Physicist rebukes New Yorker Mag. for claiming Pope Francis ‘would be a better science point man than Inhofe or Cruz’


By: - Climate DepotNovember 26, 2014 2:55 PM with 129 comments

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist and author of the book “An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity.” Sheahen is the writer of the popular newspaper column “Ask the Everyday Scientist.” Sheahen is featured as one of the more than 1000 dissenting scientists from man-made global warming.

Dr. Tom Sheahen

Dear Editor:

Re: New Yorker Writer: Pope Francis Would Be a Better Science Point Man Than Inhofe or Cruz

One word sums up this article: CONFLATION

The purpose of this article is to slam Senators Inhofe and Cruz, painting them as goofy fundamental creationists. The author selects some words from the Pope in order to buttress his case.

The reality is that Inhofe’s opposition to the alarmists who blame global warming on CO2 is based on fully competent science; and the claimed “international scientific consensus” absolutely does not exist.  Thousands of us with advanced degrees in the hard sciences agree that CO2 is a non-problem, and we are appalled by the EPA’s attempts to overreach, violate the law, and regulate coal out of existence.

Everything about global warming, climate change, and the EPA has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism.  But this author tries to build such an association using the technique of conflation. Alert readers should not fall for that trick.

As for Bobby Jindal ducking a question: that’s standard politics, where you don’t needlessly antagonize some of your constituents. Every successful office-holder does that sort of thing.  Again, this author deliberately constructs his article so as to make Jindal appear to be in opposition to the Pope.

I well remember presidential science adviser Jerome Weisner, president of MIT in my day.  He and colleagues were far better scientists than Obama’s science advisor John Holdren, who is most famous as a co-author with Paul Ehrlich, the “Population Bomb” guru who has been proved wrong, wrong, wrong for decades.  Eisenhower, Kennedy et al. actually wanted advice about science; Obama only wants confirmation of what he already believes in, viz., the evil of coal.

Thomas  P.  Sheahen

 


  • Information_overload

    Probably a good idea to get this letter published in a lot more dead tree “newspapers”.

  • John Marshall

    What a breath of fresh air, thank you Sir.

    • swemson

      It’s impossible to argue with these people because they’re all simply shameless liars… Icarus62 who posts his lies here is a perfect example…

      The problem we face is that the low information voters we need to reach are simply not open to the debate on a scientific level… they’re so far removed from being able to grasp the concepts involved that it’s like trying to explain the meaning of a Shakespearian Sonnet to a sponge. IMHO, the best way to get them to question the crappola they’re being fed is to prove to them, in terms they can understand, that these peoples are indeed LIARS.

      A good example is to show them the following:

      And then show them that the same source, and the same phony scientists were telling them just the opposite story only 30 short years previously:

      I then follow that up by asking them to read an article from Time magazine from 1974, in which the same liars are claiming that the dangerous “Global Cooling” that they were claiming was a threat to life on earth (in the 1970’s) was being cause once again, by our emissions coming from our use of hydrocarbon based fuels.

      http://www.swemson.com/upl/t.74.pdf

      They keep changing their story every 25 to 35 years, but they’ve been telling us this same story since the beginning of recorded human history.

      Nobody has explained it better than H.L. Mencken, who said:

      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

      fs

  • Nice.

  • Zippit

    Co2 up 25% in the past 100 years and the temps where i live, central MN are exactly what they were 100 years ago. I wonder why? Maybe because Co2 is a trace gas? Double it and it is still a trace gas!

    • Actually the number I hear now days is more like 40% .

      But the reason there is no change is not that there are only about 4 molecules per 10k of air , up from about 3 , but that optically its absorption bands are already saturated at 3 . It actually is opaque to IR in its bands within a few hundred meters of the surface . http://cosy.com/Science/BeerLambertslide.jpg .

      There are other reasons too , but that’s sufficient .

      • Icarus62

        Absorption of IR in the atmosphere by CO₂ is not saturated, which is why our additional 120ppm of atmospheric CO₂ contributes nearly 2W/m² to the net climate forcing since the pre-industrial.

        • Zippit

          You and Bob can debate the details. Fact is temps are only up in the urban heat islands. Even world sea ice is very close to the 35 year average. Where is the greenhouse?????????

        • NiCuCo

          And, even if saturation of the peak of the band was happening (and it isn’t), the shoulders would still increase their absorption with increasing CO2 concentrations.

        • Michael Stone

          Don’t let J4z fool you.

        • You must be claiming those little secondary peaks are coming into play for CO2 . Clearly the dominant peaks are shown as saturated in your spectra .

