you do not understand the philosophy of science or the scientific method. What I wrote is backed by all top scientists and philosophers. Watch Feynman's simple explanation of the scientific method.
The Earth isn't at thermodynamic equilibrium.
"Climate models embody the alarmist idea."
And with that, you derail from any credibility of presenting an objective argument.
Dear John,
Your comment is inaccurate. While you have some knowledge of scientific facts, you have no fundamental understand of science or the scientific method.
The IPCC and climate modelers all understand that the models do embody the alarmist idea. The government assumes the model predictions are correct. The models contain and combine all possible alarmist hypotheses. The models are the only way the alarmist scientists can make a scientific prediction that can be falsified.
In case you don't understand this, any hypothesis that cannot be falsified is not a real hypothesis.
No, the science of the natural world cannot be determined in the laboratory. The scientific method as described by the likes of Feynman and Einstein only works if all variables are accounted for, and there is a control present.
Ms Whitehouse,
"the science of the natural world" has of course been "determined
in laboratories" since the inception of modern empirical science. This has been going on for several centuries, and is in fact the crucial element of modern sciences understanding of the natural world. This is in fact what science is about. It is science's burden to in fact account for those variables. What you are suggesting is that we throw out all scientific discoveries since the scientific method was introduced as a fundamental component of science due to some unspecified and mysterious "forces" that are "unaccounted for". What you are proposing is in fact not emperical Science at all.
Whatever do you propose to replace it with? Propaganda? "Feelings"? "Good intentions"? No, it is absurd to claim that the requirements of real and actual empirical the Physical Sciences not be met. This is the very point of all this: to SCIENTIFICALLY prove the claims of the so-called "climate scientists". In other words, to treat their "findings" as science rather than pontificates. Either their work stands on its own or it does not.
And it will not do to somehow make this a "personal claim" of "the likes of Feynman and Einstein". It is in fact the sort of professional rigor expected of all scientists working in the Physical scientists. It is not some sort of "special claim" of Feynman, et al. If indeed there is something lacking in the proposed experiments, those who propose this need to articulate just what is lacking, and do from the basis of their theory. This is how science operates.
You seem to not at all grasp what science is at all: not intellectually, not historically, and not professionally. What you are proposing is at best political sloganeering and at worse mysticism.
@hattip…it is not empirical science to leave out necessary variables in the models for climate. You discount "unaccounted" for variables by sarcastically calling them "mysterious".
Could you please tell me where you get the idea that Greens &Lib-Lab-Cons favour diesel.
It's not that they directly favor diesel engines. It's that the legislation that they write boxes out other competing sources of energy and power conversion. If, for example, you specify that the fleet average miles/gallon for a automobile manufacturer be at a certain level, then the legislators have, whether intended or not, picked a winner in terms of automobile design to the exclusion of others.
I think it is ironic in the extreme that constituents continue to support fatally self-aggrandizing law making technocrats who dabble in complex technical ecosystems that in a thousand life times they could never truly understand in a way that produces very perverse solution sets.
I could argue that there is a certain amount of scientific illiteracy even within the scientific world. Or at least gullibility.
How would you debate the contention that carbon belongs in the soil, not the atmosphere?
Dear Elizabeth,
The contention that carbon "belongs" in the soil and not in the atmosphere is not science. Science is about finding cause and effect in the physical world. The idea of "belongs" is an earth religion, not science.
Look at the history of CO2 in our atmosphere. For most of Earth's history, much more CO2 was in the atmosphere than now.
I cant speak for all adherents to the AGW conjecture, but, personally, I think you have hit the nail on the head when you talk about H20, or water vapour in the atmosphere. It is the disruption of water cycles that is causing all the extreme weather. No doubt in my mind.
But there is also no doubt in my mind that the increase in CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution caused the sight warming that in turn disrupted the water cycles.
Dear Elizabeth,
Data show today's weather has no more "extreme" events that in history. In fact, extreme events have decreased in recent years.
Read the read science on this website. You will learn that CO2 has not "disrupted" the water cycle. It can't.
Just like war, climate change (global warming) is a money making racket. The average person knows nothing about The Club or Rome or Agenda 21 and their diabolical plans to use climate change to control the masses. The powers that be use terrorism as an excuse for war. They have us believing 3 steel and concrete buildings can disintegrate into fine dust and small steel pieces because of a fire. Where is the physics in that? We live in a world of lies and no common sense.
Dear Charles,
Please check my articles under PolyMontana/Politics/911 and /Agenda 21. We agree on a lot.
