Saturday, November 28, 2020
Home Left Column Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is 'going to be...

Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’

-

Excerpted from: http://www.capjournal.com/news/glacier-scientist-global-warming-is-good-not-bad/article_aa90050a-8cb6-11e4-9e64-1728d2da4389.html

Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:21 pm

‘The way to answer the question of whether human activity is driving climate change isn’t with a “yes” or “no.” Dr. Hughes prefers to answer: “It doesn’t matter.” It doesn’t matter, Hughes said, because global warming is good – far preferable than global cooling.’

As a glaciologist, or one who studies glaciers, Dr. Hughes didn’t need to be convinced that climate change is real. “I never doubted it for an instant. The Earth has not always been like this,” Hughes said. Hughes even agrees that human activity probably have something to do with it. “It may have given it a nudge,” Hughes said. “But there are so many natural events that swamp that out, for example, the eruption of Vesuvius, or Krakatoa. The industrial revolution was more gradual, over decades.”

Hughes says a number of his colleagues at places such as NASA and the University of Maine “have urged me to march in lockstep with Albert Gore, the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster.”

“It’s human nature for them to pound the panic drum,” said Hughes, but added he isn’t convinced global warming won’t be as bad as feared. “In fact, it’s going to be a big plus, in the balance.” — More atmospheric CO2 would greatly increase agricultural production.

Hughes, in an as-yet-unpublished academic paper, argues that the other frightening alternative to global warming is global cooling.

“We know that endgame: A sheet of ice thousands of feet thick from south of the Great Lakes across the North Pole almost to the Mediterranean Sea, the situation only 18,000 years ago,” Hughes wrote. “Why is that scenario never stated? Would reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide trigger that calamity?”

#

Excerpted from ‘The College Fix’:

But Hughes – who believes global warming is actually a good thing because more carbon dioxide is good for the environment in many ways – said he does not want to march to that beat.

“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” he said.

Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”

But what he wants people to understand is that climate change researchers and politicians collude to create fear of a disaster that will never happen.

“You will never read or hear any of this from the scientific and political establishments,” he said. “I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”

Related Links: 

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore – Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page ‘Consensus Buster’ Report

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

 

 

 

 

116 COMMENTS

  1. I have posted this comment umpteen times on this web-site since about 2009 and only now are the supposed scientist beginning to realize that there is a loot wrong with the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect- it has never been proven to exist by credible scientific experiments.
    Fourier in 1824 and many others have looked at the Earth as a theoretical black body and fantasized that it should be 33 degrees warming , thus they created a Hypotheses of the GHGE. Well no one has been able verify any of the supposed features the Hypotheses.The below reference has given a very meaningful analysis of why the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. I have done an experiment based on Gerlich and Tscheuschner and many other scientists that confirm that the IPCC and Al Gore are liars and should be in jail as environmental terrorist, not getting trillions of dollars to correct a problem that does not exist.
    The major flaw in ever IPCC energy balance is they do not include the internal “heating” of the planet caused by the layer of molten lava below the crust which “heats” the surface and warms the oceans from the bottom while the Sun warms the surface from above and the water cycle keeps everything cool so man can live on this planet. There is no need to invent a factious unprovable concept as the GHGE.

    ’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_

    • Thought I’d repost the funny bits….

      ” I have done an experiment based on Gerlich and Tscheuschner and many other scientists that confirm that the IPCC and Al Gore are liars and should be in jail as environmental terrorist, not getting trillions of dollars to correct a problem that does not exist.
      The major flaw in every IPCC energy balance is they do not include the internal “heating” of the planet caused by the layer of molten lava below the crust which “heats” the surface and warms the oceans from the bottom while the Sun warms the surface from above and the water cycle keeps everything cool so man can live on this planet. There is no need to invent a factious unprovable concept as the GHGE.”

      • Right! Magical undersea volcanoes are warming the planet! That’s why the ocean is so hot:

        “Deep ocean water has a very low temperature, typically from 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F)”

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ocean_water

        /s

        I’ve seen Mr. Water before. He’s very creative.

