AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@layman,

Quote:

So if Baldimo is right about the effect of CO2 on heat retention being in doubt, all those farmers could have been wasting a lot of money over all this time. Baldimo should advise them to stop pumping CO2 into their greenhouses' glass walls and see what happens.

The sad truth about such misguided statements is that Thomas doesn't even seem to realize that more CO2 makes plants grow bigger, faster, etc., and THAT is why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses. This could help feed the world.

Thomas treats CO2 as a demon "pollutant" when in fact it is essential for all life on earth.

The suggestion made by Thomas is that merely putting CO2 in the air creates extreme temperature changes. Such egregious misunderstandings are commonly advanced by laymen arguing about the "science" behind climate change. Unfortunately, as I recall, Thomas claims to be a physicist, so such confusions are by no means confined to "laymen."

1 Reply

@layman,

I posted this relatively short, easy to watch and understand, video of a lecture by Dr. Patrick Moore a while back.

As I noted, he is not, and no one has ever accused him of being, a pimp for "big oil." On the contrary, he is a life-long "radical environmental activist," who co-founded, and for 15 years was the chairman of, the largest environmental activist group in the world, "Greenpeace."

He said he had to quit his position when the majority of Greenpeace leaders wanted to promote pseudo-science in the name of activism. I wonder how many of the ideologically dedicated shills for the alarmist IPCC in this thread have listened to a word of it, ya know? My guess is zero.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

http://able2know.org/reply/post-6081517

Scary, eh, kids!?

0 Replies

@layman,

1. I never said otherwise.

2. Technically speaking nothing "retains" heat; the laws of thermodynamics, you know. However we are dealing with how quickly it loses heat when compared to the reapplication of an energy source. The problem with your source is he got the mechanics wrong. What does quickly cool mean? If it doesn't cool to the point it was before the heat was re applied then you will get warming over time. The sun is the energy source. The mechanics are not just IR. When CO2 absorbs IR it vibrates faster. Molecules that vibrate faster show a higher temperature. When CO2 vibrates faster it does 2 things, it gives off IR in all directions so it radiates some of that back toward the earth and it also hits molecules surrounding it causing them to vibrate faster. When CO2 does those things it loses some of the absorbed energy, however if the molecules around it are vibrating faster then the CO2 can't return to it's original state until they return to theirs. Since we know that the laws of thermodynamics are in play, a warmer atmosphere takes longer to cool down by radiating into space. Equilibrium with the power source (sun) has changed. CO2 contributes to it.

Quote:

No one (and that includes the guy I quoted--at least to the extent I quoted him) claimed that C02 does not contribute to warming

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

Quote:

The affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential.

That would certainly be a statement that says CO2 doesn't contribute to warming unless you want to argue that something that has little or no effect still contributes.

1 Reply

@layman,

Could you fit any more straw men into your argument.

Quote:

The sad truth about such misguided statements is that Thomas doesn't even seem to realize that more CO2 makes plants grow bigger, faster, etc

Thomas never commented on how CO2 affects plants.

Quote:

Thomas treats CO2 as a demon "pollutant" when in fact it is essential for all life on earth.

When did Thomas call it a demon "pollutant"?

Quote:

The suggestion made by Thomas is that merely putting CO2 in the air creates extreme temperature changes

Where did he say that? No one claiming CO2 is causing global warming is pointing to any extreme temperature changes. They are pointing to a few degrees.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential.

I notice you left out the very next sentence, which says:

Quote:

Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.

That does not contradict or change anything said about the mechanisms of CO2 "rising" or "retaining heat."

Quote:

That would certainly be a statement that says CO2 doesn't contribute to warming unless you want to argue that something that has little or no effect still contributes.

Of course CO2 "contributes." EVERYBODY agrees with that. But many scientists argue, like the author, that "the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential."
.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The suggestion made by Thomas is that merely putting CO2 in the air creates extreme temperature changes

Quote:

Where did he say that? No one claiming CO2 is causing global warming is pointing to any extreme temperature changes. They are pointing to a few degrees.

