I’m now a CO2 denier

Over the years, I’ve learnt through bitter experience that “ignorance is bliss” and that if you go and look at an area of climate it always turns out that the scam is much worse than you could have imagined.

I accepted the work of people like Hermann Harde says that CO2 should cause around 0.6C rise in global temperature for a doubling of CO2 but I assumed the real contention was the amount of feedback.But over the years working on this global warming scam, I’ve realised that there are quite a few ways the earth could be influencing climate – many of which are not even considered because of the present day obsession with CO2. So, when I realised that I might be able to string them together into a coherent theory explaining the ice-age cycle I decided to do the ground work to put that theory into a more rigorous form. That was last summer.

But, for the theory to work, it was important CO2 did cause warming …  but like a gullible fool, I just assumed … given all the hype … that it would be relatively simple to find an argument supporting CO2. And what’s more, if my theory were right then whether or not I liked the idea of CO2 driving the climate, it would work so like doing a jigsaw, even if I didn’t understand all the bits just now, if the theory is right, somehow all the bits would magically fit – and if its right – who am I to ascribe moral judgement on it? All I had to do was to spend the time fitting them together.

I knew the lag between temperature and CO2 was a problem. But I assumed someone must have a convincing argument somewhere – or when I looked in detail I would find an explanation. But, I never got to look in detail at the arguments about the CO2 lag with temperature. Instead the big problem came when I looked at the cooling phase:

CO2-TemperatureTo the right I have my (hurriedly prepared) graph taken from the Vostok ice cores, showing temperature at the top and CO2 at the bottom shown over roughly 100,000 years of the typical (later) ice-age cycles. The problem is that whilst all show a very sharp rise in temperature very closely coinciding with a rise in CO2, temperature after hitting a peak clearly then has a rapid cooling phase which does not occur with CO2. So in the 16,000 years after the peak, we effectively progress more and more into an ice-age (and no, I’ve not worked out whether we are in the phase).

However that temperature drop occurs without an associated drop in CO2. But if CO2 were driving the temperature, then we must see a drop in CO2 associated with the drop in temperature. So, the lack of change in CO2 at a time temperature drops massively (in each of the last four cycles) is unequivocal proof that CO2 “did not do it”. CO2 was not driving the ice-age cycle.

So, in no shape or form can CO2 be said to be “causing” the temperature change through the ice-age cycles. And if temperature plummets after the inter-glacial peak uncorrelated with CO2, then the rise into the inter-glacial cannot be associated with CO2. And so as these ice-age cycles are the main reason academics postulated massive positive feedbacks, this single piece of evidence can be said to undermine totally the credibility of positive feedbacks and CO2 (aka doomsday global warming).

Too many sceptics have their heads in the sand

Unfortunately, I regularly see articles on WUWT and Bishop Hill discussing how big the positive feedback on CO2 is. The idea that there is no positive feedback and that if anything the climate has almost no change associated with CO2 is so much contrary not only to most climate academics, but most sceptics, that I’m not even going to bother to try to change their minds – because the only thing that will really change minds is a few decades of cooling.

However, having given this thought and having decided that I cannot in any way shape or form condone the idea of positive feedbacks or that CO2 can be seen to have a significant impact in any climate record, I’m going to set down my own views.

My current view of CO2 can be summed up as follows:

I can find no evidence whatsoever linking changes in CO2 to global temperature. Everything in the recent temperature series (e.g. CET) is clearly explained by normal natural variation. There is no need to invoke any “driver” of climate at any time in the CET record. Nothing in the ice cores can be said to show a linkage. That doesn’t rule out a small linkage, but it’s clearly far too small to show significant change and so I cannot with any integrity ascribe any climate change in any climate record with any certainty to CO2.

This entry was posted in Climate, Ice age. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to I’m now a CO2 denier

  1. Rich says:

    The widely held theory that there is positive feedback during the period when temperature and CO2 are rising is plausible. As far as I am aware there is no clear theory proposed for the mechanisms involved during the cooling period.

    I have no evidence to back this up however a possible explanation could be that the positive feedback continues until the CO2 reaches some kind of saturation concentration. This saturation concentration would therefore represent the limiting concentration of CO2 beyond which a further increase C02 has no additional influence on the radiation balance.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Thanks. And sorry to be obtuse – I literally had six massive articles explaining my thinking and was half way through, so I’ve no chance of explaining my thinking in a small comment.

      I’m not arguing against positive feedbacks indeed, I was going to suggest several new feedback mechanisms (it’s too complicated to get into details).

      What I’m arguing against is that CO2 is the causal mechanism. Because I can’t see a form of positive feedback that would only be present for warming** – so if you get positive feedback for warming, you will logically get positive feedback for cooling.

      However, I agree that’s an assertion that should be challenged.

      **Again that’s not strictly true – as one feedback mechanism in particular is very lopsided – but I think it’s true of others in the public realm.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Rich, just had another look through feedbacks … and I can’t make the small change in CO2 waggle the dog on climate (based on the current list of feedbacks). You need a massive added positive feedback to achieve an ice-age cycle and the minuscule change in CO2 seen in the vostok cores is far too small to do the job on its own.

      So, (whilst you didn’t say it) all this nonsense about “carbon feedbacks” (which are the majority of feedbacks listed on wakopedia) is just ridiculous, because inventing new ways to increase CO2 is entirely unhelpful to explaining ice-age cycles as the total amount of CO2 is always limited to what we estimate in the vostok cores. In other words, we have a good idea of the level of CO2 – so it doesn’t help to suggest even more reasons why it could be higher than it was.

      That means, the only way to give the system positive feedback in the ice-age cycle is non-CO2 feedbacks and there aren’t many of those (clouds, albedo, water vapour). That’s not much to work with and (apart from albedo) it’s hard to explain what could cause these to be so different during the ice-age.

      That doesn’t rule out CO2 in some way influencing one of the these positive feedbacks. However, since they are all bi-directional (working the same for cooling and heating), then CO2 must be correlated both during heating and cooling.

      It is not. Therefore, CO2 is not related in any significant way to those positive feedbacks that must exist to create the ice-age cycle.

      And my problem, is that once I remove CO2 as having any (significant) influence on climate, I won’t just be sidelined by the alarmists (to be expected), but by most sceptics as well.

      • Rich says:

        This paper http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf states:

        “The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feed-
        backs that are also at work for the present-day and future climate.”

        I find it strange that they go to some length to speculate on mechanisms during the warming period while not attempting any explanation of the plateau or cooling period (which strike me as being rather relevant to the present climate).

        The only concrete information we have is the observation that CO2 generally lags the temperature. After that we only have unverifiable theories.

  2. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    Rich, CO2 would be exerting its maximum effect at the very moment temperatures crash back down. Preserving the role of CO2 in AGW theory requires ascribing to it magical properties in the ice core records, knowing when to turn on and off. The only time it has a warming effect is once warming is underway – none at the beginning or end of warming cycles. As with the thermos keeping hot things hot and cold things cold, “How do it know?”

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Of course, it doesn’t help much if we just remove CO2 completely from the feedback system, because we still have to explain the change in CO2: why CO2 rises steeply coming out of the ice-age but it then remains high despite the 16,000 year dip.

      • anng says:

        Colder seas hold more co2 and as they warm ‘outgassing’ from the ocean adds co2 to the atmosphere. But of course, co2 is part of the biological cycle, plus it returns to earth as rain, so the cycle is very complex.

        The only bit of climate science which is certain is that co2 will react to the earth’s infra-red output. This is energy which can be passed on to surrounding molecules. What happens then?

        The climate models predicted a hot-spot in the upper troposphere which can’t be seen in the satellite data.

  3. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    The best explanation I’ve seen is the temperature-dependent solubility of CO2 in sea water, with the lag being the product of the thermohaline circulation. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more and related posts on that website. However, the thermohaline lag is 800-1000 years. The 16k year lag is more than any thermohaline circulation period I’ve seen, so I don’t know the answer to that.

    Also, note that the natural smoothing of the CO2 signal in ice cores makes it exceedingly unlikely that it captures the full amplitude of CO2 values. This is also discussed in detail in the linked article. Plant stomata records have tighter temporal resolution on CO2 levels, and shower a much bigger amplitude than contemporaneous ice core records. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Thanks. The dip is such a long period that it’s hard to conceive how CO2 remains high with temperature dropping.

      The only hunch I had was that I was walking over our local nature reserve at lunchtime which is a bogland covered in snow, the path was slippery and there’s just been a wholesale chainsaw massacre with all the trees cut down … and I had the feeling that the answer was probably staring me in the face.

      One of the great transitions in the climate has been that of the wetter colder period we are now in. Could it be that we are seeing part of the transition to the ice age in this developing peatland? Does the peat grow as a result of it being wetter/colder or could it in some way cause the climate to get wetter colder?

      Just grasping at “16,000 year” straws … peat does take several thousand years to grow – if enough grew, it would considerably change the rate water ran off the land. No idea how that could affect climate though.