    • “The more I look at the science establishment, the more ashamed I am.”

      lol! You’re ashamed for believing pseudoscience like one might find at Climate Depot?

      …that’s understandable…

      Try not believing it for once!

  2. The purpose of the following is to explain why “When a gas absorbs
    IR or any other form of Electromagnetic radiation the gas does
    not “heat”.
    To start with here is a bit of philosophic thought.

    Scientists and engineers always simplify the world to try to come up with a
    “correct equation” to explain some phenomena. They want
    things to be in “equilibrium or “steady state”. They
    choose to ignore what appears to be small items- setting them to
    Zero.
    The only condition when this can be “true” which never exists is
    if all the mass and energy in the known and unknown universe
    became “ZERO”. Even at any temperature or the presents of
    mater there is some form of energy being exchanged, thus no
    equilibrium, no steady state.

    Section
    1-Absorption of EMR by a solid

    In the last 200 years of science and engineering there have been
    billions if not trillions of experiments and industrial applications where electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has been used to “heat” solids.

    The examples would fill 100’s of thousands of books, from using IR
    to dry paint on cars to melting metals to purify ingots, to cooking food with microwaves etc.
    So what is happening when the EMR impacts a solid. A knowledge of
    quantum physics which began before the turn of the last century
    gives us the answer when carefully examined.
    The photons in EMR have momentum and velocity thus any events related to
    them must follow the laws of physics related to conservation of
    energy and momentum. When the EMR approach the surface they will
    in-counter a lot of voids and some mass that makes up the
    material. When the photons strikes the nuclei energy is
    transmitted to it along with momentum. Because there are many
    photons striking the surface aka the molecules of the solid
    action occurs in the molecule , it causes components of the
    molecule to vibrate with more amplitude or in different
    directions ( see appendix A for a more detailed study of what
    happens with water).
    Because this is a solid it is understood that molecular forces are
    holding everything quite close together. Outer shells (electrons) are intermingled with many different molecules. As the photons are added to the molecules vibrations of part cause friction and convert some of the energy to heat. At the same time every molecule is radiating some of the energy as IR
    (Kickoffs law). If the amount of EMR hitting the surface is
    greater than heat (energy) being lost to the surroundings by IR
    radiation and conduction then the solid will heat up. The
    friction and collisions of molecules is the cause of the heating.
    As the material heats molecules start to get enough kinetic energy
    that they escape the surface of the solid and the absorption
    characteristics change. Quantum physics explains that each atom
    or molecule can only accept a specific amount of energy, any
    additional EMR will pass through the structure of the molecule
    to be latter absorbed by other molecules in the solid.

    When the solid absorbs enough energy that all of the molecules are
    moving( higher kinetic energy) ,it is no longer a solid but it
    is a liquid.

    Section 2-Absorption of EMR by a liquid
    As a liquid is at a higher temperature, more kinetic energy, the
    absorption of EMR changes,(again see the appendix containing the
    study of water by Martin Chaplin It is better to go to the
    original as there are some animations that are helpful to
    understanding ).
    A detailed study of the heat verse temperature increase will be
    different than for a solid. The molecules are not as close
    together ,are at higher kinetic energy, thus collisions of
    molecules will be different than in a solid. The molecules are
    moving in all directions.
    As the liquid heats more molecule will escape at the surface,
    resulting in a cooling effect to the liquid. As more energy is
    added at some point boiling will result in rapid conversion to
    vapor. Unless energy is continually added the water(liquid)will
    cool below the boiling point. The vaporization is removing
    44.010kj/mole of water evaporated. The energy to keep the water
    boiling can come from thermos sources as a flame or EMR as
    microwaves,IR,UV and many more sources.
    The concept is the same adding energy to the molecule, transferring
    the energy to other molecule and accelerating the molecules
    -more kinetic energy aka “heat”. The vapor near the surface
    will have the same temperature as the surface of the liquid.