" You use your idea to make a prediction. If your prediction is wrong, your idea is wrong.
Dr. Albert Einstein testifies we must compare predictions of climate models to new data. Einstein’s relativity idea predicted our sun’s gravity would bend light from a star by a precise amount. Einstein said of the scientific method, “Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”
Dr. John Christy compares climate model predictions since 1979 with real data. Climate models do not agree among themselves, and the model average predicts global temperature will increase 3 times faster than recorded climate data. This inaccuracy is like missing your deer shot by 3 deer lengths. Both points prove the models are wrong."
—
"Einstein’s relativity idea predicted our sun’s gravity would bend light from a star by a precise amount. Einstein said of the scientific method, “Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong."
False analogy.
The fundamental fallaciousness is in comparing a basic physics theory to a simulation. This is a common error. The demonstrated proof of global warming doesn't reside in the climate models. The climate models are simply attempts to combine 400 years of proven science in a manner that can provide some insight into future conditions based on the currently available evidence. The reasoning you present is akin to saying that the core functional model of thermodynamics, PV=nRT, is wrong because weather predictions of a 40% chance of rain fail 60% of the time. This reasoning couldn't be more fallacious.
The reason weather prediction isn't correct 100% of the time is due to the complexity of weather and that the weather models are highly statistically based. Historically, they have simply been "60% of the time that this particular weather pattern has occurred, it has rained two days later." Since the advent of computing power, models that incorporate physics are becoming more popular. They make an attempt at deterministic predictions of local weather using finite element analysis. There remain limitations because local weather never exists in isolation. These are not, though, fundamental physics models upon which the proof of physics rests. They are applied science, more akin to engineering than theoretical or experimental physics.
The climate models are more akin to weather models than anything else. They have one advantage in that they are not attempting to predict hourly or daily weather patterns. Climate is an averaging out of weather over long time periods, on the order of decades. Climate models have this to their advantage as general averages can be more accurately predicted. They have, to their disadvantage, that the Earth cannot be modelled to a degree infinite element analysis. They are still finite element analysis models. They are definitely not deterministic theories, as is the case of Einstein's theories of relativity. The most well known measure of climate, the global mean air and sea surface temperature, is subject to a number of factors that remain unpredictable, such as ocean decadal cycles and solar irradiance cycles. Over time, processing power and progress permitting, they will become more precise. Never the less, any lack of precision has no bearing on the proof of global warming and CO2 as the main driver.
Dr. John Christy is wholly wrong in his ballistics analogy. His analogy would be like saying that Newtonian physics models are wrong because Dr. Grace Harper's mechanical relay based battleship ballistics calculations resulted in 50mm cannon rounds missing their target by three feet. You go to war with the computer and calculations you have, not the computer and calculations you want.
False analogies aside, Christy's actual statement is " The average global surface trend for 90 model simulations for 1979-2012 (Climate Model Intercomparison Project 5 or CMIP-5 used for IPCC AR5) is +0.232 °C/decade. The average of the observations is +0.157 °C/decade. Therefore models, on average, depict the last 34 years as warming about 1.5 times what actually occurred."{1}
This comparison is of his failed UAH satellite calculations, the project that he was working on when he lost his job at NASA, to the CMIP models that predict the global mean air and sea surface thermometer based temperatures. One of the many problems here is that the satellite microwave sounding measurements are not proven technology and have undergone revisions ten times to account for biases such as drift. The satellite sounding units do not measure surface temperature, do not measure the temperature directly, in fact, do not measure the temperature at all. Temperature, as measured by thermometers, is the averaging of kinetic energy of the molecules that comprise the material. Satellite microwave sounding units measure radiation given off by oxygen, energy being lost to space, which is theoretically proportional to the thermal energy of the atmosphere. They differentiate between layers of atmosphere based on the wavelength of the radiation given of at differing heights. The signal is weighted based on the wavelength which is not unique to a specific height but tends to be greater at a particular height.
A more significant point, the one that gets to the heart of the matter, is simply that even his statement admits that global warming has continued unabated, just at a rate that is to low, by his accounting.
Let's be clear what is being compared here.
Global warming and CO2 as the driving factor is demonstrated fact based on empirical measures from both laboratory and nature. These measures include ocean heat cycles, CO2 concentrations, total solar irradiation, volcanic ash, ozone, spectrographic analysis, and numerous other laboratory experiments that brought us the Beer-Lambert law.