          From the table of energy flux versus temperature at http://climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Essential_Physics#Stefan-Boltzmann_law the 0.8c difference between 288K and 288.8K is about 4.35 W%M^2 . So even you admit that CO2 explains only abut 45% of even that 0.8c change this idiocy against the greening molecule is about .

          • Icarus62

            So when you claimed above that CO₂ was ‘already saturated’ at 300ppm, was that an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to deceive?

          • Icarus62

            But you’re aware that the CO2 forcing is a net effect on outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere, not in the lower troposphere, yes?

      • DavidAppell

        Wrong yet again. CO2 is *not* opaque to IR near the surface. The IR at CO2’s absorption frequencies comes from higher up in the atmosphere, because the atmosphere, having CO2 in it, radiates IR in all directions.

        Kurt Angstrom made this mistake in 1900. But some people don’t know climate history.

        If CO2 *was* saturated, it would not show up in the TOA spectrum taken by satellite:
        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

        • swordfishtrombone

          Mr. Appell (writer), why don’t you try disputing the article written by Dr.
          Sheahen (physicist) which this post is actually about – maybe it’s because you can’t and prefer instead to pick your targets from the general public?

      • DavidAppell

        The graph you posted in also wrong, because CO2’s radiative forcing is not logaritmic at low concentrations. Crap science from WUWT, as always.

    • NiCuCo

      “temps where i live, central MN are exactly what they were 100 years ago”

      Most of the heat is held in the oceans.

      • Zippit

        I’m guessing your point is that a trace gas can’t warm a dense ocean in a mere 100 years. (sarc). Look, our weather comes from air that just traveled over thousands of miles of ocean. If the oceans were warmer, the air would be warmer. And we are not warmer, except in the urban heat island. Also, the world did not start in 1960.

        • NiCuCo

          “If the oceans were warmer, the air would be warmer.”

          It is not that simple.

          “Also, the world did not start in 1960.”

          Those measurements did.

          • Zippit

            Ok…its not that simple. But the burden of proof is on the person with the unproven theory and so far the greenhouse gas warming theory isn’t panning out too well. Maybe it causes an almost immeasurable warming. That’s about it. We were told 20 years ago how this terrible warming is going to cause all this harm (within 20 years) and it hasn’t happened. I visited with an ag expert the other day and he told me the reason grain prices are down is the world weather has been absolutely great over the past year. But doom and gloom sold a lot of newspapers.

          • planet8788

            Actually it was 25 years ago we were told that the world would end in 20 years.

          • planet8788

            It’s only “not that simple” when the surface temps stopped rising and you had to look for an excuse why?

      • planet8788

        Why is it staying there? How accurately can you measure it (not very?)

    • DavidAppell

      Zippit: Minnesota has warmed. You can look for temperature stations here:

      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html

      The one for Minneapolis/St Paul show about 4 F of warming since 1890.
      Pine River Damn, MN shows about 3 F of warming since 1893.

      Memories aren’t reliable. Anecdotes isn’t the plural of datum.

      • Zippit

        Sorry, I live here and you are wrong!! Did you know that Mpls temp records were taken downtown till the 40’s? Then taken at the airport, which saw a few planes an hour land. Now that airport sees a plane land every 30 seconds, burning hot gases out it’s tail. Not to mention that our metro area is now 3 million. 100 years ago it was maybe 100K. I don’t know about Pine River but I do know about St Cloud, MN which is the only in state college where a meteorology degree can be earned. They keep good records. And the most recent “hot HOT SUPER HOTTT” years were no warmer than the first 25 years of the previous century, starting in 1901. Eat your hat right here, see for yourself: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/raweisman/climate/tempmonth.html. As the late John Daly said and proved, there is no warming in the rural reporting stations…WORLDWIDE!

        • DavidAppell

          The data are wrong and you’re right? Sure, sure……….

          How many airplanes are burning jet fuel at Pine River Dam? Huge increases in population there? Its UHI?

          A table of data for St Cloud shows nothing. Let’s see you calculate its trend.

          • Zippit

            I don’t know if temp changes mean anything at the Pine River Dam. There are more open fields there now than 100 years ago, (more exposed black dirt). And more people now, (more blacktop). Here is a temp graph of the past 30 years from a buoy in the Pacific ocean off the coast of San Francisco. It shows a clear cooling trend. Is the data wrong and you are right? Sure sure… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/28/buoy-temperatures-first-cut/

          • DavidAppell

            You seem to think that one cooling trend anywhere in the world disproves AGW. It doesn’t, and it never will. There will always be places (though none you’ve suggested) that will warm less than the expected global average, or even cool slightly. Thinking otherwise is misunderstanding what climate change is.