      Another possibility is that the climate responds differently to e.g. Milankovitch cycles when warm and when cold.

      • Rich says:

        Could it be possible for the atmosphere to reach a saturation concentration of CO2 such that further increases have no additional effect on the infra red output? In this case one could reconcile high CO2 with dropping temperatures.

        In any case it is clear that one cannot get very far with only CO2 and temperature.

  4. Pingback: More thoughts | Scottish Sceptic

  5. Hi Scottish Septic, Do not know if you saw my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/29/a-sin-of-commission/ on 31st Jan but here it is for your interest

    cementafriend
    January 31, 2015 at 5:43 am

    If one considers the equation for radiation absorption developed by Prof Hoyt Hottel at MIT (eg equation 5-145 in the Chemical Engineering Handbook) it can be determined that absorptivity of CO2 in the atmosphere at the present level is so small to be unmeasurable. The suggestion that CO2 contributes 20% to the total of so-called greenhouse gases is nonsense, Firstly, some 30% of the sun’s radiation that gets to the earth’s surface (of which about 70% is water surface, plus another large amount that is covered by some snow and ice at least for part of the year) is radiated directly to space particularly at night. Secondly, of the remaining 70% some 90% or more is radiated to space by water vapor, and water drops+ice particles in clouds. The temperature of the atmosphere comes from convective transfer of heat from the surface and from the phase change when water vapor condenses and freezes to form clouds. CO2 contributes to the radiation to space but this is not due to the IR absorption. It is due to convective exchange with other gases in the atmosphere and is at an average temperature of 220K to space at 4K. .As indicated CO2, so-called “greenhouse”, contribution is not measurable.
    Next one needs to look at the many measurements (from balloon and ground stations) of CO2 in the atmosphere over 150 years and in ice cores. It has been found that CO2 lags temperature over the progress of one day (lag about 1hr), over a week, over a month, over a year, over cyclical periods of 60 years (lag upto 5yrs), and in ice cores by some 800 years. over long periods. This is measured proof that CO2 makes no “greenhouse” contribution.

    (sorry about leaving out the occasional word or wrong spelling -I am not a good editor, I see what is meant to be there.)

    • markstoval says:

      cementafriend, I am astonished that your comment was left up on WUWT as it is very close to being the “sort of nonsense” that the “Slayers” say. WUWT has a policy of not allowing CO2 skeptics to say very much and I’m glad you got that bit of realism into the debate. I hope a few people read it and thought about what it means.

      • jae43 says:

        WUWT lost all credibility as a scientific site when it started banning people because of their beliefs. I hope that someday before I croak that the “Slayers” are proven correct. Because they are.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      No, did not see and thanks for posting.You’re reinforcing what I’ve found about the ice-age cycle which is that CO2 proves completely useless at explaining what goes on. There might be some CO2 effect in there, but unless I find some magical way to let CO2 behave very differently at different times, the impact of CO2 is so small as to practically make no difference.

      We can certainly rule out any direct contribution from CO2 as the change is minuscule in terms of the ice-age cycle. We can also rule out a linear system with positive feedback (which is what all the climate models assume). If CO2 has an impact, then it works in a very indirect way with a non-linear response that varies through the cycle and certainly during interglacials like the present time, the system has very strong negative feedbacks. (So very difficult to make warmer).

  6. markstoval says:

    Scottish-Sceptic, I am glad you have come out and announced that you deny the lunacy of the CO2 delusion. I knew that this Jimmy Hansen scam was nuts from the very beginning. (has Hansen ever been right on anything?) The science of climate is still in its infancy and has been derailed by a political movement that is hostile to our industrialized society. Blaming CO2 for all the ills of the world is right down their alley.

    After your post that the “Slayers” were right about the physics but horrible at PR, I knew you had to reach this position sooner or later. By the way, some of the “Slayers” are horrible at PR and are also downright assholes. One astrophysicist has taken to calling people names if you even ask questions — even when you agree with him!

    In the end, the CO2 madness will go away as Mother Nature runs her grand experiment here on earth. We are at almost 2 decades of no warming with skyrocketing CO2 levels. That should tell a rational man something. But “CO2 will fry us all” is a dogma and most of the adherents will go to their grave believing it. Our hope is that the young scientists will look at the whole thing with some skepticism; if they do, the lunacy will end.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      The CO2 delusion is fast fading (otherwise I wouldn’t have even considered publishing a theory based on CO2 warming – which turned out to be hot air).

      However, the ice-age question will be around for a while.

      Surely, if all us sceptics turned our far superior brains and much broader experience to this problem we might come up with an explanation where the academics have failed?

      • Derek Alker says:

        markstoval Joseph has not let my comments past moderation….

        • NDPtruth says:

          Sherlock Holmes famously said (well, I guess Sir Doyle actually…) “Eliminate the impossible, and what is left, however implausible, MUST be true.”

          When I look at this whole fraud, I look for motive to unravel the agendas and related obsessions that collectively drive it. Why CO2? Because a bunch of spoiled, spoon fed hippies accessorize their socio-economic identities with a hatred of factories? Yes, that’s an aspect of the motivations involved. Grant money out the yin yang? Of course – but at the core of this I see a much different greed, that is plainly and blatantly obvious to me.

          Each one of us produces approximately 1/2 tonne of CO2 annually, simply by exhaling. Is that not ‘CO2 Production’, ultimately subject to taxation, and even limitation? If not, why not? Like Fabians, the first laws will exclude and reject such considerations. But once the laws are there to limit CO2, in the understanding that it will destroy the planet and EVERYONE will die…then it’s only a matter of time before you’re paying a tax to exist.

          Which is fine, perhaps, if you were paying it to God…but you’re not, you’re paying it to Al Gore, David Blood, and even Barry Soetoro aka Barack Sadaam Obama, via their ventures and investments in emerging carbon exchanges (which I think have crashed but are still lurking in the shadows, no?).

          Keep going down this train of thought – that human CO2 production must be curtailed or EVERYONE dies – and you’ll see a very ominous potential ramification of the alleged desperate need to limit CO2 production by human activity…I have seen figures claiming that humans need to drastically and dramatically reduce our CO2 ‘production’ by 3 Billion Tonnes annually…

          So, I guess if 6 billion people conveniently died tomorrow, we’d all be saved, right? Er, except for those 6 billion brave souls who sacrificed all, so that we, er, someone anyways, will be able to survive. Or something.

          The short version is, you’re probably gonna be on the list of heroes who gave all, and won’t ever be marveling at the vast memorial that will be built to ‘remember’ you and 5,999,999,999 others lost forever to time.

          Sound nutsoid? I agree. But this whole thing is bananas! They’re writing things like ‘hide the decline’ into the rem notes of their models’ computer code, and we’re going to debate them over this? If someone steals something right out of your hands, do you engage them in a debate as to whether or not they stole it? Who are these people, and how does our culture and economy support them all?!? Never mind why?!?!

          Why do we ‘skeptics’ still need ‘warmists’ to validate us by admitting we’re right? If the key figures of this satanic feeding frenzy are knowingly lying, while being that indifferent to classical scientific principles that they would see them as merely a tool to access the tax base, then why would we pursue discourse with them at all? They have no concern for truth or enlightenment – they’re just here to ‘win’.

          This is about taxation of bodily processes – the most perverse poll tax ever conceived, I think. If carbon can be turned into a currency, even a quasi-currency, then we will be exploring a whole new dimension to the phrase ‘selling your body’.

          It’s slavery by other and any means.

          The way to stop this is criminal charges – a Nuremberg climate fraud court.

          Anyone have any figures on estimated third world deaths over the past ten years due to ‘climate policy’?

          How many people have they already killed?!?!?

  7. anng says:

    Climate science uses the term “feedback” very specifically. Not at all like engineering where a feedback pushes stuff back to normal.

    Climate science has water-vapour always amplifying warmth which ignores the fact that it can also create cooling by condensing into rain-clouds which shield the earth from the sun or reflective ice which cools while at the same time preventing land and sea from losing heat.

    IMO the only true causation is the sun. It’s totally wrong to call carbon-dioxide a “forcing” when it just reacts to the earth.

    Greenhouse gases are transparent to most of the sun’s energy, which heats the earth. Then at night, GHGs prevent infra-red radiation disappearing off into space thus slowing down the earth’s loss of heat. Water vapour is the most common GHG. So, compare standing under a low rain-cloud on a bright summer’s day (where you feel cooler) to under one on a winter’s night – which is warmer. However, that experiment tells you that it doesn’t make very much difference at all.

    So, what’s the scare about?

    First of all no-one knows what causes cooling apart from orbital changes and volcanos – which can’t account for the Little Ice Age. And water vapour only amplifies warming ergo … warming forever.

    • T Maz says:

      During the day clouds are reflecting sunlight back into space. They reflect much of the visible, a bit of the ultraviolet, and much of the infrared light. At night clouds are reflecting the radiation from earth back to earth. That radiation has little ultraviolet and visible light.