Christy's comparison is of indirect satellite temperature measures of microwave energy loss which are then calibrated according to a model of oxygen wavelength emission, which has been revised ten times, to another model of lower troposphere temperatures. And because these two models disagree, his conclusion is that the demonstrated proof of CO2 driven global warming based on direct empirical data and laboratory experimentation is therefor incorrect, even though his indirect measures and questionable models both agree that warming is present and expected.
And Ed Berry reaches the conclusion that all this proves CO2 driven global warming is false based on fallacious analogies, not the least of which, is an analogy to a courtroom trial where he concludes that the preponderant of evidence, including a ballistics match to gun owned by Smith, is to be thrown out because the prosecution failed to prove that Smith once threatened Jones. This is Ed Berry's case.
And he begins his argument by demonstrating his personal bias with "Climate models embody the alarmist idea."
{1} http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/02/22/klotz…
Dear John,
There is no false analogy as you claim. All of your long comment is incorrect. Let's look at your key statement:
There is no such "demonstration." You simply do not know how science must work.
For you to make a credible claim that CO2 drives climate, you must first produce a hypothesis that makes a prediction that can be tested. Then your hypothesis must survive all tests against new data.
The fact is the best alarmist' hypotheses are in the climate models. The climate models have made predictions. We have tested their predictions. Their predictions have failed. Therefore, your hypothesis that CO2 drives climate is wrong!
Period. Game over. I win. You lose. Checkmate. John, it is really as simple as that. Your arguments fail.
That will never do. The agenda is not about climate — it is a UN/ globalists plan to redistribute wealth. Expect more money to be spent on this scam.
Dear MaryL,
Of course, you are correct that the climate scam is a globalist plan to redistribute wealth, and they will continue to spend money on the scam.
Throughout history, corrupt leaders have learned they can make people slaves by restricting what they learn. Slave owners prevented their slaves from learning how to read and write. Today, people who learn to read and write still believe in myths.
The Aztecs priests deceived their people. Many religions deceive their people. Now the Pope deceives the people. The lesson is to be aware of leaders who do not discriminate between truth and fiction, and who preach fiction to the people.
With only few exceptions, our schools do not teach the scientific method. People even get PhD's today without learning the scientific method. They are the PhD's who go on to believe in the climate scam because they cannot discriminate between truth and fiction.
We should begin teaching the scientific method in the 8th grade or sooner. We should emphasize the scientific method in every grade level thereafter.
So where does this leave us? The answer is we must oppose climate myths both politically as well as scientifically.
The heat retaining properties of CO2 compared to the effect of water vapor can be shown by simple observations:
-Nights with clear skies cool off quicker and more than cloudy nights.
– Deserts get very cold at night, quickly, because the air is dry.
– It is always bitterly cold above 20,000 feet – the height of the highest clouds. There is no water vapor above that.
It is not about global warming, excuse me, Climate change. It is all about CONTROL.
Period.
Hello Dr. Ed… I'm a newcomer to your site and really enjoying your work and the community.
I am currently engaged with my family over the anthropocentric global warming issue. I'm actually happy that they are now "engaging" whereas previously I had been totally shut down with the typical tactics and it had been "not fun". Needless to say, I'm the conservative black sheep of the family, so handling this one subject has far-reaching implications for future subjects.
I recently wrote up an 8-page research paper (of sorts) showing the other side science titled "Global Warming Science is NOT Settled; The Reasonableness of Skepticism". It was very cursory, but comprehensive in its coverage of ALL the issues surrounding AGW. It's a huge subject so did not do it justice, but I provided many links to the skeptic science and other analysis, including the politics. Of course, your site was also included, thank you very much!
I have had my first response from one of my family members who replied with a link of their own to a bbc article. See below. I promise not to hound you on every single little issue; however I would appreciate your guidance in how you would approach a response. There seem to be a few obvious problems with this article, but not being a scientists, would love to learn what you read into this and how you would tackle the response:
The article title is "Carbon emissions 'postpone ice age'",
Jan 13, 2016
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35307…
Just want to get off to a good start and also thought you would be interested in an updated report, if you hadn't already seen it. Much appreciated!
Thank you!
I am a freedom fighter and have been since 1951 when I joined the Army to fight in Korea. I'll admit I'm not the best, but overall I'm pretty well informed. I am reluctant to support Trump because I fear he may be the ultimate Manchurian Candidate. I can envision a scenario where he audaciously upsets the entire system and rides into office on a wave of revulsion for the "establishment," only to overnight become another authoritarian Hitler. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Dear Dick, unless you can quantify why you fear Trump "may be the ultimate Manchurian Candidate" we cannot discuss whether your fear is right or wrong. My only comment is there is no evidence your fear is correct.