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

    The g/v will be losing energy to the surroundings by EM
    radiation(IR,microwave,UV depending the temperature) at the same
    time there will be EMR’s being absorbed from impinging “light”.
    Lets look at kinetic energy -velocity of the molecules of g/v. Each
    molecule will have a different vector and momentum. Even in a
    strong wind, the molecules can be and are going off on their
    merry way with a component of their vector in the direction of
    the majority of the wind. The combined effect can be some very
    powerful forces.

    continued

  3. Now it is apparent that on earth with the sun sending light “EMR”
    which is very directional hitting the molecules in the
    atmosphere which may be at rest or may be moving as wind. Any
    collisions of photons with molecules will change the momentum
    and kinetic energy of the molecule. If the vectors of the
    photons parallel the vectors of the Air molecules when they
    collide and are absorbed there is an increase of kinetic energy
    and momentum. If the vectors are opposite each other there will
    be a decrease in kinetic energy and momentum of the molecule as
    a”Whole” but the laws of physics say that each has to be
    conserved. Therefore either there is an increase energy within
    the molecule or the energy is reradiated back into space.

    To the best of my knowledge science is not yet able to measure the
    energy and momentum of a single molecule in the atmosphere, we
    measure the collective effect which we call”heat” or the
    temperature of the air.
    Because there are some molecule that are absorbing more EMR and others
    that radiating EMR. The net effect is that a g/v does not “heat”
    when they absorb EMR. We also have to account for the fact that
    all atoms and molecules are radiating IR and other EMR’s
    according to the fourth power of their absolutely
    temperature(Kirkoff’s law). This means that the trees and
    everything else both living and inanimate are both radiating and
    absorbing EMR.
    This dissertation has not covered the laden heat of all the molecules
    in the atmosphere which is well covered by The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
    at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
    Other source of pertainet information are as follows”

    The Greenhouse Effect Explored Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?

    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect”
    hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback”
    hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the
    temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of
    water into water vapor.”

    Another important website is www. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3 The
    Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
    Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels
    Posted on June 4, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013

    CARBON DIOXIDE
    There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living
    organisms could not exist.Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide,which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume,both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could
    not exist at all.This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast”
    some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called
    chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon
    dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and
    structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide
    all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a
    chloroplast organelle in their cells.

    This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere
    The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied
    very widely over the geological ages.Oxygen_earths_atmosphere_historical
    CO2_temperature_historical

    continued

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

    During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first
    half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon
    dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the
    temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the
    atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period
    From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high
    temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.
    The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the
    temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.

    Appendix–A

    Water Absorption Spectrum Water and global warming
    Absorption spectra of gaseous, liquid and solid water

    The vibrational spectra of liquid water The
    visible and UV spectra of liquid water Water and global warming
    Water is the main absorber of the sunlight in the atmosphere. The 13
    million million tons of water in the atmosphere (~0.33% by
    weight) is responsible for about 70% of all atmospheric
    absorption of radiation, mainly in the infrared region where
    water shows strong absorption. It contributes significantly to
    the greenhouse effect ensuring a warm habitable planet, but
    operates a negative feedback effect, due to cloud formation
    reflecting the sunlight away, to attenuate global warming. The
    water content of the atmosphere varies about 100-fold between
    the hot and humid tropics and the cold and dry polar ice deserts.
    Absorption spectra of gaseous, liquid and solid water

    The water absorption spectrum is very complex. Water’s vapor
    spectroscopy has been recently reviewed [348].
    The water molecule may vibrate in a number of ways. In the gas state, the vibrations [607] involve combinations of symmetric stretch (v1),
    asymmetric stretch (v3) and bending (v2) of the covalent bonds with absorption intensity (H216O) v1;v2;v3 =0.07;1.47;1.00 [8].
    The stretch vibrations of HD16O refer to the single bond
    vibrations, not the combined movements of both bonds. Gas phase
    rotations [1701] are complex and are combined with these vibrations. Rotations in the liquid phase are totally dominated by hydrogen bonding.
    Main vibrations of water isotopologues Gas v1, cm-1 v2, cm-1 v3, cm-1 H216O
    3657.1 1594.7 3755.9 H217O 3653.2 1591.3 3748.3