      So it would seem that if clouds were equally probable at day and night they would result in cooling since they are reflecting more light away from the earth during the day than they are reflecting back to earth at night.

  8. Pingback: Toward a new theory of ice-ages I (Introduction) | Scottish Sceptic

  9. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    Thanks everyone for the comments. It was getting increasingly difficult to respond to questions without publish details of my ideas. So, I’m now going to start publishing the work on the blog one section each day (7 so far) – which is really to give me time to finish the remainder .

    The first one is just some background and is on the website already. The next is some fairly basic oscillation theory (which I suspect most sceptics will know but many academics won’t and will be too embarrassed to admit it.

    The first really new idea comes Thursday, with more on Fri, Sat, Sun.

  10. John Smith says:

    Scottish-Skeptic
    thanks for expressing your doubts about CO2
    heretical thoughts
    I’m new to this subject and have been astonished at how weak the case for CO2 driven AGW is
    coming in I expected the opposite
    it has annoyed me that many skeptics genuflect to the ‘CO2 causes warming, we just think it’s not serious’ political correctness
    I’m trying keep an open mind and learn more, but right now I am of the opinion the we are witnessing some form of cultural madness
    appreciate your blog

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Most sceptics tend to be people who have worked in science and engineering and are quite happy to read and understand scientific information and have spent most of their lives analysing and using such data.

      And typically, they accept the “consensus” but are just interested in the science and inquisitive. In my case, I realised the realistic the level of government action wouldn’t stop the rise in CO2, so I wondered how much temperatures would rise if all the carbon were burnt – kind of a worst case scenario. Then as I looked into it I wondered why no on mentioned this figure … then I got some really nasty attacks when I started asking questions and then I finally decided I ought to check out the science of global warming itself.

      As a result of what I found about 8 years ago, I thought I would give up paid work and spend a few months campaigning to get the facts about global warming heard (I still had the naive view that those pushing global warming were rational people who just needed to hear the evidence). Today I’m an “expert” in an area where there’s no money and no chance of employment.

      • Derek Alker says:

        Mike, for clarity, please. You are now a CO2 denier. Ok, err, if I may be so bold, “at last”.. LOL.
        Are you now a natural greenhouse effect and greenhouse effect “theory” denier too?

        I ask because it would be helpful to know what you are basing your thoughts on re the causes of climate changes into and out of ice ages, and interglacials, and therefore what you are proposing is how earth’s climate system works as well as why and when it changes.

        I suppose it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation, in that we need to know what you think it is that is changed, before we can assess the merit of the proposed mechanisms by which it changes. In the same way it was not a chicken that laid the egg that the chicken hatched from. aka the egg came first – well, according to the theory of evolution that is what happened. I know of no better theory currently, but as is the case of all theories, it is questionable. They should be too, because theories are not laws, and all laws have survived all questioning to date. If they have not, then they are laws no longer.

    • kentclizbe says:

      John,

      You’ve stumbled onto what true skeptics call the “lukewarm” position.

      It’s a pitiful forelock-tugging bow to the all-powerful alarmists, with a mewling “We agree with you, but just not all the way. Please be nice to me. Please don’t call me names.”

      The lukewarmers want their cake and to eat it too.

      While Watt does a fine job in getting the word out about skepticism, he’s a lukewarmer forever–he seems to crave acceptance by the mankind-hating progressive anti-capitalists.

      Our Scottish friend coming out in public here is a welcome occurrence.

      The prototypical realists are the Skydragon Slayers, but they do have a poor approach to communications. That said, they’ve got the real science behind them.

      Boldly forward!

      • Al Shelton says:

        I totally agree with you about all the above. Some of the Slayers are improving their communication abilities.
        There are 5 categories of those people in the AGW debate:
        1. Alarmists; the end is neigh; we are doomed; blah, blah blah…
        2. Warmists: We must stop GHG emissions; there is less than 100 years before we are doomed.
        3. Lukewarmers; The GHG Theory is true but the danger of CAGW is miniscule. Stop spending money on this. There is a sub-category of Lukewarmers that do not believe in back-radiation but still think CO2 slows down cooling.
        4. GHG Theory skeptics; the GHG Theory has never been proven; Empirically there is no evidence [present or past]. As you now know Scottish-Skeptic.
        5. Those that do not know and do not care.

      • Derek Alker says:

        What a shame this blog does not have like buttons..

        Boldly forward indeed Kent. Armed only with the scientific method.
        No politics, FULL STOP…

        In the end THAT is the lesson “we” must learn, never forget, and always defend.
        Politics is more powerful than science, AND science has to be protected from politics, any politics, all politics. Otherwise what “we” get is pseudo science for a political purpose, that is not for the greater good.

  11. Derek Alker says:

    Unfortunately ice cores are really pretty useless as a proxy of past temperature or past atmospheric CO2 concentration….
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/147447107/Breaking-Ice-Hockey-Sticks-Can-Ice-Be-Trusted#scribd

    In short, the known variations in the processes within the ice are vastly greater than the supposed signal recorded in the ice… This is not even a noise and signal problem, it is almost all just noise…. BUT, boy did they manage to extract a nice signal from it, or so they say….. Just a shame they forgot about the lag until it was too late…

    Re CO2 warming????? Yeah, right… Increased ability to redistribute energy IS NOT heating…

    H2O is THE dominant and THE negative feedback(s) that keeps our planet’s climate stable. The water cycle is a heat pipe cooling earth’s surface, and the oceans provide more than enough thermal inertia for an atmosphere, even with the water cycle cooling it, to have an insulating effect at earth’s surface. Hence earth’s surface IS insulated by the presence of an atmosphere (but it’s the presence of the oceans really), although the atmosphere itself, because of the water cycle, cools (massively and variably) earth’s surface. So few grasp this.

    A stable climate system is not a thing a positive feedback dominated system could ever possibly manage, by definition. It would have to run away, one way or the other… The latent heat requirements of boiling or freezing the oceans provide a natural buffer that in between is regulated by the water cycle and it’s variability, maintaining stability…..

    btw – the blanket analogy is much like the greenhouse analogy. It is WRONG. It is deliberately misleading…. It confuses the physical reduction of sensible and latent heat losses with the unphysical notion of back radiation piling up heat. Which any fool knows does not happen.
    http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/climate%20stuff%202/Theblanketanalogy_zps9da81eda.jpg

    WUWT is wrong and the Slayers are right. End of story. There is no greenhouse effect.
    Shame so many can not accept the obvious, least they look like fools that have been HAD by “greenhouse”…..

  12. Derek Alker says:

    “I am more interested in the marvel of nature who can obey such a simple and elegant law…and how clever she is to pay attention to it.”
    Richard Feynman 1963.

    In other words the law, or overall rule, a generality, is NOT necessarily the explanation.
    A very basic point so many have missed / ignored….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch…

    The simple and elegant physical law, rule of thumb, or generality makes a prediction of the answer nature will try to attain. Understanding how nature obeys the prediction is what we should marvel at, try to comprehend, and then attempt to explain.

    Often times we do not even comprehend that the law does not explain how, and that is what we thought we were doing by only using the law, rule of thumb, or generalities prediction. Which is not how…..

    Richard Feynman in the above video was talking about the generality that is the Law of Gravity. Do we know what gravity is? No. There is THE point, the generality IS NOT an explanation, it is merely a prediction, AN OVERALL PREDICTION.

    The Stefan Boltzman equation is another such generality, or overall rule. As is the (perfect absorber and emitter) black body (massless surface) concept. Neither the Stefan Boltzman equation or the black body concept explain, both predict, and both only predict for the OVERALL SYSTEM, not the parts of the system. The parts of the system may well be considerably different from the overall answer, and that is what we should marvel at, and try to explain HOW… Because the generality DOES NOT explain anything, it just predicts the overall answer, usually correctly.

    If this is understood, the reasons why earth’s surface without an atmosphere and earth’s surface with an atmosphere can not be compared, because they are different parts of different systems becomes very, very obvious…..

    Remembering, of course, it is unphysical to try to suggest heat that can be piled up, THAT violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics…
    As Joseph Postma describes –
    http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

  13. A C Osborn says:

    Welome to the World of Unbelievers.
    Anyone with a decent knowledge of Climate History should realise it is all just a scam.
    Almost every part of their theory has been shown to be wrong, from the relationship of CO2 to
    Temperature
    Ice loss
    Weather Severity
    Sea level rate of rise
    The hot spot.
    You name it and the emperical evidence proves it wrong, it only survives in their minds & models, but it is doing precisely what the UN designed it to do.

  14. Scott M says:

    I very seldom see any mention of the little iceage and the warming of the oceans since. The lag of hundreds of years as the sea warms releasing CO2 seems to fit very well with actual measurements of CO2 lagging warming and cooling by hundreds of years. The planet is 2/3 oceans and there is a lag for something that large to change temps, and of course it would release CO2.