You miss the point completely. If you close up a car which is sitting in the sun it will go from 70 degrees to 90 degrees in just 10 minutes. It will raise from 70 to 115 degrees in just one hour. That is the (true) "greenhouse effect" is and THAT is an "extreme temperature change." Thomas was referring to actual greenhouses, not the rough metaphor used by those talking about climate changes. Thomas clearly implied such changes were caused by "pumping in CO2" CO2 does not have that power, and is basically irrelevant to temperature changes in a greenhouse.

Anybody can read what Thomas said and see the clear implications of what he said for themselves.

2 Replies

@layman,

Are you saying that a 30 year period is fleeting? Or are you arguing that the 30 year period is the time it takes for CO2 to cool quickly? The statement about 1950 0 1980 is an attempt to point out that carbon dioxide is inconsequential in heating of the atmosphere. Hmmm....... that seems to support what I said about the author's intent.

Quote:

But many scientists argue, like the author, that "the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential."
.

Why did the author claim it was fleeting and inconsequential? What was his argument in your opinion? Use his words to support your claims.

1 Reply

@layman,

WTF? Thomas said no such thing.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

WTF? Thomas said no such thing.

Heh.

Like I said:

Quote:

Anybody can read what Thomas said and see the clear implications of what he said for themselves.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Why did the author claim it was fleeting and inconsequential? What was his argument in your opinion? Use his words to support your claims.

As I said initially, Parry, you seem totally incapable of distinguishing what is relevant from what isn't. I was addressing Thomas's post and a very particular aspect of it at that.

What this author's opinion is on whether or not there is an easter bunny, or any other topic, does NOT pertain to the issue being discussed.

1 Reply

@layman,

The earth's surface has been warmed by the so-called "greenhouse effect" before humans came along. It was discovered that solar radiation alone doesn't account for the atmosphere's mean temperature. So they went looking for where the extra heat is coming from.

It may be that "greenhouse effect" is a poor choice of words. It's not clear that glass or plastic used in greenhouses is trapping energy in exactly the same way greenhouse gases do.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

It's not clear that glass or plastic used in greenhouses is trapping energy in exactly the same way greenhouse gases do.

Well, actually Tuna, I think it's pretty clear that it isn't the exact same thing. I already quoted an article to that effect.

Did you bother listening to Moore's data and opinions as expressed in the video I posted. I figured that if anyone, out of all the alarmist-inclined posters in this thread (not saying you are one), would take the time it would be you.

Put another way, I posted it because I thought you might be interested. I was pretty sure that none of the dogmatic devout believers would bother.

1 Reply

@layman,

Sure. And anyone can read what the author you quoted wrote and see the clear implications of what he said themselves.

Game, set, match.

Good luck in your future endeavors because you don't do well playing games here.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

As I said initially, Parry, you seem totally incapable of distinguishing what is relevant from what isn't. I was addressing Thomas's post and a very particular aspect of it at that.

Yes, the particular aspect he never said and you simply made up out of thin air.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Yes, the particular aspect he never said and you simply made up out of thin air.

I'm not going to quibble with you or indulge your usual idiosyncratic reading of any particular group of sentences. Once again, anybody who's interested can read what he said, and my comments thereupon, for themselves.

With respect to the ultimate effects of CO2: What is the ultimate, overall, effect? I don't pretend to know. From what I've read, and giving particular stress to what some of the IPCC lead writers themselves say, about the only thing "certain" about climatology in it's current state is the inherent uncertainty of any predictions, cause, effects, etc.

But some highly qualified climatologists argue along these lines, as I understand them:

1. Assume the temperature rises due to some factor in climate variability.
2. Higher temperatures will result in increased water evaporation.
3. Water itself is the primary "greenhouse gas," so that will result in an increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
4. But, at the same time, more clouds will be formed.
5. Cloud have a cooling effect because they reflect solar rays so that some of them never reach earth.
6. This will more than offset the increased greenhouse gas, and, in turn, contribute to temperatures getting lower again.

Everybody and his brother knows that it is cooler on cloudy days than on clear days, all else being equal.

I'm not pretending to resolve the issue. I'm just showing some of the arguments that have been made.