    Shown opposite are the main vibrations occurring in water. The
    movements are animated using the cursor. The dipole moments
    change in the direction of the movement of the oxygen atoms as
    shown by the arrows. As the H-atoms are light, the vibrations
    have large amplitudes.
    The water molecule has a very small moment of inertia on rotation
    which gives rise to rich combined vibrational-rotational spectra in
    the vapor containing tens of thousands to millions of absorption
    lines. In the liquid, rotations tend to be restricted by
    hydrogen bonds, giving the librations. Also, spectral lines are
    broader causing overlap of many of the absorption peaks.
    The details are found in Dr.Chaplin paper
    This page was last updated by Martin Chaplin on 12 February, 2013
    This work is licensed under a Creative
    Commons Attribution
    -Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0
    UK: England & Wales License
    Appendix B

    What is the basis of global warming?The
    Extremely Flawed Foundation of Global Warming

    Every scientific theory has a basis, a foundation if you will.
    Consider the modern study of genetics. It has a foundation in
    the discovery of DNA almost 60 years ago. Before the discovery
    of DNA there was no ability to determine exactly how traits
    were passed on from one generation to another.
    Global warming has a basis, but unlike the discovery of DNA it was a flawed theoretical idea,even from the beginning. Unfortunately it was 80 years before
    it could fully be proven as incorrect and as a result the
    flawed idea had plenty of time to become well entrenched in
    the scientific community. There are few places harder to
    dislodge old, popular ideas than the scientific community.
    That is especially so when the idea originated from a Nobel prize
    winner. In the case of global warming that original idea was
    from Svante Arrhenius. He was a brilliant chemist (by
    research, schooling in physics) whose work in mathematically
    describing chemical reactions is still used in chemistry
    today. Since he was so well recognized and this theory
    so well entrenched that even in the face of mounting evidence
    that his theory was wrong in the 1970′s, there were many
    that tried to prove his theory correct (they still are too).
    The conflicting ideas from the 1970′s laid the foundation
    for the continuing debate on global warming today.

    to be continued

  5. ” “But there are so many natural events that swamp that out, for example, the eruption of Vesuvius, or Krakatoa. The industrial revolution was more gradual, over decades.” ”

    Odd that there is no data with that statement…

  6. The range of possibilities for future climate does not include a new ice age for tens of thousands of years. Our greenhouse gas emissions to date have already ruled that out. There will be both winners and losers in a warmer world. Scientific analysis indicates that there will be more losers than winners, and the ratio will get worse with more warming –

    http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn16729/dn16729-1_1162.jpg

    Just one example of the consequences is global sea level rise. Although the rise will be slow on human timescales, it will keep going for centuries. We won’t have a stable coastline. It will be very expensive and disruptive to move thousands of cities inland. Most of the damage will occur not from gradual year-on-year rise, but in extreme events when tides and weather and sea level rise all coincide to cause disastrous flooding.

    If we don’t do enough to combat global warming then large parts of the tropics will become uninhabitable for humans. Pakistan saw a heatwave of 56F recently. People will not be able to survive when that kind of weather happens every other year instead of once in a millennium.

    • “If we don’t do enough to combat global warming” ? How do we “combat” an Interglacial process that has recurred for 2 1/2 Million Years ?

      Last Interglacial (Eemian) NH temps were 5C higher than current. C02 at 300PPM .

      Reglaciation occurred with No change in C02 for thousands of years after onset of Glacial Inception .

      Where did you get this …”The range of possibilities for future climate does not include a new ice age for tens of thousands of years ” ? Can whoever proposed this idea be held to it ?

      I truly hate the awful grinding noises the Icesheets always make when they start to grow again at sunset !

      • “How do we “combat” an Interglacial process that has recurred for 2 1/2 Million Years ?”

        We pull down the CO₂ we’ve added to the sky.

        Humans have increased CO₂ from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today.