As I write global warming is striking the East Coast of the United States with a fury, but don't worry folks, all that snow is falling so it will melt and cause those floods we've heard about but haven't seen before the earth cooks in only two more days. How do I know? Because Al Gore said so, 10 years ago. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/01/27/algo…
The real anguish is the doubt about whether we will be fried, boiled, poached, broiled or roasted.
Similar experiments have been done. Google: "utube demonstration of effects of CO2 on temperature"
Warning-not much science here. Sorry.
For those people who keep insisting that we are now suffering from more severe weather events, here is a bit from a small publication I have titled REMEMBER WHEN, noting events in my birth year. 1938. March-1938. "In Los Angeles, floods and landslides cause over 200 deaths, and leave over 20,000 homeless." September 1938. "A hurricane in New England kills 700 people."
Now, I admit I never for one moment ever started to believe in the Gore effect. After all, if that orchestrated Inconvenient Truth spectacle had been first presented/sponsored in total by a completely non agended and internationally respected climate scientist, even my skepticism might have been overcome. Not many politicians in my hero list. But, spectacle is much worshipped by so many, is it not?
Anyway, my understanding is that CO2, not carbon, comprises .04% of the atmosphere. Hope that is correct. Which would seem to mean that the compounded gas, CO2, not carbon, involves 1/2500 of the atmosphere, or one part out of 2500 parts.
To my limited thinking it is not reasonable that 1/2500 can have such a dramatic effect as ordained by the AGWers. I do not think that my drink, composed of the same ratio of whiskey, one gram whiskey, 2400 grams water, would have one heck of a lot of effect on my behaviour.
Like I said, no science. Just an opinion???
Dear Michelle,
I would challenge the assumptions of the paper you reference. The paper assumes our CO2 causes significant warming. Data contradict this assumption.
The paper does not include how nature controls CO2 in our atmosphere. Their paper assumes their model can predict future climate and ice ages and even the effects of our CO2. However, there is no means to test their model. So their model is pure science fiction.
The above referenced papers by Miskolczi, Salby, Soon, and Evans all show the assumptions in the paper you reference are incorrect.
Let me see almost 320,000,000 million people flushing 'treated' poop, pee, laundry, dishwasher, shower water into our once crystal clear streams and oceans.
Now, in many places it is unwise open your windows or dry laundry outside.
The air is too filthy.
Clean water only dispensed in bottles.
I guess what people are willing to accept is substandard.
Dear Calvin, Do you understand the difference between environmental pollution and climate?
Let's start by understanding that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, just like oxygen is not a pollutant.
You refer to the waste products from living. Cities were much dirtier when they had no sewage systems and used horses rather than internal combustion engines. So long as we continue to produce abundant cheap energy for everyone, we can continue to reduce the waste products you describe.
Those who believe our carbon dioxide is a problem inadvertently reduce abundant cheap energy and thereby increase the pollution you describe.
Thank you for bringing up the CO2 vs Soot distinction. Comments of persons that equate these two VERY different substances are heard all the time and only serve to illustrate that promoting scientific understanding among all voters is a very difficult thing.
A thoroughly enjoyable set of comments on this serious subject. Serious if you are AGW because of the life science effects, or serious if you wish not to see trillions of dollars wasted that could be used much more importantly to solve real earth problems – poverty, health, etc.
I appreciate that you include both the pro and con of the arguments.
I am not an earth scientist, but I have spent a fifty-year career interpreting noisy data. Thus, I look no further than global temperature measures. I believe that the most accurate measure of the future is the trend of the present. Until the revisionists started to "adjust" the data to agree with their proclamation of AGW, the data showed NO CORRELATION of GW and CO2 accumulation. Theory in error – end of discussion.
Where the global temperature will go next year, or the years after, I don't know, but I do know that data that does not follow theory proves the theory wrong, NOT the data wrong.
Beg to differ – some clouds are above Angels 20 – (Angel ## = thousands of feet of altitude) I recall once flying a C-141B at Angels 50 to get over a storm. Most clouds are below 20,000' – yet hurricanes and other major storms can and do go much higher. Flying at 50,000' is highly unusual – and is only used for weather avoidance.