          • Zippit

            There is no climate change. World sea ice is very close to the average since they first measured the ice by satellite. (The arctic has melted before – the 1920s and 30s as reported by National Geographic and came back)The late John Daly proved years ago that there is no change in average temps in the rural reporting stations worldwide. We were told by Al Gore and his acolytes that hurricanes would be more powerful and more frequent and the opposite has happened. We appear to be in a cooling trend now, with less sunspot activity and the Pacific ocean flipping to a 30 year cold cycle. The left and Big brother tries to counter, (in a power grab maybe)? but they have been shown to have doctored the records, adjusted them when adjustment was not needed and outright falsified in some cases – ever heard of the East Anglia scandal? Look, if you think you are a better debater than me and want to continue promoting the hoax on a larger scale, why don’t you debate the experts on wattsupwiththat.com. Submit your study that proves a trace gas controls much of our weather and climate. Good luck with that one!!!!

          • DavidAppell

            Zippit wrote:
            “There is no climate change.”

            You are delusional.
            I am not going to waste my time trying to correct someone who cannot see.

          • Zippit

            World sea ice is at the historical average right now. Check both oceans at link below and do the math. No, I don’t see the pink elephant on your shoulder. sorry. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

          • DavidAppell

            “World sea ice is at the historical average right now.”

            Prove it. WIth actual data.

          • Zippit

            I just did in my previous post. It’s raw data 36 hours old. You have to do the math yourself and apply the appropriate spin. LOL

          • Zippit

            Where did you go chicken? Your internet service freeze due to the cold? Admit it, I showed you proof that world sea ice was at a long term average and you were totally blown away. Your sources told you otherwise. Your sources mislead you.

          • DavidAppell

            Sea isn’t at its long-term average. Nor would disprove AGW if it was. So what’s your point?

          • Zippit

            Dear David, are you furloughed for the weekend? 🙂 World sea ice is now above the long term average. I gave you the link. It is updated every day. New cooling story today – fall snow cover in the northern hemisphere is the the highest on record. But your global warming buddies told us snow would be a thing of the past. Better get up to speed pal..we are now cooling. 3rd warmest November my butt. The snow cover tells a different story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/04/fall-snow-cover-in-northern-hemisphere-was-most-extensive-on-record-even-with-temperatures-at-high-mark/

          • DavidAppell

            Sea ice is definitely NOT above the long-term average. Not at all.

            Ice is measured by volume, not by extent. When you buy ice at the store, is it by the pound or by the square-foot?

            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • Zippit

            You didn’t see the story on antarctic ice 2 weeks ago where it was discovered that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica was much MUCH MUCH thicker than previously thought? Get up to speed David. Your text book is fixed. Reality has over taken the hoaxers! There is no climate change pal. Zip!

          • DavidAppell

            You are still confusing sea ice extent with sea ice volume. Ice isn’t measured by area, it’s measured by its volume.

            “West Antarctic melt rate has tripled: UC Irvine-NASA, Irvine, Calif., Dec. 2, 2014
            http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/west-antarctic-melt-rate-has-tripled-uc-irvine-nasa/

          • Zippit

            David, there is so much they don’t know and to claim Antarctic ice is melting is pure silliness. It hasn’t warmed up there, so why would it melt? A new record low satellite temp was set there just a couple years ago of about 133 degrees F below zero. The peninsula where warming has occurred, it was discovered that it is melting from below from volcanic heat. And just last month a new study showed the ice much MUCH thicker than previously thought. Link here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/24/antarctic-ice-thicker-survey-finds

          • DavidAppell

            Where is the data showing Antarctica hasn’t warmed?

          • Zippit

            Oh I don’t know…maybe record high ice surrounding the continent? LOL

          • DavidAppell

            Again: Where is the data showing Antarctica hasn’t warmed?

          • DavidAppell

            “Melting Rate Of West Antarctic Glaciers Tripled, Study Reveals,” 12/7/14
            http://www.capitalwired.com/melting-rate-of-west-antarctic-glaciers-tripled-study-reveals/27140/

          • DavidAppell

            You don’t *have* any such data, do you?

          • Zippit

            David, it is called deductive logic. Give it a try. As for data, you buy into all extremist data but discount opposing data. Tell me, do you really think Al Gore is an honest broker on this subject? Have you checked into his energy usage data and his the failure of his weather/climate predictions?…and his growing wealth derived from un based fear mongering?