        If it’s so likely polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

        How could the destruction of the world’s coastal cities under 75 meters of melted ice cap be a “big plus” for anyone?

        • No one believes your ice cap nonsense any more CB.

          Anyway, remember this?

          CB • 15 days ago Tues, 3-27-14 3:56 PM

          “Yes, during the Eocene-Oligocene transition roughly 34 million years ago, polar ice caps formed with levels of CO₂ at roughly twice today’s levels, or around 800PPM.”

          You don’t deny you said that, do you? Here’s the science supporting your position.

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08447.html

          Now you claim just the opposite. Were you lying then…or are you lying now?

            • Cogent, zlop. But it may just be simply a self-absorbed jack hole looking for relevancy in its tiny, mundane bot cave surrounded by her few loyal acolytes…Slabaugh, cunudiun, Stoner…the usual suspects.

                    • Too funny, zlop. Of course, we’re assuming it’s female…no? But if it is female, it explains why it has so much time on its hands for the thousands of postings on these boards.

                    • Comedy, when a promotion has exhausted ideas. Global warming caused everything, from nutty squirrels forgetting where they hid nuts, to IceZilla and record breaking snowstorms.

                      “so much time on its hands for the thousands of postings on these boards.”
                      — Socratic probing, with standard warming talking points, to calibrate public reaction to accusation. Socrates asked questions to reason to understand.

                    • Ahhh…but did his questions incorporate known lies…not simply talking points? I think that was not part of the Socratic Method. It…CB, i.e.,… fails the SM test. I think you overestimate it. But I do give it credit for making up for its lack of quality with sheer quantity.

                    • ” I think that was not part of the Socratic Method”

                      Socratic Therapy asks questions and makes assertions, even if not true, to discover. When you reaction to a question is self-observed, clarification can result.

                    • You have found a reliable source of information that proves your claim is a lie. This is what it says:

                      “The early Oligocene world was, nevertheless, warmer than today, with no evidence for sustained continental ice caps in the northern hemisphere, and possibly West Antarctica, until much later”

                      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/26807829_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_through_the_Eocene-Oligocene_climate_transition

                      Because you have a habit of attempting to hijack threads about climate science with misrepresentations of reliable scientific papers, you have one opportunity to answer the following question:

                      When did the early Oligocene end, according to your sources?

                      If you cannot join the conversation like an adult, you will be ignored.

                    • But of course your ice cap nonsense says NOTHING about where the ice caps have to be or when. My citation ALSO says;

                      ABSTRACT: Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene-Oligocene transition, 33.5-34.0 million years ago…. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2atm was between approximately 450 and approximately 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of approximately 760 p.p.m.v.
                      Sorry CB. Your ice cap nonsense covers “the Earth’s history”. I only have to find one time to demonstrate your feckless theory is wrong…and there it is.

                  • To show her true colours, Evil or defender of an abused poster, I would like to see CB defend Tahoe Steph, at the Christopher Keating blog.

                    (I am banned from there — Christopher Keating could not deal with, that his belief in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, was only a local approximation — he stated, we are done and then deleted most of my posts)

                    • She doesn’t do well against actual scientific fact.
                      Congrats on your banning. It is usually a badge of honor.

                    • You were banned because you would wait until the middle of the night and then post numerous comments that had nothing to do with climate change. Or, reality, for that matter. Your claims that the laws of thermodynamics aren’t valid are extreme and I don’t want you using my blog as your personal sounding board.

                    • “Your claims that the laws of thermodynamics aren’t valid are extreme”?

                      I gave you a link and explained. However, for whatever reason, you refused to understand.

                      Here is the link again, perhaps, others can contribute;
                      “The randomness of Brownian motion at thermodynamic equilibrium can be spontaneously broken by velocity-dependence of fluctuations … Uncompensated decreases in total entropy, challenging the second law of thermodynamics, are thereby implied” http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/6/1/76

                      This is significant, in that, the Universe will not die, because of Entropy increase.