Nice article – but this is why your logical arguments don't hit home. The avg person does not develop their limbic system until about the age of 7. By that time in today's world – how many thousands of hours of television have these children seen? Without the critical thinking skills, and a background of evidence capable of debunking what they are told – our children are basically brainwashed.
The TV is the most effective means (and all such media) because the TV puts your brain into an alpha brainwave state. GREAT if you are meditating – it makes you very passive, calm, and open to the present moment, but if you are passive, calm, open to brainwashing and propaganda – which in a TV medium has the validity equivalent to actual, experiential memory – you have a brainwashed kid.
Fortify this with years of parents telling them to behave, to listen to "authority", etc. Then when authorities or people with pretended "expertise" jump in all their media and scream, cry, and wail about the sky falling – they pretty much HAVE to believe this, because this is their VISCERAL REALITY, and THAT rules over the intellect.
i read a fascinating experiment used by psychologists where they take a pendulum and a crosshair under the pendulum, telling their subject to hold that pendulum over that crosspoint. To their physical ability, this is done – well done. If you instruct people to use and concentrate EVERY THOUGHT with intensity on maintaining that stillness, that pendulum hanging exactly over that point and tag on the suggestion that they might imagine that it is swinging – in the vast majority of people it starts swinging. This is because our subliminal, visceral reality rules over the intellect.
So – in order to open the door to changing people's minds – WE MUST TOUCH THEIR VISCERAL REALITY! Usually it takes some emotional connection – but it must not be confrontational in my experience. My best results have been with explaining GMOs this way; the normal way is to tell how bad they are, how poisonous they are, and when the new generation of GMO corn came out people quoted studies about hematological damages, increased poison residues, the new poisons allowed to be applied, etc. I'VE been following this conversation for years. i know the subject. i know the language. i know a lot of the biochemistry and a bit of the genetics involved – AND IT SCARED ME!!! So i'm going to walk up to Suzie Suburbia, tell her about the horrors she is consuming and make her my ally in fighting the GMOrons????? NOT going to happen.
What is her reaction? Fight or flight – because i really scared the …..something….out of her. She can fight – who? The EPA? FDA? Moron-santo? USDA? O-bomb-yuh? Not happening.
She can take flight – and who just scared her? i did. She is going to politely shine me on as long as she can tolerate it and BOOGIE OUTTA THERE – because i just turned a person that i need as an ally into at best, an ostrich.
Now – i talk about the GMOs this way with newbies.
"You know – to make a second generation GMO corn shows that the first generation failed."
EVERY TIME the person – whether initially pro GMO – die hard opponent, or Mr Oblivious gets a look of surprise or shock on their face. This means that unlike the above approach with stats, science, biochemistry and the horrors involved – THESE PEOPLE HEARD AND PROCESSED what i'd just told them – and it rang a bell. So i tend to follow up with something like: "Since it takes about 8 years and $10,000,000 to make a new GMO – they pretty much knew it was going to fail as soon as they put it into the ground."
Usually i have to leave it there, but you get the picture – nothing confrontational. No disputation of facts – because being logic impaired as Dr Ed says – they see someone else's fact as equally valid. If Bozo #1 throws out 10 pretend facts and speaks smoothly while demeaning their opponent – this may be enough for people to distrust the facts that are defensive in nature.
So here's what i've started doing on the blog sites where i've run into and shut down some extremely intense and die-hard "global warming" advocates and their propogation of fear.
"Okay – you say that man made the climate warm. Now you have to explain why the Vikings FARMED GREENLAND from about 800 AD to a bit past 1200 AD. It had to be warmer than your projections of doom in order to do that – and YET, we have polar bears, walrus, seals…"
Or – "20 years ago, Pinatubo blew, and in it's brief eruption released MORE CO2 than the ENTIRE PRODUCTION OF HUMAN CAUSED CO2 FOR THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMANITY! Since then we have had 18 years in which there has been NO global warming. So – now you need to explain how MASSIVE amounts of CO2 from a volcano have NO effect upon global warming, but your tiniest car farts raise the oceans."
These are graphic images people produce in their minds – and raise questions which the religious Climate change people don't address. Therefore there is no head to head conflict in which they have to set aside pre-conceived and accepted beliefs. You aren't forcing them to reject what "they know" and making them wrong. That way leads resistance.
To tie them into examining the propaganda/lies they do hear and accept i usually then lead them into the oceans rise this way. (correct this if i am wrong Dr Ed – just what i'd heard)
"So you say that industrialization and anthropogenic global warming caused the oceans to rise 20 cm in the 1900s. So, did the 20 cm rise in the oceans during the 1800s ONLY happen when the industrial revolution started at the middle of the century? But then – what caused the oceans to rise 20 cm in the 1700s also?