          • DavidAppell

            This page has 36 years of data on lower tropospheric temperatures, by region.
            http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

            For South Pole land, these data say it has warmed by 0.6 C in the last 15 years — much more than the globe as a whole.

          • Zippit

            David, I’m almost 56 years old and clearly recall the global warming scare of the 1970’s. So you are saying that an Earth that is 4 billion years old can change temp and climate direction in a span that is half the years that I have been alive on this planet? You make me laugh my ass off. Did you ever take a geology course? Did you not know that man’s lifespan is not even a blink of the eye in geologic and climate times?? Still snow on the ground here where I live..how about you? Are you outside tonight enjoying the warming climate..maybe in shorts? LOL

          • DavidAppell

            Why are you measuring sea ice by its extert or area. Ice is 3-dimensional — it has volume. Here are the volume numbers:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-fast-is-planet-losing-ice.html

          • DavidAppell

            It’s hilarious how you reject the data that shows the third warmest November, but uncritically accept the snow cover data.

            This shows you are intellectually dishonest, and have no integrity.

          • Zippit

            It’s hilarious that you think a trace gas controls our weather/climate. The 3rd warmest November ever? Ha ha ha ha. The satellite records don’t even go back half my lifetime. And the land based temps are completely corrupted by the urban heat island. But the sky is falling, so send money to Washington DC and the U.N.!!!

          • DavidAppell

            Ozone is much, much more of a trace gas than CO2 — about 0.6 ppm. Without it you’d be dead. Explain.

          • Zippit

            Ozone doesn’t control temp. diff subject. And it ebbs and flows on the poles due to natural cycles

          • DavidAppell

            Ozone stops UV light. It’s much, much more of a “trace gas” than CO2. Yet it is of vital importance. Explain.

          • Zippit

            Sea ice is at it’s long term average. But agreed that nothing changes the view of the global warming zealot because it is a religion. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

          • DavidAppell

            Why are you ignoring the fact that ice has volume, not just area?

          • Zippit

            I just gave you a link that shows that the ice is much thicker than we thought – says a very recent study using new tech. . If Greenland and Antarctica were melting we would see it in ocean levels and we are not seeing it. Its currently almost summer in the Antarctic and Vostok is 34 below and Dome A is 44 below. ice melts at 32 above.

          • DavidAppell

            Ocean levels are rising at 3.2 mm/yr, about half of that due to the melting of land ice.

            Do you need recent studies on the subject? They’re listed here:
            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-fast-is-planet-losing-ice.html

          • DavidAppell

            Do you realize what a miniscule portion of Antarctic sea ice this group observed??

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/24/antarctic-ice-thicker-survey-finds

            A half a square-kilometer. Do you know how much Antarctic sea ice there is?

          • DavidAppell

            By the way, discovering the ice is thicker than thought says NOTHING about its melt rate. If it’s thicker it’s always been thicker; it didn’t just suddenly get thicker because this group found that it was. It isn’t necessarily getting thicker — it’s always been thicker.

          • Zippit

            If it was melting then sea levels would be rising. There are more than enough studies to put doubt to the speculation that ocean levels are rising – Link follows but I just want to add that you and I differ on who we trust. I don’t trust government burrow rats and others who get government funding or a gov paycheck. Their climate numbers and slant is as phony as our governments labor stats. Did you also believe Obama when he told you your families insurance premiums would drop $2,500? All climate events of the past 125 years easily fit into natural variability except for maybe the large amount of glaciers than melted in the 1920s., long before we had thousands of coal fired power plants spewing co2 and we had few cars. http://iceagenow.info/category/sea-levels-are-falling-not-rising/

          • DavidAppell

            Sea level is definitely rising. Here is the data:

            http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

          • Zippit

            I looked at your link and the top graph showed a rocket trend line to the moon! But the graph below it did not – Totally flat. Which graph should I get hysterical over? LOL

          • DavidAppell

            Your iceagenow.info page contains just opinions, not peer-reviewed studies. I trust peer-reviewed studies. I don’t trust a bunch of amateurs, cranks, and deniers who can’t even get published with a legitimate publication.

            You’ll have to do better than that.

          • DavidAppell

            “Their climate numbers and slant is as phony as our governments labor stats.”

            You’ve done it again — you say data you don’t like are slanted, but are happy to point to data when you think it says what you want (thicker Antarctic ice, for example.

            You, sir, are just plain dishonest.

          • Zippit

            Really? I’m dishonest? Have a look at zerohedge.com. And shadowstats.com. Government thrives on misleading the taxpayer. But if you are a deadbeat…no problem…carry on….