  15. richard says:

    If you are unable to measure room temp to a 1C accuracy, what hope temp estimations across the world.

    https://www.picotech.com/library/application-note/improving-the-accuracy-of-temperature-measurements

    “Figure 1 shows sensors at three different heights record the temperatures in one of Pico Technology’s storerooms. The sensor readings differ by at least 1°C so clearly, no matter how accurate the individual sensors, we will never be able to measure room temperature to 1°C accuracy”

  16. Dan Pangburn says:

    Anyone with access to the CO2 and temperature data, who was paying attention in first year calculus, and can extrapolate the math to the physical world, can falsify the statement that CO2 causes significant warming.

    See this explained and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 or search “agwunveiled”..

  17. The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2. By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC itself is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
    “The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
    In plain English, this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is. Therefore, there is no credible basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports, and the Government policy makers have no empirical scientific basis for the entire UNFCCC process and their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
    We need to stop discussing forecasts based on model based approaches and base our forecasts and discussions on the natural cycles so obvious in the temperature data.
    Looking at the Millennial cycle it seems very likely that we are just past a peak in the millennial cycle and can look forward to a 600 year generally cooling trend towards another LIA at about 2600.
    Furthermore the climate discussion needs to move on from discussing a pause to discussing this cooling trend because in fact we have had 11 years of cooling already see
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
    see my post
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    for details and cooling forecasts. This shows that the late 20th century rise is simply the rise to the peak of the millennial cycle which peaked in the RSS series at 2003.6 give or take a couple of weeks no doubt.
    This corresponds to the peak in the solar activity driver seen at about 1991 in Fig 14 of the linked post. There is about a 12 year lag between the driver peak and the RSS peak. The lag will vary according to the climate metric used and the region under consideration.
    Realists might wish to celebrate every anniversary of peak heat which I calculate as 4th July 2003 at about 4pm.( or maybe 3pm!!!!! for those few alarmist readers that have any sense of humor)

  18. So says:

    Great work Scottish-Sceptic.
    After your insightful discovery utilizing science, it might now be helpful to move to the sociological/cultural field in understanding why both sceptics and alarmists continue clinging (most times bitterly) to CO2 as the climate culprit.
    Some have proposed that skeptics agreeing that there is a relationship between CO2 and earth’s temps (although not with catastrophic consequences) do so to project an appearance of rational (read consensual) thought; thereby to some degree, keeping skin in the climate game. In other words not dismissed as kooks.
    Ironically, at the same time, many employed in ‘Big Climate’ appear to have already begun to distance themselves from any relationship between CO2 and temps – hence the necessarily but not-so-subtle name change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. Not that the alarmists will ever totally distance themselves from CO2 as being destructive to the climate – CO2 = the golden goose.
    Unusual weather events, ocean acidification, etc., etc. blamed on increased atmospheric CO2 are the alarmists’ back-up plan, if you will, as earth’s temps remain flat/cool while rational excuses for the ‘pause’ become more desperate (the ‘pause’ is now even considered by some as “coincidence”/”luck”).
    A CO2 driven run-away/catastrophic warming narrative may, out of necessity, be all-together tossed down the memory hole; however, CO2 will remain a climate villain for longer than I would care to imagine.
    The plant kingdom will have the last laugh….

  19. KevinK says:

    Dear Scottishsceptic, you wrote;

    “That doesn’t rule out a small linkage, but it’s clearly far too small to show significant change and so I cannot with any integrity ascribe any climate change in any climate record with any certainty to CO2.”

    This is quite a correct observation arrived at by careful examination of the data (including the inherent uncertainties).

    Welcome to the club of folks that think that the “GHE” hypothesis is lacking when compared to observations.

    I started out not believing that anybody could “model” the climate and tell us (with any certainty at all) what would happen in one hundred years (boy is that a pile of hubris).

    Then I looked again, and again at Arrhenius’s Hypothesis (i.e. atmospheric gases that absorb and later re-emit IR radiation create a higher average temperature) and found it to be quite “flimsy”.

    My hypothesis is that the “radiative greenhouse effect” merely delays the flow of energy (alternating as absorbed thermal energy and IR radiative energy) through the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe system by causing any particular Photon to make multiple passes through the system at the speed of light (generally considered to be quite “speedy”). This simply delays the flow of energy through the system by a miniscule amount (distance to TOA * speed of light * multiple “bounces’) and might delay the flow of energy by a few tens of milliseconds at most. Given that the period (inverse of the frequency) of the arriving light is about 24 hours or ~ 86 million milliseconds this delay has no effect on the average temperature of the Earth.

    This corresponds with your painfully arrived at conclusions.

    The “radiative greenhouse effect” merely delays the flow of energy and might (I repeat might) change the response time of the gases in the atmosphere, causing them to warm up “slightly” faster after sunrise and cool down “slightly” slower after sunset. This effect is so small that it cannot be detected in any of the historical temperature records (even with the extensive waterboarding applied to the temperature records in the last decade).

    So, it sure looks like Arrhenius was indeed erroneous, he was a very bright person, but we all get a few “do-overs” in our careers, don’t we ?

    Cheers, KevinK..

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Fortunately, I feel the “debate” has moved on and now the evidence is so compelling against the extremist position of the IPCC’s that I’ve felt a new freedom to look at how the climate works without focussing on CO2 and without caring whether CO2 warms or not.

      I’m just trying to understand what is going on. However I am annoyed that I went down a blind alleyway with CO2.

  20. Sull says:

    Just to thank all of you for working so hard to get this issue properly understood. Through your tireless efforts, us everyday folks are slowly getting the message. Just maybe those dooms day people will go back to selling flowers at air ports, and let you respected scientists do your work unmolested.

  21. mkelly says:

    Welcome to the small but growing group of folks who find the CO2 idea of warming wrong or at least very minute.

  22. cleanwater2 says:

    Dear Scottish Skeptic and all the scientists and non scientists that have posted on this web-site. Here is just part of the experimental evidence that proves that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment has been peer reviewed by many Ph.D’s in many field. The bottom line which is consistent with the conclusions of the Scottish Skeptic and many of the others that have added their wisdom to this website, indicates that their thinking did not go far enough to the basic of all science” the experimental testing of the Hypotheses”. There have been millions of observations of different “weather related” events but “observations are not experiments”. Here is report of my experiment with references. because of space limits per post it many have to be posted in several parts. have fun reading it. Please comment .
    Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
    Retitled: Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!

    The Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions:Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!

    By Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)

    Edited by John O’Sullivan, incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.

    Dedication

    To Professor Robert W. Wood (1909), the first scientist to demonstrate that the Hypothesis of the “Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” was unscientific. To all other scientists since Professor Wood who have added sound technical and scientific knowledge in many related fields to strengthen the case against the greenhouse gas effect hoax.

    To protect my grandsons JJ and BA plus their generation and all the generations that follow – because we finally got it right. For the generations that would otherwise suffer extreme economic harm if the Hoax of (Michael) Mann-made global warming – AKA the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHGE) is not stopped now and forever.

    Table of Contents:

    Preamble

    Section 1: The Hypotheses

    Section 2: The Definitions – The Clues

    Section 3: The Experiment

    Section 4: Numbers

    Section 5: Holding the gases – “containment”

    Section 6: Setting up the Experiment

    Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues

    Section 8: Water – liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)

    References

    Appendix

    Preamble:

    This paper endeavors to solve a 188-year-old mystery that has eluded many scientists. It merely takes a cogent, specialist application of science that has been in the books of physics and thermodynamics for over 100 years. To solve the mystery of why “The greenhouse gas effect (GHGE)” does not exist, one certainly has to have an understanding of quantum physics and the basic laws of conservation of energy. To most people, including many scientists, quantum physics is a mystery especially because many things that occur are not intuitive. When explained and proven by experiments, it can be understood. As with any mystery; what are the real clues and what are the red herrings?

    It is desirable that anyone that can read be able to understand the experiment documented herein and what it means. This paper is for everyone – from the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control to the Ph.D. holders in social sciences, finance and otherwise unrelated branches of science, law and politics.

    At the outset, having communicated with real people and some Ph.D’s, I realized that my mission appeared to be a veritable “Mission Impossible”. Being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend the inner workings of science. While having a Ph.D. in one field does not give someone sound knowledge or judgment in unrelated fields (although many are increasingly taking the time to study in other areas to accumulate the knowledge needed). Each person may possess an area of expertise but only a few can extend this knowledge to analyze clues within totally unfamiliar mysteries.

    We need to start with a very brief definition of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) – an effect where certain gases have the molecular composition to absorb Infrared (heat) radiation – and what happens afterward is important because it is not intuitive but is proven by basic physics. The Bohr model shows this millions of times each day by our use of Infrared heaters in homes, restaurants (food warmers), factories, bus stops, etc. This process of absorbing Infrared radiation (IR) is supposed to cause the earth to be warmer than a planet without carbon dioxide (CO2), or any other atmosphere. Yet here is just one example of a recent paper that gives us insight into the real causes of “climate change”: _ hyperlink “http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/30/the-suns-impact-on-earths-temperature-goes-far-beyond-tsi-new-paper-shows/”__The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows_

    By _ HYPERLINK “http://notrickszone.com/author/admin/”__P Gosselin_ on 30th December 2011 (TSI=total solar irradiance)

    There are several words or terms used in this paper that need some explanation; a Glossary of terms is provided within the Appendix.