"This also makes one ask – did industrial pillaging, plundering, rape, and looting by the Vikings raise the global temperatures enough to let them farm Greenland – because otherwise i'm at a loss here."
At this point – i've NEVER had any died-in-wool "CLIMATE ACCEPTER" (hey, if they can have a retarded sounding pejorative for we who use logic and reject politically correct slavery – let's flip it on them and call them climate accepters, ok?) continue any conversation.
Dear Brad,
Thank you for your comment. I agree that it takes a wide variety of approaches to change people's minds when their minds are made up. That is why scientists like me refer to people's determined and irrational belief that our CO2 causes climate change as a religion. Changing their view on climate change seems to be almost as difficult as, say, converting a Muslim to a Christian.
You will find under the subject of Climate in the above menu, many approaches to help people understand that our CO2 cannot be responsible for climate change.
Dear Joe and Mark,
You are both right if we revise Joe's comment to mean no clouds "form or originate" above 20,000 ft with a few exceptions. The exceptions are wave clouds and cirrus clouds.
Mark's storm clouds may have their cloud base only a few thousand feet above the surface, were they can draw in significant amounts of water vapor. As the water vapor condenses and droplets freeze, they release an enormous amount of latent heat. This heat causes strong upward motion that can indeed reach levels near 50,000 feet.
Mark, what a privilege is must be to have flown those C-141's. They were the backbone of our Military Airlift Command from 1965 to 2006.
Dear Dr. Berry,
I stumbled across you and this thread for reasons extraneous to it's content…but relevant indirectly. As a (failed) physics major at one of the most impressive of the world's Physics Faculties, the son-in-law of a member of that Faculty and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, an acquaintance of the current Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, who speaks often on these topics, and the (step) son-in-law of the 1963 (I think) Nobel Prize winner in Physics, I suspect I've absorbed at least some basic physics by osmosis. I have always wondered, given the probable fact that the overwhelming proportion of the energy incident to the earth's surface comes, first from the Sun, and second from the earth's core, how we mere humans can conceivably believe that we are altering the earth's atmosphere/climate by any visible, much less significant, proportion, and significantly (not to mention "decisively") affecting all of the "climate change" continuously underway. For outdoors-men (and women) it is a little like the old saw about ants on a twig roaring down the Yellowstone (pick your river) convinced that they are steering.
Given children and grandchildren here, I will be following your ruminations on these and other topics with great interest.
What is not mentioned by the 'man made climate change' alarmists, is the massive geo-engineering (aka: weather modification/ warfare) going on throughout the world's atmosphere. aircrap.org and geoengineeringwatch.com are good places to see proof and government papers, movements against the assault.
From the Joplin MO 'inland hurricane' to the manufactured drought in CA (proof on radar)
to earthquakes, the Tesla technologies and electronic capabilities etc. are being used against trees/plants, animals, oceans and humans.
'Angels Don't Play This HAARP' is a book written many years ago by a scientist in Alaska, well known. The CO2 tax and carbon credit scheme is a hoax to achieve world governance and higher taxing of businesses and the populace. Big time control too.
Regardless of your opinions, based on your own opinions, natural cycles of ice ages and warm periods occur on Earth. Scientists Hamaker and Weaver made an excellent film about the cycles, and how we might stop the next ice age, if we use our intelligence and technology. The cycles will happen if we polite the air with man made emissions or not. Polluting the air with man made emissions DOES speed up the cycle. Look up these true scientists. And prepare for massive food crop failures.
An Earth religion? Hummmm. So many comments on this site are irrational.
I like your thinking–and your presentation is clearly understood! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
At age 79, I have managed to steer clear of the progressive P-C language and avoid being brainwashed. I am a bit rough on this one about climate change: Commocrats and their stupified RINOs are nothing but a bunch of brainwashed assholes. Facts and the truth must be in total denial by these frauds.
History repeats itself. 900 years ago there was a huge drought over most of North America. The Aztecs recorded that by carving symbols in stone. The drought has returned and we are already deep into it from California to West Texas. In Canada from Vancouver and approaching Toronto. Lake Superior's water level has dropped 6 feet.
Water wars will start soon. Some gangs have already beaten up people to steal water.
"…900 years ago there was a huge drought over most of North America. The Aztecs recorded that by carving symbols in stone. The drought has returned…"
Climate doesn't repeat willy nilly.