          • DavidAppell
          • Zippit

            The graph shows arctic ice, which has declined. Note the starting date is at the end of the cold 1970’s. Antarctic ice has hit record high levels the past several years. Isn’t Antarctica part of the globe?

          • DavidAppell

            Show me the data that says Antarctic ice has hit record highs. I’m sure you can’t.

          • Zippit
          • DavidAppell

            I said “ice.” Ice isn’t measured by area, it’s measured by volume. Where is the volume data????

          • DavidAppell

            Like many others, I have tried to debate on WUWT. Like all such people, I am banned.

            PS: The writers of WUWT are hardly “experts.” They are amateurs, and not even playing a very good game.

          • Zippit

            Funny. I have been banned on websites too…but not that one. Check out my link. Why is world sea ice not showing any change? Because there isn’t any. There are cycles though.

          • DavidAppell

            What link?

            When I download the polar sea ice data from NSIDC, I find that global sea ice is declining at a long-term trend of -23,500 km2/yr.

            What do you find?

          • Zippit

            I will give you the link again below. As of 2 days ago, Arctic ice was 674,000 sq kilometers BELOW the long term median. And Antarctic ice is 668,000 Sq kilometers ABOVE the long term median. Not more than a large Nevada county away in size from the long term average. (if you get my post Sunday during the day the numbers may change slightly. Those numbers are for 11/28/14). And it was above average 2 months ago. (click on the graph that show recent ice cover. It is at the top for the arctic. And below left for the Antarctic, once you are on the page. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

          • NiCuCo

            The time of year (even at six months out of phase) makes a big difference in the comparisons.
            http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaIceArea/

          • Zippit

            I think time will tell that the ice cover is cyclical. We already know that the Arctic melted significantly in the 1920s and 30s and it came back. It will again.

          • NiCuCo

            I hope you are right, Zippit.

            This graph does not give me hope. Note that the data go only to 2000.

          • Zippit

            That graph is a total fraud. It shows that arctic ice cover is almost 3 million square kilometers below the average. Its actually only 600,000 below average as of yesterday and the Antarctic is way above average. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

          • NiCuCo

            Another one..

          • Zippit

            More fraud. When you see deviations to that extent you should know you are being played. Did you know only 7,000 years there was a warm period called the hypsithermal? And trees grew where today there is only tundra? Lake Michigan was 200 feet lower.

          • NiCuCo

            “Did you know only 7,000 years there was a warm period called the
            hypsithermal? And trees grew where today there is only tundra? Lake
            Michigan was 200 feet lower.”

            They only say that to get grant money.

            Why is is that you believe what the climate scientist say about the past, but not about today?

            “This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period[citation needed].

            “The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time. There does seem to have been the predicted southward shift in the global band of thunderstorms called the Intertropical convergence zone.

            “While there do not appear to have been significant temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported. These include significantly wetter conditions in Africa, Australia and Japan, and desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States. Areas around the Amazon in South America show temperature increases and drier conditions.”

          • Zippit

            You can’t be serious to imply that all climate scientists think man is causing the Earths temps to rise. Below is a wiki link listing some of the opposition. Let me ask you, why are you not a bit ticked off that those graphs you posted are so inaccurate? Obviously someone is trying to mislead. I gave you the link to current sea ice cover which proves that those graphs you posted are total BS! No comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

          • NiCuCo

            “You can’t be serious to imply that all climate scientists”

            The vast majority of them are not climate scientists.

          • Zippit

            Tell me how a trace gas can change the climate. Tell me how the doubling of a trace gas can change the climate. an additional one part per 10,000 has that much power? when water vapor is a thousand times more powerful! Our plantet has 310 million cubic miles of ocean water. Tell me how mankind could heat that ocean up if we wanted to. Tell me how we could melt all the Antarctic ice, if we wanted to. We can’t. The climate isn’t changing. We were told 20 years ago about what was coming and it didn’t happen. We now have less hurricanes, less tornados and cooling temps. All unexpected…apparently. But you do have that urban heat island. I live 8 miles for city center, in a mostly rural area and my temp is often 8 degrees cooler than the official city temp. But I should be concerned about a one degree change??!! Ha ha ha. I’m old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 70’s. Same people now telling us it is warming. James Hanson for one.

        • DavidAppell

          I plugged the St Cloud MN data into one of my spreadsheets. It shows
          0.7 F of warming since 1881. About half the global change since then (1.4 F), but nothing unexpected or that disproves AGW. For the last three decades, St Cloud MN has warmed by 1.1 F/decade — significantly faster than the global average.