  23. cleanwater2 says:

    Section 1: The Hypotheses:

    To demonstrate the existence of “greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) it is necessary to define it. We are told the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process involving a combination of “Infra-red absorbing gases” (IRag), including Water/liquid/vapor/solid (H2O/lvs), CO2, CH4, NO2 and others are super insulation which cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees C warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” (a theoretical perfect radiator of electomagnetic energy).” -The earth along with its atmosphere is not one of them.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect” as has been said the truth is in the details. Regarding this see the Commentary by Professor Nahle and Dr. Latour *

    To begin to define “The greenhouse gas effect” let’s start with the “features that should be testable.” Because water/liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs) physically reacts differently than other IRag gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) these IRag gases will be dealt with first.

    Section 2: The Definitions – The Clues

    Here are those critical features claimed (yet unproved) in the Standard Model “greenhouse gas effect”:

    Infrared absorbing gases (IRag) absorb IR radiation and thus they inhibit such radiation from escaping into space, thereby reducing the rate of atmospheric cooling i.e. causing air to be warmer.

    IRag’s will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth causing increased heating of the surface.

    IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Water vapor and trace gases).

    IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Thus CH4 (methane) is supposed to deliver 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ than CO2. NO2 delivers 289 times that of CO2. (Alarmist ‘experts’ have yet to explain these numbers). Evidently, it is assumed that someone quantified the amount of IR that a particular sample of gas absorbs utilizing IR spectrophotometer analysis and then compared this data to the absorption of CO2. This is a very important feature of the “GHGE”

    The higher the concentration of IRag’s the greater the amount of “back-radiation” and the higher the temperature of the earth which in turn results in an increase in the global atmospheric temperature.

    The concentration of CO2 found in million-year-old ice cores can be utilized as proof that the “GHGE” exists.

    Where does this standard model greenhouse gas effect lead?

    We all know that there is one true kind of “greenhouse” effect. Engineers have built real greenhouses for decades for a useful purpose (growing plants). Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day (either in summer or winter), experiences this. We see temperatures that are much higher in the car than in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating. This was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955 an expert in IR and UV radiation. Professor Nasif Nahle famously confirmed Professor Wood’s worth in 2011.

    So what experiment could be performed to “prove” that the “greenhouse gas effect exists?
    Part 2
    Section 3: The Experiment

    A believer in the man-made global warming theory (AGW) point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere. They propose using computer models to predict these effects. The primary problem with “computer models” is that unless all the relevant factors that effect the atmosphere are included in the program algorithm it becomes: “garbage in equals garbage out”. *

    There are no computers or modelers yet available that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors driving our complex climate. There will be contributory factors not even known yet. Then the big guess for modelers is what are the factors to include, which are really of minor importance, can be left out to still obtain usable results; which factors are “red herrings”. As such, to date no one has come up with the “right model”.

    More than 120* different models of weather /climate programs have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now, let alone a hundred years ahead. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has just started the installation and start up of a Cray AMD 16-core Intrago processor in 16 cabinets array of 26 cabinets to create a 1.1 petaflops supercomputer. That’s a good start. But until they can define the real facts about climate it is yet another super supercomputer creating “garbage in equals garbage out” at super fast speed.

    Using the list of “critical factor-the Clues” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist. Utilization of the concentration of IRag’s in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today.

    The fields of engineering and research employ “scale models,” or models with similar properties that can be either sized up or down to relate a test to the factors being studied. “Model studies” or “bench tests” are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to larger or smaller series of events and relate to an actual set of events. They generate data (the evidence) that can be compared to known conditions or events. Chemical engineers and others build pilot plants from lab experiments before finalizing sizing design of a full-scale commercial process plant. Scale-up is a serious engineering art.

    An example of down sizing is the use of the super collider at CERN to study what happens in a nuclear explosion. Because the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is on the order of fractions of a degree per year (some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees C/ year), we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists.

    However if the effect is vanishingly small, it will be hard to prove or disprove. This is one of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) tricks to fool mankind. They employ wide ranges and invent probabilities out of very thin air.

    If the experiment at very high concentration does demonstrate the effect then the “Concept” does exist. If the concept does works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. It might be linear or logarithmic to zero. However if the concept does not work at High Concentrations of IRag’s then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud. *

    Section 4: Numbers

    Some numbers are needed now. By definition 10,000 ppm (parts per million) is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1 million parts per million (1×10+6). The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm of CO2 (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. (Volume concentrations are per high school chemistry).

    If the GHGE exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” is causing a heating effect on the earth.

    Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2, thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4, the effect should be 57,500 time stronger that using CO2.

    It is claimed that NO2 is 290 times more powerful that CO2 thus 100% NO2 should cause 725,000 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    As CH4 is found to be present at about 2ppb (parts per billion) (2 X 10 -9) in the atmosphere, a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.

    Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule (more complex C4H10-butane) will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane (C4H10) available in pressure cylinders with regulators as Butane torches for soldiering pipe. A small flow of gas from the torch was used to fill the balloon.

    The experiment substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4, 29% CO2 and the remainder being H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purpose from any natural gas stove.

    Now 100 % CO2 is available from several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any paint ball supply store, a regulator is needed to reduce the flow and the pressure while filling the balloon.

    Do not use Alka Seltzer (from an ineffective test promoted by some groups at NASA) as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2, water, water vapor, and air – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only.

    The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2 or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.

  24. cleanwater2 says:

    Part 3

    Section 5: Holding the gases – “containment”

    How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRag’s for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that “contain” the IRag’s is glass containers then radiate them with a heat lamp (IR source) . These “experimenters” measure the increase in temperature of the gas. They claimed this increase was due to the “GHGE”. But they are absolutely wrong.

    The cause of the temperature increase was due to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. (A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) including this information is available on request with about 100 other references). *

    Another failure of these tests was their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus heating the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. Black objects absorb most of the light including IR & UV and then converting the energy to “heat” which is conducted to the gas in the container. (These “experiments” created a Greenhouse effect – quite simply – merely a confined space heating). That seems unfair. Why would an impartial scientist do that?

    Another experiment painted the inner surfaces of the boxes to capture more thermal radiation and avoid high reflection from these surfaces. Corrugated cardboard walls have a higher thermal resistance than glass, additionally, for enhancing thermal resistance of cardboard, we wrapped their outer surfaces with aluminum foil, which has a very low absorptive potential (0.03). It is true that conduction and convection on the inner walls was carried towards the inner atmosphere and exaggerated by painting the inner surfaces of the containers with flat black paint because the coat had a very high absorptivity and emissivity potentials. (Identified by the experimental work of Professor Nasif Nahle: see references).

    The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRag’s is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. Important note: The thin walled material is a better conduction of thermal energy. A factor to be considered is the thermal conductivity of Mylar, which is 0.154808 W/m K by Dr. Nahle based on his experiment verifying the work of R.W. Wood. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons about 3mil thick. They are available in various sizes. Several 20-inch major diameter balloons were chosen for this study

    Section 6: Setting up the Experiment

    STEP ONE: Fill the balloons with the various IRag’s and one balloon with dry air as a control.

    STEP TWO: Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let balloon temperature adjust outside in the shade (minimize IR absorption ahead of testing). (a clue).

    STEP THREE: Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree C to check air temperature in the shade. Record data. Do not forget this measures two different phenomena. [Note: Digital thermometers measure thermal energy, while IR thermometers measure thermal radiation emitted by the system].

    STEP FOUR: Take a large black mat board or a large black cloth or sheet, and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature rise in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5. [Note: DuPont Duco #71 wrought iron black paint has an absorptivity of 0.98. It would make a very good absorber]. The black mat board is used to absorb as much IR as possible that supposedly “back-radiates” from the IRag in the balloon. *This is not to simulate a “black-body”. Having done some IR measuring of objects in a hot car, the color of the object has a significant effect on the IR readings. Use of bi-metal digital thermometers has to be set so they do not absorb IR and heat, because of the IR radiation absorption.

    STEP FIVE: Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons’ surface and internal gases with the IR thermometer. Dr. Latour explains that this is doubly necessary to measure both because the properties of IR thermometers are to “see” the IR impinging on the sensor bases on the optic of the instrument. The sensor integrates the IR energy to a reading. Thus both the Mylar, and the contents are projecting IR radiation in all directions .The instrument which reads a range of IR frequencies is not able to differentiate between IR from the surface, from the gas inside the balloon and the background IR passing through the balloon. Thus it is necessary to determine IR reading based on the instrument “seeing” through the balloon for one set of readings. Another set of readings would be from an adjacent position but not through the balloon.