It changes when it's forced to change. Now that reason, globally, is man's emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2. It's been getting warmer and warmer for 40 years, and will only continue to do so.
Although, I believe in most of what you said in today's column (watch Donald Trump's speeches), you fail to bring up the reasons we have bogus issues, like climate change, and why we have the candidates we have for our votes. Global warming was made up by the Globalist group, The Club of Rome, and then supported by the other Globalist groups and fine tuned by the Agenda 21. Global warming is not about the truth, it is a form of social engineering. Let's make the truth a lie and the lie the truth and confuse these idiots into believing they are the problem. When it comes to Presidential Candidates, we are not necessarily voting for who is better, because in most cases, both candidates are presented to us by the same Globalist as a our choices. A win win situation for them and a lose lose situation for America. Donald Trump is an anomaly. His ideas are not controlled by the Globalist and that is why his own (Globalist Party) is against him. I guarantee you that the third party candidates are supported by the Globalist, so they can once again control the election. To say that a person is not intelligent if he votes for anything but the two parties is not intelligent, when both parties are controlled by the same elite. I will vote for Donald Trump, because he says the right things and because he is independently wealthy, he doesn't have to support the Globalist agenda, world government. In the past I have voted for a third party candidate, or not voted at all for a Presidential Candidate. An intelligent person looks into the background of the politician and who supports these Candidates. The real problem is we do not live in a free society and the vast majority of people in this country don't know it. I could go into many other issues, other then Global Warming, that are used as control mechanisms, but that would only cause more debate on issues rather than who controls the issues. We are presented, by the Globalist, with the illusion of Democracy and a fair vote, but like Las Vegas, the house always wins. When they start losing they ban you from the establishment. I truly hope that Trump wins, but his biggest enemy is not the issues, it is the manipulation of the issues and the control of our so called free press, that presents lies and causes confusion, so that the uneducated do what they are told, not what is right. They have been engineering us for over a century now, through our bogus education system, (dumbing down) and social issues, like Abortion, which is an Abortion, Feminism, Gay rights and marriage and welfare or socialism. They create wars and terrorism and lead us to believe that religion is the issue. The average Arab (Muslim) is no different than the average American, European, Russian, Chinese or any other nation. They want to live peacefully, but these Globalist vermin won't let us. Trump may win, but the issues he will face are far more then making American strong again financially.
Facts about Greenhouse gases, that affect so called Global Warming.
Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.
Dear Dr. Berry,
I agree completely with you that "climate change" is a joke when it comes to science. I also agree that most people only want to consider evidence that reinforces their present position. In that light I want to say I have been a real conservative for many, many years, probably more years than you are old. I dare anyone to question my credentials in that area.
In light that we have to be willing to think critically, let me say the following,
First of all, I intend to vote for Trump and I don't know anyone that disagrees with my position. However, we really do need to consider ALL of the evidence. I therefore respectively submit to you that even though there is NO ALTERNATIVE except to vote for him, there is a POSSIBILITY that we are being victimized by the BIGGEST CON ever pulled on the people of this world. Is it barely possible that Trump is actually an insider that has been groomed for his present role ever since he has been an adult?
Yes, I will vote for Trump but I will not go blindly into the dark. I have done extensive research into his beliefs and background and have a 36,000 word article showing what I have found. I suspect he is possibly being groomed to be the new figurehead for the entire world.
If you truly are seeking the truth you will check this out. You have my email address.
Dick,
You may very well be right! Trump's success really started when he acquired control of Resorts International, which has widely been reported as a Mafia (Meyer Lansky) CIA (James Crosby),Mossad, Rockefeller, Rothshcild money laundering front. Michael Glassner, who is Trump's chief political advisor, also arranged for Larry Silverstein to purchase the World Trade Center. Israel was a known haven for Mafia boss Meyer Lansky and of coarse the Russian Mob, which has always been run by Russian Jews. These are facts not Anti-Semitic. My hope is that Mr. Trump truly wants to change things for the better, which is why he is anti-Globalism, which the Rockefellers and Rothschild's not only support, they started it. After all the Kennedy family was also part of the Globalist cabal, but John F. Kennedy tried to make things right and they murdered him for it. Another fear I have if Trump is elected.
Hello Dr. Berry,
I agree fully with you, "if" we would have still a Constitutional Republic. However, the truth of the matter is that for the past one hundred year we have an Oligarchy run by the International Bankers of the Federal Reserve System.