          • Zippit

            I stated that the past 25 years were the same temp as the first 25 years of the previous century in St. Cloud, MN. Do the math yourself. If the temps are the same, and they are, where is the greenhouse? Where is the crisis? The records start in 1881. The first 17 years of records show a cold period. I didn’t start with a cold period. Why should I? But I did compare the first set of 25 years to most recent 25 years which are alleged to be so hot. They were not hot. There is NOBODY claiming that a sudden warm up from the 1880s to 20 years later, was caused by man. There were virtually no cars and virtually no coal fired power plants at the time. But there is evidence that low sun activity was the cause of the cold around 1880. About 50 years after the Dalton minimum came another, around 1880, not as deep a dip on the following graph, and unnamed on this graph, but still appears to be the likely cause or at least part of the cause.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png.

          • DavidAppell

            St Cloud MN shows +4 F of warming over its entire record. That’s statistically significant, too.

            What makes you think that one 25-yr period at St Cloud, MN compared to another 25-yr period means anything for a global phenomenon. It doesn’t.

            “There is NOBODY claiming that a sudden warm up from the 1880s to 20 years later, was caused by man.”

            Says who? By 1910 humans had already emitted about 220 billion tonnes of CO2. The first 50 years of the last century also saw a increase in solar irradiance of about 0.8 W/m2.

            On the other hand, solar irradiance has been slowly but steadily dropping since about 1960. GHGs have exploded. And we’re seeing warming — a lot of it over that time period. The sun can’t explain it? What does, if not GHGs?

          • Zippit

            The St Cloud records show no such thing. In fact up until 5 years ago they showed a cooling trend!!! Until the 30 year average dropped the 1970s and added the 2000s. A mere 3,000 years ago the Glacier Park glaciers didn’t even exist. 3,000 years is a blink of the eye in geologic time, but hysterians like you want to tell us that man can alter Earths temp within a human lifespan. BS!!! You can believe that fairlytale if you would like but I’m not buying. Mankind could not warm the ocean or melt the antarctic ice if we wanted to. It takes a great deal of our energy just to warm the small volume of our tiny houses in any given winter. Compare that to trying to heat 310 million cubic miles of ocean water, (and without warmer oceans there is no warmer air). Good luck with that!

          • DavidAppell

            Zippit wrote;
            “The St Cloud records show no such thing.”

            Download the data and calculate it for yourself. What do you find for it trend from the beginning to now?

          • Zippit

            I don’t have to. The St. Cloud record keeper has done that for me. and it is up 7 tenths. But the records started in a cold period. And 7 tenths easily fits in with natural variation

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, you do have to calculate for yourself. That’s what grown-ups do.

          • DavidAppell

            “But the records started in a cold period. And 7 tenths easily fits in with natural variation.”

            Prove it. With data. For just once here, prove something. Anything.
            Can you calculate at all?

          • Zippit

            David…u are going to blow a gasket. The St. Cloud data shows the most recent 30 year average was 42.9. And the historic average, which is from 1881 to 2004 was 42.2. Showing A rise of 7 tenths. well within a natural variation. And 100 years ago our population was 5% of what it is now, which means less urban heat island effect 100 years ago compared to now. FYI I live in a sparsely populated far west side of St Cloud and I can tell you from experience it is often 8 degrees warmer in the city center then where I live. So it is not out the realm of possibility that we have cooled and the urban heat island skewed the temp the other way.

          • Zippit

            You are not aware that the U.S had a warm period before the 60s and 70’s and then a cool period in the 60s and 70s, and then warmer after that? The natural variation in temps could easily be 7 tenths. And now we have had 18 years of flat temps. Crisis???? Greenhouse? Where???

          • DavidAppell

            Where did the St Cloud recordkeeper say the warming has been 0.7 F?

          • Zippit

            You are all worked up my an imperceptible 7 tenths of a degree. Are you at all worked up by an 18 trillion dollar national debt, 58 million people not working, 46 million on food assistance and falling incomes??? And the lie that we could keep our health insurance? I lost mine!

          • DavidAppell

            Zippit wrote:
            “The St Cloud records show no such thing. In fact up until 5 years ago they showed a cooling trend!!!”

            My calculations show St Cloud’s trend turned positive in 2006, and has remained so.

          • DavidAppell

            “A mere 3,000 years ago the Glacier Park glaciers didn’t even exist.”

            So what? We don’t live then, we live now.

          • Zippit

            It shows that glaciers come and go in fairly short periods of time without man’s influence.

          • DavidAppell

            “3,000 years is a blink of the eye in geologic time, but hysterians like you want to tell us that man can alter Earths temp within a human lifespan.”