    Note: In multiple tests there were no differences in the readings. This indicated that the IRag’s in the balloons stayed at ambient air temperature. The IRag’s did absorb IR but did not “heat” the gas (an important clue!).

    To put a bi-metal digital thermometer either on or inside the balloons would give erroneous readings because the metal of the thermometer would absorb IR and heat up no mater what the temperature of the IRag was.

    The study by Anthony Watts of weather stations throughout the US shows how easy it is to get junk readings from improperly constructed temperature recording devices.

    STEP SIX: Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows”(projection) of the balloons.
    Part 4
    Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues

    Now lets repeat the Critical factors-The clues and note the result of the test:

    Item 1.The IRag’s absorb the IR radiation and thus prevent it from escaping into space reducing the rate of earth and atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.

    Results and explanation: The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature. It did not get hotter thus normal IR radiation cooling of the black mat was occurring. The 100% CO2 or the high concentration of other IRag did not “hinder” normal cooling by the loss of energy to space. This has been confirmed by the work of Dr. Roy Spencer and satellite IR measurements showing significant losses of “heat”/radiation to space. Far more IR radiation escapes than is stated by the IPCC in any of their reports.*

    Item 2.The IRag’s will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.

    Results and explanation: The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the “shadow”. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 to 30 degrees F above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sunlight the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. Air temperatures were 90 to 95 degrees F.

    The experiment was also performed indoors with a 500-watt power shop light (see below; the black background showed the temperature increased from 70-72 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 -110 degrees Fahrenheit. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface of the black mat: no sign here of “back-radiation”.

    Item 3. The IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.

    Results and explanation: The balloons did not warm any warmer than ambient. The IRag’s in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the basic physics described by the Bohr Model. A statement of basic physics that shows that absorption of IR by CO2 or other IRag does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecules (heat). (See note in Preamble)

    Item 4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having asked believers in greenhouse gas “physics” I’ve had no answer as yet). It is merely assumed that “someone” has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule (CH4, NO2,) absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).

    Results and explanation As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” caused by the IRag’s absorbed more IR radiation thus “back-forcing” more radiation. An IRag has an emissivity characteristic of the molecule not the absorption of more IR radiation.

    Item 5.The higher the concentration of IRag’s the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.

    Conclusion of test results: Based on the failure of all the previous portions of these tests which were done with very high concentrations of IRag’s to demonstrate the GHGE, it is valid to say that increasing CO2 or other IRag’s in the atmosphere will have NO temperature EFFECT.

    Item 6.The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “GHGE” exists.

    Conclusion: The use of ICE core data is at best circumstantial evidence but it is not proof of anything. This is a “red Herring” as so much of the supposed evidence of “GHGE”.

    Climate change is measure in centuries not minutes or years.*

    Note: As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light using a 500-watt shop power light. This is because the temperature of the filament approaches the spectral characteristics of sunlight but contains more” long wave IR” because of a lower temperature. The light was placed one (1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results, No extra heating of the atmosphere or the background.

    Section 8: Water – liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)

    Now lets talk about water (H2O/lvs). Why? Everybody seems to acknowledge H2O dominates the atmosphere in complex ways, swamping any CO2 effect. AGW promoters just ignore H2O. We may suppose that when CO2 (GHGE) collapses they will declare DI-hydrogen monoxide a pollutant, too. And so it goes.

    Yes, H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain. If it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. As is said in the Great Lakes region, if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change.

    Examining H2O/lvs in the atmosphere: if it’s clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures. We know that the air temperature, where the clouds are forming, is at or below the “dew point”.

    As the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (Heat of condensation – also a significant reduction of volume). If the general air temperature is low enough (below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation, as lightning, probably high winds, as a tornado or convection.

    This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated.

    Another phase is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious. It is also relevant that in spite of significant solar energy absorption, the “clouds“ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor i.e. there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” cannot get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” – it is a constantly changing set of conditions; none are wrong and none are correct.

    Now lets add the next variable – solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon, the clouds are still receiving solar energy. Both actual measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds have confirmed this fact. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am (solar time) when there are measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures.* This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and Arctic storms(Alberta Clippers aka Polar Vortex)
    There are other factors that are being monitored by astrophysics researchers that are showing that solar flares, and different types of radiation, including cosmic particles, have an effect on cloud formation. This is only a beginning of mankind’s learning about another aspect of our atmosphere and weather and we have yet to see any real world empirical proof that carbon dioxide plays any role, let alone a role as preponderant as solar forcing. Indeed, with natural climatic variability accepted as being substantial anyway, when I see thermal temperatures in my back yard cycling at +- 8C daily, why should you or I care if average “heat” temperature increases 1C over a 100-year period?

    The nice thing about this described experiment is that high school physics classes or Freshmen College physics lab classes can perform the tests. It would teach a very important lesson in that not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.

    What we can demonstrate is that the “science is not settled”. Indeed, just look at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, for the newest real science done by experiment and re-tested until they have 6 sigma confidence levels. They use computers to analyze the data but “computer models” are not the end only the beginning. Science is not done by consensus.

    As Dr. Pierre R Latour advises, “Everybody has a different point of view; but (real) scientists and engineers learn how to agree on how nature works. What you see in the man-made greenhouse gas theory hoax is what happens when untrained, incompetent people attempt to do science and engineering. It’s a mess.”

    But should we be surprised at how readily the myth of the GHGE can be exposed? No, especially when considering the following footnote from the IPCC’s 4th Edition. It declares its science is premised on what had been “suggested” and “speculated” in the previous century (before the time of quantum mechanics). By plain reading we see it signals no subsequent evidence to prove that the GHGE effect actually exists:

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”*

    The work of Arrhenius was shown to be significantly in error by Angstrom in1903. Arrhenius changed his career shortly after. Readers are encouraged to question why and conduct their own research.

    Berthold Klein P.E. (Edited & Revised by John O’Sullivan: February 5, 2012)

  25. cleanwater2 says:

    Part 6
    APPENDIX

    IR= infrared radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation (invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sunlight and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature.

    Animals radiate IR from exothermic oxidation and plants do so from endothermic photosynthesis.

    _ Hyperlink http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html”__http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html_ Photosynthetic organisms also have a thermoregulatory system that permits them to radiate the excess of absorbed thermal radiation and the heat generated from metabolic processes. Professor Nahle conducted an experiment related to this mechanism of thermoregulation in melons and spearmint: http://www.biocab.org/Biophysics.html#anchor_36

    IRag= certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of IR radiation (a characteristic of the light) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR; their construction will not allow them to absorb the IR. They may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRag’s. The words “greenhouse gas effect” have never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary. Atoms and molecules absorb according to their unique absorption spectrum and emit according to their unique emission spectrum. They emit an amount of radiation as watts per square meter (w/m2), the measure of energy that they absorb.

    The Bohr model is the work of Dr. Niels Bohr a physicist that studied the behavior of gasses when they absorb IR and other forms of radiation. This is much more complicated than presented here. It is a branch of science called Quantum physics. The basic studies resulted in Dr. Bohr receiving a Nobel Prize in physics in 1922. The important part of the Bohr model is that when the gas absorbs IR radiation it does not “heat” the gas. It does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecule, which is the velocity of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. The IR (photon) energy is converted to inter-molecular activity. The explanation is a concept that is beyond the scope of this experiment. It has an important part in proving that the GHGE does not exist.* Many volumes of experiments are available and can be explained better by Quantum physicists; the subject is being studied continually -”The science is not settled.”

    Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe, it’s temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water (liquid/solid) can change to a gas at all temperature, to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above, and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many commentators on GHGE fail to characterize these differences and call Water /l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” In fairness H2O can indeed be a gas, steam or humidity. As we go through this experiment it will become clearer that water or any other IRag is not a “greenhouse gas”

    CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature, it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. [Carbon dioxide also is processed by species of photosynthetic bacteria, i.e. cyanobacteria, green sulfur bacteria, purple sulfur bacteria, green non-sulfur bacteria and purple non-sulfur bacteria] Most process that produces mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2 (carbon dioxide) a very important and necessary part of life on this planet.

    CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes, cook food and run engines.. It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air (atmosphere) at very tiny amounts (parts per billion). While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere (only a guess as to the total) most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone (O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight. (A paper in the EPA library documents this reaction if they have not erased it) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. It’s from swamps, rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of nature’s process of recycling. Its oxidation is protecting the earth from the next ice age

    NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth. NO2 is a toxic gas but also known as laughing gas and an air pollutant, along with other oxides of nitrogen, NOx. They are major components of smog.

    . _ Hyperlink “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide”__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide_

    Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1. Cost about $60.00. Many other IR meter models are available. *

    I said there would also be a link to an experiment that shows that CO2 and water vapor cool the the atmosphere.