                    • And, I pointed out to you this was not true. A Feynman ratchet is a thought experiment on a perpetual motion machine and has very little to do with the physical universe. Scientists and mathematicians do these things all the time. They are useful exercises in that they can highlight true, physical realities. See this article:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet

                      For you to take one, obscure paper on a theoretical thought experiment and think it outweighs all of the thousands of actual experiments is not reasonable or responsible.

                      That is why I banned you from my blog. These kinds of comments are useless. They add no value at all to any kind of rational discussion.

                    • “Feynman ratchet is a thought experiment on a perpetual motion machine
                      and has very little to do with the physical universe.”?

                      Practical example, to generate power from air.
                      Different gases have different lapses (-g/Cp)
                      Xenon lapses 61K/km — Air lapses 6.5K/km — photons even less
                      Run a heat engine, to exploit differences.

                    • Actually, Keating kept threatening he was going to block me since he didn’t like the history I gave him on the IPCC showing how the only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely
                      understood the climate system, and much more research was needed, yet political policy was being adopted regardless. He ignored the most important part of the discussion, CO2. Then I actually asked him to block me.
                      This was my actual comment to him before he blocked me and deleted my comments.

                      “Talk about repetitive statements….. what faulty logic you use to summarize what I said. Yes, I know for sure now your really enjoy doing so!

                      But you still ignore the most important subject of this whole discussion: Show me where CO2 is proven to be the main driving force of climate change!

                      Block me. I’m done.”

                      Keating was kind enough to oblige.

                    • “Keating was kind enough to oblige.”
                      I am not masochistic. Christopher Keating (psychopath sociopath ?) lies by omission.
                      “We are unable to post your comment because you have been
                      blocked by dialoguesonglobalwarmong.blogspot.com. Find out more.”
                      “George Orwell: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie””

                      Disinforming, colluding with the Carbon Tax Extortion Racket,
                      People, like Christopher Keating, announce that you have failed, when you have not,
                      Have little effect on those who search and understand.

        • Co2 does Not melt ice. Temps do . Polar Ice caps “survived” 11 prior and much Warmer Interglacials . The just prior Interglacial (Eemian) . was at least 5C warmer NH . Ice caps did just fine. Cities have been covered by rising seas and migrating inland for 10,000 years.

          I , personally ..would Not miss the Ice caps one bit. The current 30 million year old Ice age has gone on long enough .

          • “I , personally ..would Not miss the Ice caps one bit.”

            Wouldn’t you?

            The complete collapse of the polar ice caps would raise sea levels 75 meters worldwide, destroying all of the world’s coastal cities:

            “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

            How could you possibly escape being affected by a catastrophe so massive?

            • Well, for one, the complete melting of the Ice caps ( which has not occurred during Much Warmer Interglacials over the past 3 million years would take 10-20 k years even at the highest current projected Warming.
              Currently, The Best estimate of SLR by 2100 is by Ice2sea 2013 (4 years, 40 countries) is a very disappointing (depending on point of view) 3.5cm to 36.8cm. Less than an inch a decade. Risk of 1M SLR by 2100 at less than 1 in 20. Indistinguishable in rise and rate of rise since 1880 .

              So…I would very likely be unaffected . Current human life expectancies and all .

              The World has been Cooling for 30 million years .We have reached C02 levels dangerously Low as far as plants are concerned.

              Based on the Archaeological record . A Warmer, more fertile world awaits if we are lucky enough to have continued Warming.

              Alas…our place in Climate History implies that our current stable regime does not have much longer to last.

                • I am not aware of any actions on my part that would lead to the Death of anyone. I assume you mean that not curbing C02 or failing to support the elimination of Nuke and internal combustion engines will have this affect (murder) somehow. Patently Ridiculous , typical Eco “Fire and Brimstone” .

                  Tell you what. Lets compare the Life expectancy of the Developed ,Nuke ,FF using meat eating World with that of the Undeveloped, Low/No energy protein deficient World ….shall we ?

                  Life Expectancy Developed World is 75 -85 years . Life Expectancy Undeveloped World – 45-55 years.