Therefore, we will get only what the Oligarchs give us. Sixteen years ago the Oligarchs gave us George Bush. Eight years ago the Oligarchs gave us Obama, and this time around the Oligarchs will give us Hellary Clinton, who the Oligarchs will install in the White House on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
Just like the Oligarchs installed Obama and his predecessors, all the way back to and including President Woodrow Wilson, with the help of their lying paid harlots of the Mainstream News Media, which they own.
The only exception was President John Kennedy, who for thirty-four months slipped through the Oligarchs fingers, until the Oligarchs blew his brains all over Dallas TX.
And all because to this day, the so-called Church refuses to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Just read your NWV. Thanks for your truth concerning gore-bull bs. Mary Jane had him as a youth.
I'm not a physicist; I only wish to point out that CO2 is such a minuscule part of the atmospheric, even if there were a large percentage increase in atmospheric CO2, the actual change is still virtually nothing. Al Gore & Co. never mention that it's only .04%
And when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than now, sea levels were higher. When the dinosaurs were around sea level was 80m higher. Do you think the higher sea level will not drastically effect modern human infrastructure?
I just added two charts at the end of my article above. They show a major reason the Earth's climate may have changed during the last 600 million years. During that time, our solar system traveled through 4 spiral arms of our galaxy.
When outside a spiral arm, the earth became very warm. When inside a spiral arm, the earth cooled. The reason, presumably, is because spiral arms contain more cosmic rays that increase cloud cover and cool the earth.
We are currently inside a spiral arm. The climate change we all talk about refers to the small window in earth's history. The concern some people express about dramatic warming is not relevant to our lives. We will never see climate outside a spiral arm.
Outside a spiral arm, ice caps will melt and seas will rise. But inside a spiral arm, as we are now, we live in an ice-age earth where climate warms for about 12,000 years every 100,000 years.
The scientists you rely upon for indisputable facts are not climatologists. This is exactly the tact that the Fossil Fuel Industry has taken in its propaganda of Climate Change denial. Shame on you for using Dr. Ivar Giaever – an 88 year old man who openly says in the same meeting that you quoted him, quote: I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it.
BTW, Ed
Please disclose the sources of your income from your consultancy service.
It appears you are bought and paid for by the Climate Change deniers.
And we wouldn't want that from a meteorologists such as yourself.
A meteorologists is someone who predicts weather, not climate change-
Dear Mel,
If sources of income are relevant to climate science, then you should first state your source of income.
You wish to dismiss what I present as logical arguments by claiming I am "bought and paid for." Really? I have funded all my climate research. The scientists who are truly bought and paid for are those who work for or get research grants from government or one of the many well-funded environmental groups.
My consultant income as a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) has been 100 percent from attorneys who need an expert witness in climate and meteorology. None of my income as a consultant has been related to what you call climate change.
You assume that because I am a CCM that, therefore, I am not competent in climate change. You could not be further from the truth. Climate change is a subject of physics. My PhD degree is in physics, with a specialty in theoretical atmospheric physics. That is as close as you can get to competency in the subject of climate change.
You believe ecologists who claim to know something about climate change. Ecology is as relevant to climate change as it is to brain surgery. You can get a PhD in ecology without any math or physics courses. Ecologists, and even some physicists, lack an education in the philosophy of science. Without the philosophy of science, one cannot properly evaluate the hypothesis of climate change.
My experience includes being a program manager for the National Science Foundation who managed leading-edge research in weather modification. This includes evaluating the results of weather modification experiments by statistical tests. The same evaluation procedures apply to climate modification.
Dear Mel,
Would you care to identify the "facts" you refer to, so we can have a logical conversation? Facts can have many sources.
You claim those who disagree with your climate religion are guilty of "climate change denial." You are guilty of science denial. You deny the science that has proven your climate change religion is wrong.
You assume the Fossil Fuel industry is wrong and Obama's government was correct. Yet, you have stated no basis to support your assumption. The correlation of annual emissions with measured increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is ZERO! Where there is no correlation, there is no cause-effect relationship.
How can you continue to promote your climate belief when its cause-effect correlation is zero?
Giaever explains why your belief in climate change is a religion. It is because you believe a hypothesis that has been proven to be wrong. As a Nobel Prize winner in physics, he has more scientific credibility than the promoters of your climate religion, and scientific credibility does not vanish with age.
It is irrelevant that Giaever is more interested in other subjects in physics than atmospheric physics. His understanding of physics and the scientific method give him far more credibility than anyone who supports the idea that human emissions drive climate change.