    More carbon dioxide cools, not warms, the earth

    July 19, 2011 By Dr. Ed 2 Comments

    Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.

    by Nasif S. Nahle, from the PDF (see general description here)

    Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico

    Abstract

    This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on carbon dioxide increasing the potential of water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% water vapor and 0.039% carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities-emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity-emissivity of water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

    http://climateclash.com/category/authors/nasif-nahle/
    Water absorption spectrum – London South Bank University
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html   CachedWater Absorption Spectrum. Water and global warming Absorption spectra of gaseous, liquid and solid water The vibrational spectra of liquid water

  26. cleanwater2 says:

    Here is a supplement to the above experiment.
    Revised Why material heat when they absorb IR

    Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:03 PM
    Fri, 6:03 PM
    Message starred
    The problem with EMR
    FROM BERTHOLD Klein TO You

    The purpose of the following is to explain why “When a gas absorbs IR or any other form of Electromagnetic radiation the gas does not “heat”.
    To start with here is a bit of philosophic thought.
    Scientists and engineers always simplify the world to try to come up with a “correct equation” to explain some phenomena. They want things to be in “equilibrium or “steady state”. They choose to ignore what appears to be small items- setting them to Zero.
    The only condition when this can be “true” which never exists is if all the mass and energy in the known and unknown universe became “ZERO”. Even at any temperature or the presents of mater there is some form of energy being exchanged, thus no equilibrium, no steady state.
    Section 1-Absorption of EMR by a solid
    In the last 200 years of science and engineering there have been billions if not trillions of experiments and industrial applications where electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has been used to “heat” solids.
    The examples would fill 100’s of thousands of books, from using IR to dry paint on cars to melting metals to purify ingots, to cooking food with microwaves etc.
    So what is happening when the EMR impacts a solid. A knowledge of quantum physics which began before the turn of the last century gives us the answer when carefully examined.
    The photons in EMR have mass and velocity thus any events related to them must follow the laws of physics related to conservation of energy and momentum. When the EMR approach the surface they will in-counter a lot of voids and some mass that makes up the material. When the photons strikes the nuclei energy is transmitted to it along with momentum. Because there are many photons striking the surface aka the molecules of the solid action occurs in the molecule , it causes components of the molecule to vibrate with more amplitude or in different directions ( see appendix A for a more detailed study of what happens with water).
    Because this is a solid it is understood that molecular forces are holding everything quite close together. Outer shells ( electrons) are intermingled with many different molecules. As the photons are added to the molecules vibrations of part cause friction and convert some of the energy to heat. At the same time every molecule is radiating some of the energy as IR (Kickoffs law). If the amount of EMR hitting the surface is greater than heat (energy) being lost to the surroundings by IR radiation and conduction then the solid will heat up. The friction and collisions of molecules is the cause of the heating.
    As the material heats molecules start to get enough kinetic energy that they escape the surface of the solid and the absorption characteristics change. Quantum physics explains that each atom or molecule can only accept a specific amount of energy, any additional EMR will pass through the structure of the molecule to be latter absorbed by other molecules in the solid.
    When the solid absorbs enough energy that all of the molecules are moving( higher kinetic energy) ,it is no longer a solid but it is a liquid.
    Section 2-Absorption of EMR by a liquid
    As a liquid is at a higher temperature, more kinetic energy, the absorption of EMR changes,(again see the appendix containing the study of water by Martin Chaplin It is better to go to the original as there are some animations that are helpful to understanding ).
    A detailed study of the heat verse temperature increase will be different than for a solid. The molecules are not as close together ,are at higher kinetic energy, thus collisions of molecules will be different than in a solid. The molecules are moving in all directions.
    As the liquid heats more molecule will escape at the surface, resulting in a cooling effect to the liquid. As more energy is added at some point boiling will result in rapid conversion to vapor. Unless energy is continually added the water(liquid)will cool below the boiling point. The vaporization is removing 44.010kj/mole of water evaporated. The energy to keep the water boiling can come from thermo sources as a flame or EMR as microwaves,IR,UV and many more sources.
    The concept is the same adding energy to the molecule, transferring the energy to other molecule and accelerating the molecules -more kinetic energy aka “heat”. The vapor near the surface will have the same temperature as the surface of the liquid.

    .
    heat of vaporisation – heat absorbed by a unit mass of a material at its boiling point in order to convert the material into a gas at the same temperature
    heat of vaporization
    heat of transformation, latent heat – heat absorbed or radiated during a change of phase at a constant temperature and pressure
    Section 3-Absorption of EMR by a gas/vapor
    The gas/vapor moves away from the boiling surface by buoyant forces as cooler denser air displaces the lighter gas/vapor(g/v). This is true of water but would not be true for a heavier vapor as iron.
    At some temperature and pressure all g/v can be converted back to a liquid and a solid.

    The g/v will be losing energy to the surroundings by EM radiation(IR,microwave,UV depending the temperature) at the same time there will be EMR’s being absorbed from impinging “light”.
    Lets look at kinetic energy -velocity of the molecules of g/v. Each molecule will have a different vector and momentum. Even in a strong wind, the molecules can be and are going off on their merry way with a component of their vector in the direction of the majority of the wind. The combined effect can be some very powerful forces.
    Now it is apparent that on earth with the sun sending light “EMR” which is very directional hitting the molecules in the atmosphere which may be at rest or may be moving as wind. Any collisions of photons with molecules will change the momentum and kinetic energy of the molecule. If the vectors of the photons parallel the vectors of the Air molecules when they collide and are absorbed there is an increase of kinetic energy and momentum. If the vectors are opposite each other there will be a decrease in kinetic energy and momentum of the molecule as a”Whole” but the laws of physics say that each has to be conserved. Therefore either there is an increase energy within the molecule or the energy is reradiated back into space.
    To the best of my knowledge science is not yet able to measure the energy and momentum of a single molecule in the atmosphere, we measure the collective effect which we call”heat” or the temperature of the air.
    Because there are some molecule that are absorbing more EMR and others that radiating EMR. The net effect is that a g/v does not “heat” when they absorb EMR. We also have to account for the fact that all atoms and molecules are radiating IR and other EMR’s according to the fourth power of their absolutely temperature(Kirkoff’s law). This means that the trees and everything else both living and inanimate are both radiating and absorbing EMR.
    This dissertation has not covered the laden heat of all the molecules in the atmosphere which is well covered by The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
    Other source of pertainet information are as follows”
    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
                     
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to

    test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”

    Another important website is www. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3 The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

    Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels
    Posted on June 4, 2013 by Anthony Watts
    NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013

    CARBON DIOXIDE

    There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist.

    Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all.

    This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells.

    This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere

    The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.

    Oxygen_earths_atmosphere_historical CO2_temperature_historical

    It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

    During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period

    From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.

    The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.

    Appendix– A

    Water Absorption Spectrum
    Water and global warming
    Absorption spectra of gaseous, liquid and solid water
    The vibrational spectra of liquid water
    The visible and UV spectra of liquid water
    Water and global warming
    Water is the main absorber of the sunlight in the atmosphere. The 13 million million tons of water in the atmosphere (~0.33% by weight) is responsible for about 70% of all atmospheric absorption of radiation, mainly in the infrared region where water shows strong absorption. It contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect ensuring a warm habitable planet, but operates a negative feedback effect, due to cloud formation reflecting the sunlight away, to attenuate global warming. The water content of the atmosphere varies about 100-fold between the hot and humid tropics and the cold and dry polar ice deserts.
    Absorption spectra of gaseous, liquid and solid water
     
    The water absorption spectrum is very complex. Water’s vapor spectroscopy has been recently reviewed [348]. The water molecule may vibrate in a number of ways. In the gas state, the vibrations [607] involve combinations of symmetric stretch (v1), asymmetric stretch (v3) and bending (v2) of the covalent bonds with absorption intensity (H216O) v1;v2;v3 = 0.07;1.47;1.00 [8]. The stretch vibrations of HD16O refer to the single bond vibrations, not the combined movements of both bonds. Gas phase rotations [1701] are complex and are combined with these vibrations. Rotations in the liquid phase are totally dominated by hydrogen bonding.

    Look up the entire paper by Dr. Martin Chaplin on the Internet.

  27. cleanwater2 says:

    One important add on is that the IPCC “heat” balance cartoon has a fatal error- They do not include the “heat” generated from the earth itself caused by the molten layer of lava at various depths below the surface. With active volcano at the surface and many active volcanoes under the oceans this “heat ” needs to be accounted for. Including this “heat” in the IR radiation from earth shows that there is no need for the imaginary “Greenhouse gas effect”.
    The fact that no one can demonstrate a real “CO2″ sensitivity is another indicator that it does not exist or that it might be a negative based on some tests that have been done and looking at the thermodynamics of CO2 compared to O2 and N2.

  28. Russell says:

    My journey has been similar to yours, albeit somewhat less complex. I’m naturally skeptical of big anything especially big government. CO2 is not the driver of “global warming or climate change; the entire issue is a construct bought and paid for by governments (UN included). It’s ludicrous or any government to claim “climate change” is the greatest threat to mankind.