                  Do you realize how many have to die Young to achieve that difference in Mortality ?

                  Tel us more about….morality .

                  • “I am not aware of any actions on my part that would lead to the Death of anyone”

                    Every time you turn the key in your ignition you add more CO₂ to the atmosphere.

                    If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history?

                    Did you think you could absolve yourself of that responsibility by pretending reality doesn’t exist?

                    • Who cares if the polar ice caps are gone in 10 k or 20 k years ? Highly unlike ly , but even if they melt it is probably vastly better for Life.

                      Currently, a third of the Northern Hemisphere is locked up in useless permafrost and taiga. Last Interglacial (Eemian),vast hardwood forests reached to the pole across North America.and EurAsia . The Gobi and Sahara were fertile plains with lakes and rivers. Until the terrible Cooling dried them up. In fact. the Sahara was a Savannah This interglacial until a Cooling began 7,000BP. Plus… A whole additional usable continent (Antarctica + Greenland ) would be wonderful.

                      You Do know that you are a ….C02 emitter, Don’t you ?

                    • “A pure solvent has a characteristic freezing point. Dissolving a solute in the solvent to make a solution will change the freezing point. As the concentration of solute in a solvent increases, the freezing point is lowered and the liquid phase exists over a greater temperature range”

                      Over time, CO2 has been squeezed out of the Ice. More CO2 will not lower, the already low, freezing point.

                    • Divergence? What in the world are you talking about?

                      Your article says CO₂ was 14-16 times higher than today during the Ordovician, not the end-Ordovician glaciation:

                      “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide during the period were 14–16 times higher than today”

                      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/431581/Ordovician-Period/258446/Paleoclimate

                      The Ordovician was primarily a hothouse period, with no polar ice caps. The glaciation occurred toward the very end, between 445 and 443 million years ago.

                      If you don’t even understand the subject you’re discussing, why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

                    • I was replying to zlop , not you . There have been prior glaciations despite much higher temps and much higher C02 in the past. I do not care to discuss this any further. If C02 slows the onset of Reglaciation…….Good !

                      The “divergence” refers to the now 22 year long difference between the climate model predictions and the observed temps..

                      IPCC AR4 lead author Dr.Fyfe discusses it in Nature Climate Change, Sept 2013

                      Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

                      John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers

                      “The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from ZERO ” *………..*emphasis mine.

                      http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf

                    • “There have been prior glaciations despite… much higher C02 in the past”

                      If that were true, you should be able to say when, right?

                      Why haven’t you done that?

                      If you don’t even know when glaciations happened, how could you possibly be in a position to voice your opinion on the subject?

                    • Try reading the posts. Ice caps melting is not a problem. S.Graves also gave you examples.

                      C02 falling below 150PPM will cause plants to die off. We must prevent this at all costs. During the past 100,000 year glaciation.C02 got as low as 180PPM.

                      The Earths 30 million year old Ice age has been getting increasingly Cold for the past 3 million years. Ice receding from the continents for short 10,500 -12,500 year periods. .Ice covers the continents for 80- 100k years in between. Last glaciation (Wisconsin) was the Worst.C02 at 180PPM and Icesheets below Chicago and covering NY.

                      If we are very lucky, we may have delayed the advance of the Icesheets and we have improved conditions for plant life measurably through the C02 Fertilization Effect .

                      Don’t Panic !

                    • “Who cares if the polar ice caps are gone in 10 k or 20 k years ? Highly unlike ly”

                      On what do you base that timeline, and why would you think it’s unlikely?

                      If you understand polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, why would you expect them to today?

                      In what alternate reality is a 100% correlation between cause and effect over 4.5 billion years an “unlikely” occurrence?

                    • Time line ? For the polar Ice caps to melt ? Well . The last interglacial lasted about 12 k years before the Ice sheets returned. Over 10 k years northern hemisphere (mid and northern latitudes higher, hippos in the Thames and Rhine) temps were 5C minimum higher than present . Greenland and Antarctic Icesheets “survived” just fine.