            Yes, we certainly do. That’s exactly why climate change is such a serious topic.

          • Zippit

            It’s not a serious topic except for those that want government grants or want more power concentrated in Washington DC. Polls have shown that global warming or climate change is of no concern. Doesn’t even make the top ten.

          • DavidAppell

            “You can believe that fairlytale if you would like but I’m not buying.”

            I don’t believe in fairy tales, but I believe in science. And the science is showing significant change in a short amount of time, with more to come, which is very concerning.

          • DavidAppell

            “You can believe that fairlytale if you would like but I’m not buying. Mankind could not warm the ocean or melt the antarctic ice if we wanted to.”

            I note that you have offerred no science or data to support this assertion — it seems to be one of faith only. And faith is not very reliable or scientific.

          • DavidAppell

            “It takes a great deal of our energy just to warm the small volume of our tiny houses in any given winter. ”

            Why don’t you compare for us the heat needed to warm your tiny house, to the heat being put into the ocean. The latter is measured to be ~ 9 zettajoules/yr, or 295 terrawatts.

          • Zippit

            How much energy would it take to raise 310 million cubic miles of ocean one degree? More than we have!!! I heard a nasa scientist on the radio and he said we could not melt the antarctic ice even if we detonated every nuke bomb in the world all at once over the Antarctic.

          • DavidAppell

            Have you noticed how rarely (if ever) you provide actual data, let along links to it?

          • Zippit

            Do I need to provide a link that proves that there were large glaciers covering Minnesota Michigan and New York state 15,000 years ago? Isn’t global cooling a much more fearsome enemy than warming? And yet mankind survived that ice age.

          • NiCuCo

            “And yet mankind survived that ice age.”

            Not in Chicago.

          • Zippit

            Apparently Chicago has always been a dangerous place to live. LOL

  • NiCuCo

    “Thousands of us with advanced degrees in the hard sciences”

    We are supposed to believe a small minority of those with advanced degrees in the hard sciences (very few of which are climate scientists), but not the vast majority of climate scientists because they represent a consensus and “Thousands of us with advanced degrees in the hard sciences” do not?

    • wrburton

      The so called “consensus” was based on a survey sent to over 10,000 scientists…. Only 77 responded. Of those only 41% actually s,aid they believed in SOME man made contribution to climate change.

      • NiCuCo

        That was, indeed, a mediocre study.

        This study is much better:
        “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

        “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
        http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

        • JHG

          Really? Much better? It has been destroyed for all kinds of statistical foolishness on Climate Audit. Just read here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/24/undercooked-statistics/
          It is so tiring to have to constantly direct true believers to such easily discoverable sites.

          • NiCuCo

            Her e is a reply to Tol’s paper

            “Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: a Re-analysis'”

            “Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: a Re-analysis'”
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2014_Reply_Tol.pdf

          • MrFendster

            LOL … Skepticalscience is trashtalk. Next you’ll be quote Lewandowsky as an authority.

          • NiCuCo

            “Skepticalscience is trashtalk.”

            Oh, the irony.

          • MrFendster

            You confirm my assertion.

        • WestHoustonGeo

          That’s the one where reviewers talked among themselves, thus violating protocol and looked up the authors’ names thus violating protocol, is it not?
          Add to that the reviewers were chosen from a pool of AGW “believers” instead of unbiased individuals.

          • NiCuCo

            Not violating protocol, they were doing the research, not the peer review of the article during publication.

            They are scientists. Of course they understand science.

        • planet8788

          Why would scientific papers on a single topic extrapolate it out into something broader. The 37% is easily explained by funding sources.

  • planet8788

    Obama doesn’t believe in the evil of coal… he believes in the evil of the USA and is trying to destroy it.

  • cleanwater2

    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.

    Intro:The
    Hypothesis of the greenhouse gas effect has not been proven by
    “credible scientific experiments” It has be demonstrated
    that adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools the atmosphere.
    There are no experiments that show that reducing the CO2 in the
    atmosphere will cool the atmosphere.
    The supposed energy balance
    used by the IPCC is badly flawed because it does not include the
    energy from the molten lava within the planet. Because of this flaw
    there is no need for a mythical “heating effect” called the
    Greenhouse gas effect. The earth is warmed by incoming EMR from the
    Sun and the heating caused by the molten lava which heats the earth
    and the oceans from below. The water cycle while very turbulent
    accounts for weather and the climate along with changes in earths
    orbit and tipping of the earths axis.
    Here is an experiment that
    shows that the Hypothesis of the Greenhouse gas effect aka Mann-made
    global warming is a bad Rumor.