  29. Ari S. says:

    As Climatologist I find the following paper explaining an interesting theory that could support the “T-CO2″-lag. It shows how the climate change is driven by Interplay between Earth’s Magnetosphere , Sun Activity, Galactic Cosmic Rays and Cloud Condensate Nuclei formation in lower atmosphere.
    http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/1.18.full.pdf+html

  30. Pingback: defund the UN, now … all of it | pindanpost

  31. Arno Arrak says:

    NNo need to invoke the ice age to prove that CO2 is innocent. We are living through a period of no-warming that has lasted for 18 years. There was another such period in the eighties and nineties that was covered up by fake warming through the cooperation of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT. This is a total of 36 years of no-warming since 1988 when IPCC was first established. It amounts to three quarters of the time that IPCC has even existed. But the most important aspect of this no-warming or hiatus-time, is that despite lack of warming atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing. It so happens that the Arrhenius greenhouse theory used by the IPCC requires that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere should warm the air and it didn’t. This invalidates the Arrhenius greenhouse theory. If your theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 18 years you are justified in casting it into the waste basket of history. There ia nice spot for it there, right next to phlogiston, another failed theory of heat. As to the greenhouse effect, clearly it does not work like the IPCC describes it. The correct greenhouse theory is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It has been known since 2007 but was suppressed and kept out of grad students’ hands by IPCC. It predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not warm it. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor, the most important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, establish a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it will start to absorb, just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is re-established. The additional CO2 will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming is possible. The warming thus prevented would have been called greenhouse warming. It does not exist. That is why there has been no warming for 18 years despite constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Since according to IPCC greenhouse warming is also the cause of AGW it follows that AGW itself does not exist either. It is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, invented by over-eager climate workers to support their greenhouse hypothesis. Since IPCC was originally chartered to study human influence on climate and since we have proved that there is none its mission should now be considered complete and it should be closed down.

  32. Doug Proctor says:

    Sorry. Fundamental error. If A then B, if B not necessarily A.

    CO2 is not the only temperature modifying cause. Temps can go down while CO2 goes up brby natural processes. Today the warmists say CO2 is the one and only cause by offside analysis. That’s the crux of the problem.

    The time disconnect is what deserves your attention on the ice core data situation. It still has the A vs B problem of logic however. But at least this particular line could be put to rest.

  33. anng says:

    What’s interesting about the ice-ages is that not only does nobody understand how the earth started warming, but that the only thing they could see for why the earth then has thousands of years of stop-start warming is an increase in co2 by being ‘out-gassed’ by warming seas. The 2 articles quoted below discuss this:-

    (1) http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2707 , 25th June 2010

    Answer to What Ended Last Ice Age May Be Blowing in the Wind, A Chain of Past Natural Events May Hold Lessons for the Future,
    “Scientists still puzzle over how Earth emerged from its last ice age, an event that ushered in a warmer climate and the birth of human civilization. In the geological blink of an eye, ice sheets in the northern hemisphere began to collapse and warming spread quickly to the south. Most scientists say that the trigger, at least initially, was an orbital shift that caused more sunlight to fall across Earth’s northern half. But how did the south catch up so fast?”

    (2) http://phys.org/news/2013-05-ice-ages.html , How the ice ages ended May 01, 2013:-

    “The evidence is strong that ice ages are driven by periodic changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the poles due to cyclic changes in Earth’s rotation and orbit. Yet scientists have been puzzled by evidence that although the timing of ice ages are best explained by changes in sunlight in the northern part of the globe, the warming at the end of ice ages occurred first in the southern hemisphere, with a rise in carbon dioxide levels appearing to be cued from the south.”

    Details about how carbon-dioxide works in one situation won’t tell you how the climate’s going to react to increases in it. The climate is much more complicated and chaotic with multiple feedbacks that can sometimes help to warm and sometimes cool.

    I think the sun has indirect effects on climate from changes in it’s solar wind, magnetism and ultra-violet radiation (Svensmark, Scaffetti). Successful medium-term, seasonal weather forecasters have been using these solar changes for a long time.

    One more interesting piece. University of Southampton has modelled a possible start to the ‘Little Ice Age':-

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2013/nov/13_211.shtml

    New generation of climate models capable of simulating abrupt climate change, 28 Nov 2013

    Notes The ‘Little Ice Age’ cooling event occurred in the pre-industrial era and lasted for more than a century. It was triggered by the following mechanisms and feedbacks of the ocean-atmosphere-sea ice system: 1) sea ice extent east of Greenland increased, thereby reflecting more heat back into space and insulating the atmosphere from the ocean’s heat; 2) a change in the atmospheric circulation (referred to as ‘atmospheric blocking’) led to northerly winds causing further increase of sea ice in the area; and 3) transport of sea-ice by ocean currents led to reduced mixing where deep water normally formed, weakening the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic. These feedbacks were sufficient to simulate the rate of change observed in the geological record.

  34. anng says:

    To follow on from my previous post, the political pressure to reduce emissions is due to fears of ‘runaway global warming’ which is assumed possible due to a warming world having positive feedbacks from both (1) increased carbon dioxide and (2) increased water vapour.
    This is why climatologists such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer emphasis that we don’t understand clouds sufficiently. Spencer and Braswell (2007) pointed out that from data, you cannot infer which is cause or feedback out of simultaneous changes in clouds and surface temperatures. For a good description see http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/30/spencer-on-cloud-feedback/

    For water vapour and runnaway warming standard model see
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor.php
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

  35. Pingback: Toward a new theory of ice-ages XI (Hadley Cells) | Scottish Sceptic

  36. Rud Istvan says:

    I think you have drawn too strong a conclusion. Excluding the past 100 years of anthropogenic contributions from burning fossil fuels, is it quite clear that CO2 has always lagged temperature by on the order of 800 years. See essay Cause and Effect in ebook Blowing Smoke, which debunks several recent efforts to show the opposite.

    Now, about the anthropogenic contribution. It is a GHG. It is rising. It should therefore cause some warming. The two relevant policy questions are: 1. how much, and 2. how fast? The former is the attribution question, the latter is the sensitivity question.
    1. The CMIP5 models were constructed and parameterized under the presumption that warming post 1950 (really from about 1975 to about 2000) was 80% attributable to CO2 (and the other 20 % was other GHG like methane). That is obviously false, because the virtually identical warming from 1925 to 1940 was not so attributed, even by IPCC AR4. Logic fail. Lindzen first pointed this out. Merits much more skeptical attention and discussion. See essay cAGw. Now the pause proves CMIP5 parameterizations based on this attribution hypothesis are erroneous.
    2. All the recent energy budget approaches suggest TCR is 1.3 not about 1.7-1.9, and the ECS is about 1.7 not 3-3.2 as the models and the IPCC would put it. See the new Lewis and Curry paper for the most recent discussion. See essay Sensitive Uncertainty for a more general review, and the previous literature. That is sufficiently slow as to argue for adaptation, especially given the now falsified attribution assumption (‘CO2 as THE control knob’). There is certainly no immediate need for drastic mitigation when some of the past is natural variation, and when the overall trend from GISP2 ice core is slow irregular cooling from the Holocene optimum. Especially using policies like wind and solar that are physically and economically impractical for the grid until (if and when) there is a grid scale energy storage solution to intermittency. See essays Tilting at Windmills, Solar Sunset, and California Dreaming.

    I reiterate a fundamental debating point, if the skeptics ever hope to win the policy debate. Irrespective of details, that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ has been known since Tyndall in 1848. To assert otherwise shows willful scientific ignorance and discredits by association those skeptics who are trying more precisely formulated and irrefutable arguments like those posted above. It allows Obama to claim in his SOTU that the science is settled when it isn’t, and to add those who disagree are Flat Earthers. When someone asserts CO2 could have no effect, you make his second observation true. Don’t do that!

    For a full set of reasoned debating points on both energy and climate, read all the essays. Shale oil potential. Hydrogen economy. Methane hydrate. Biofuels. Nuclear. Especially concerning the C in AGw, there are some pretty amusing debunkings of climate literature/memes that warmunists like to rely on. Polar bears, pikas, extinctions generally. Sudden sea level rise, accelerating SLR. Ocean acidification impact on corals and shellfish. Arctic summer sea ice. Paleoclimate (the Marcott affair). Weather extremes. Inherent GCM limitations. Temperature ‘adjustments’. IPCC ‘disingenuousness’ in AR4 and in AR5. The 1970’s ‘global cooling’ alarm that Holdren was spot in the middle of. A toolkit for those that haven’t had the time or the inclination to dig deep into stuff and emerge with the simple killer argument irrefutable ‘sound bite’.

    • anng says:

      I want to reinforce ruds comment. Carbon dioxide always react to infrared radiaton. What we dont know is how water (in all its forms) and the rest of the atmosphere reacts to this.

      Rgrds
      ann

  37. Pingback: Could CO2 be a cooling gas? | Scottish Sceptic

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>