With more CO2, more CO2 will be converted to "biomass" (plant growth), and this will remove some CO2 from circulation indefinitely, so CO2 concentrations may fall again.

2 Replies

@layman,

How nice of you to bring up Lindzen's work from over 15 years ago that has been pretty well debunked. But you seem to always latch on to discarded "science".

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120509/clouds-climate-change-science-richard-lindzen-new-york-times-joel-norris-nasa-global-warming

Perhaps you can bring up another bad argument like how the earth is flat. After all you aren't pretending to resolve the issue.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

How nice of you to bring up Lindzen's work from over 15 years ago that has been pretty well debunked. But you seem to always latch on to discarded "science".

Heh, Parry, I'm not going to try to argue the "correct" science with you. Find some other kneejerk ideologue, like yourself, if that's what you're looking for. I will note, however, your cheap, flimsy, and insubstantial attempt to "settle" what the science is, eh? One guy, from 15 years ago, completely debunked, eh?

Funny, here's what NASA says TODAY:

Quote:

Overall, clouds are thought to cool Earth’s surface by shading about 60 percent of the planet at any one time and by increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere. Given that, just a 5 percent increase in cloud reflectivity could 2compensate for the entire increase in greenhouse gases from the modern industrial era in the global average. Likewise, long-term decreases in cloudiness could have major impacts....Parsing out how clouds—as well as feedback cycles involving clouds—affect regional climate systems remains a high priority for climatologists. Climatologists consider the role of clouds to be the largest single uncertainty in climate prediction.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page4.php

That same article discusses major uncertainties about the effect of aerosols.

Quote:

Current estimates suggest the cooling driven by aerosol indirect effects is less than half as much as the warming caused by greenhouse gases when averaged over the globe. But these indirect effects are highly uncertain and vary considerably in space and time. Less than a third of the models participating in the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included indirect aerosol effects, even in a very limited way, and those considered only sulfate aerosols.

As I said, the only thing certain seems to be uncertainty.

1 Reply

@layman,

Gosh. You seem to completely ignore the published science and instead rely on an article geared toward elementary school students.

Clouds also reflect IR back to the surface as the work of Lin in 2001 showed that increased cloud cover showed an increase in temperature rather than cooling. There is no Iris effect. Since Lindzen's original paper we have launched several satellites and the data points to it not existing. An increase in temperature doesn't increase the cloud cover and cause cooling.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Well, actually Tuna, I think it's pretty clear that it isn't the exact same thing. I already quoted an article to that effect.

Did you bother listening to Moore's data and opinions as expressed in the video I posted. I figured that if anyone, out of all the alarmist-inclined posters in this thread (not saying you are one), would take the time it would be you.

Put another way, I posted it because I thought you might be interested. I was pretty sure that none of the dogmatic devout believers would bother.

I'm not alarmist.

1. Moore objects to people who vigorously overstate what we know. I understand that. The little exposure I've had to Greenpeace members is that they are not at all governed by reason. I believe they see temperance as a threat to their mission. They think the slow, deliberate attitude we expect from an ideal scientist will lead to apathy. Whatever they are, they aren't apathetic. For all their folly, I think we ultimately need people like that. They do make people pay attention and look more closely at the effect we have on our environment.

2. In regard to the present and future of the earth's climate, Moore's statements are a little confused. It is not required that we show that the mean temperature has risen in the last century to prove anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Instead, we try to predict what the temperature would be without the CO2 we have emitted. If it's warmer than that now, then that's a pretty good sign. Surely Moore knows that?

He said we don't have compelling evidence that AGW has the potential to block reglaciation. There are a lot of variables there. The book I recommended earlier, David Archer's The Long Thaw goes into details. Moore doesn't know.

3. It's interesting that a fungus developed that halted the storage of CO2 in the form of coal. If you look at the temperature graphs he displayed, it shows times in history when the earth's climate was hotter than it has been since humans evolved. Could we be threatened by that kind of climate? The answer is: we don't know.

"We don't know" does not translate to "There's no cause for concern."

Agree?

2 Replies

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know