    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.

    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 electromagnetic
    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?

  • cleanwater2

    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 20 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.

  • cleanwater2

    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.

  • cleanwater2

    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.

    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.

    Engineering
    is applied science.

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

  • cleanwater2

    Part 5:

    References

    ‘NASA in Shock New Controversy:
    Two Global Warming Reasons Why,’ John O’Sullivan, (May 27th
    2010) Climate Realists: _ hyperlink “http://climaterealists.com/5783”
    n _blank__http://climaterealists.com/5783_

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://climaterealists.com/5783”
    n

    Climate
    Realists Article

    http://climaterealists.com/5783

    ALAN SIDDONS
    HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN
    NASA

    NASA
    in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John
    O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists

    Thursday,
    May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT

    Co2sceptic
    (Site Admin)

    NASA
    covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was
    bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on
    Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

    As per my
    article
    this week,
    forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such
    thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers
    supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional
    universe:

    “During
    lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and
    transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm
    thick….in
    contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple
    black body,
    the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the
    surface, thus
    warming it up significantly over the black body
    approximation…”

    Thus,
    the ‘blackbody approximations’ were proven to be as useful as a
    chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann
    equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long
    ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers
    were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would
    have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research;
    because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to
    support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed
    Earth’s climate.

    But, until May 24, 2010 these facts
    remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had
    successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the
    Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But
    no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this
    day, insist their junk science is ‘settled’ based on their bogus
    ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
    NASA’s
    Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

    But
    it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting
    more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world
    government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s
    actual energy budget.

    Thanks to further discussion with
    scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A
    Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’
    it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the
    U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed
    greenhouse gas “backradiation.” Why would this be?

    In
    its graphic representation of the energy
    budget of the Earth the
    agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of
    back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth’s radiation
    budget.

    As Siddons sagely advised me, “This opens the
    question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one
    you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70
    units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some
    ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting.”

    Climate
    Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence

    Thanks
    to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’
    the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas
    theory (GHG) was junk all along.

    As the truth now spreads, an
    increasing number of scientists refute
    the greenhouse gas theory,
    many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the
    Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a
    clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the
    decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all
    along.

    But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that
    behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as
    to say the entire global warming theory contravenes
    the established laws of physics.

    How
    NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how
    politicized the American space agency really
    is.

    ##############################################################

    Short
    bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several
    years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in
    both the US and Britain. Visit his Website:
    http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan

    _’Falsification of the
    Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics’,
    Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner (Version 4 2009), Electronic
    version of an article published as International Journal of Modern
    Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364, DOI No:
    10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World:_ hyperlink
    “http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb”__http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb_

    Readers are advised to search and read
    the Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA (March 2009) that shows that CO2
    does not cause global warming. http://www.carlineconomics.com/

    ‘Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates
    Fundamentals of Physics’ by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme

    R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough
    and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge
    UL shelf mark p: 340.1.c.95

    ‘The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse
    Theory’, Alan Siddons (March 2010), American Thinker.

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://www.americanthinker.com/alan_siddons/”__from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
    at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST _:___

    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the
    Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1
    million “scientist, 10 Million politicians and 20 Million
    _environmental whachos-that don’t know that “the Second law of
    thermodynamics is an absolute law of physics.

  • cleanwater2

    Part 6:

    University of Pennsylvania Law School_

    ILE

    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND
    ECONOMICS

    A Joint Research Center of the Law
    School, the Wharton School,

    and the Department of Economics in the
    School of Arts and Sciences

    at the University of Pennsylvania

    Jason Scott Johnston,’ Global
    Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’, (May 2010) RESEARCH
    PAPER NO. 10-08, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA (This paper can be
    downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network
    Electronic Paper Collection:_ hyperlink
    “http://ssrn/”__http://ssrn_).

    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv
    declared: “There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th
    century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming.” link to this
    paper on climate depot.

    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the
    Greenhouse Gas Theory (2010), available on Amazon.com

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://www.americanthinker.com/”__www.americanthinker.com_

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://www.americanthinker.com/”__Ponder
    the Maunder “

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://wwwclimatedepot.com/”__wwwclimatedepot.com_

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://icecap.us/”__icecap.us_

    _ Hyperlink
    “http://www.stratus-sphere.com/”__www.stratus-sphere.com_

    Science
    and Public Policy Institute
    (SPPI)

    Hyperlink
    “http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

    Hyperlink: Anthony Watt’s
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-41/

    Many others references are available.

    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 credible
    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.

    Addendum: Water Structure and Science http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html