                      -We are at or near the end of our Interglacial based on the length of the past 8 interglacials. The Icesheets have returned 11 times in higher temp higher C02 Interglacials.

                      What makes you think permanent ice caps are necessary or desirable ?

                    • “The last interglacial lasted about 12 k years before the Ice sheets returned”

                      We aren’t talking about changes anywhere near that small.

                      For at least 800,000 years preceding the industrial revolution, CO₂ didn’t once go over 290PPM:

                      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

                      Now it’s at 400PPM.

                      If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be compatible with CO₂ so high, why isn’t there a single example of these things being compatible before in Earth’s history?

                      If you weren’t suicidal, why aren’t you interested in gauging how likely the catastrophe of complete polar meltdown might be?

                    • CB,
                      I do not understand your obsession with the permanent ice caps. You seem to believe they will melt all at once and inundate the planet in some kind of tsunami of “Biblical proportions” .The Earth has been in an Ice Age for the past 30 million years ,the permanent ice caps for only the past 2 1/2 million years and the 100 thousand year long Continental Glaciations have been disastrous for terrestrial life. Atmospheric C02 has gotten Dangerously Low during these periods (180PPM) and plant life begins to die off below 150 PPM C02.
                      I don’t really care if the Ice caps are “compatible” with 400PPM C02. During the late Ordovician period ,C02 was 14 -16 times 7,0000 PPM min) higher than today and a 500,000 year Ice age occurred. Complete Glaciation of what is now Antarctica (then Africa) . At least 2 prior Interglacials had C02 in excess of 550PPM and Much warmer temps , yet Reglaciation occurred like…… clock work.

                      Permanent Ice caps are a Negative in my opinion . A sign of a Dying World. They are a very recent phenomena of Earths’ history .The best science to date on ice melt , Ice2sea 2013 (4 years,40 countries) projects sea level rise by 2100 at 3.5cm to 36.8 cm. (about 7 inches), less than an inch a Decade , indistinguishable in rise or rate of rise since 1880. Risk of 1 M rise put at less than 1 in 20 (accepted by IPCC and MET). At this rate, or even the highest projected rate, the ice caps will last at least 10k years .

                      We may get another Century of Warming . Unfortunately, Climate history shows we may not be so lucky .The end of the Holocene is near. Glacial Inception is next .

                      Read of the mortality rate during the “Little Ice Age” for some perspective on the matter.

                    • “During the late Ordovician period ,C02 was 14 -16 times 7,0000 PPM min) higher than today and a 500,000 year Ice age occurred”

                      You’re just going to wrap the proof your claim is false all up tidy for me, huh?

                      If you understand the late-Ordovician ice age lasted only a few hundred thousand years, why would you be attempting to use a proxy with a 30 million year resolution to gauge CO₂ at the time?

                      “Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

                      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt

                      What fault do you find with more precise measurements that suggest CO₂ fell to limiting levels during the end-Ordovician glaciation?

                      http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~saltzman/youngetal_2010.pdf

                    • “I” didn’t use a 30my proxy ..Britannica article was clear. Glaciation despite Much higher temps and C02 levels. The whole Earth was a “snowball” at least once (650 mya) . That is Truly …….Catastrophic.

                      Aren’t you at all concerned about the Danger of C02 levels falling below 150 PPM ? Why should Anyone CARE if the permanent Icesheets are gone in 10,000 years, assuming you are correct ? Think of all that new available land for our descendants . The last Interglacial was Wonderful for life. Much more Fertile.

                      From the perspective of geologic time. the past 2 1/2 million years of permanent ice caps and advancing retreating ice caps and dangerously low C02 has been an anomaly and disastrous for Life.

                      Do you presume Reglaciation is Good Thing ? If you do, you need help.

                    • But you have “wrap(ped) the proof your claim is false all up tidy for me, huh?” Haven’t you? Of course you have

                      Do you deny you said this in the past and that it was your position?

                      CB • 15 days ago Tues, 3-27-14 3:56 PM

                      “Yes, during the Eocene-Oligocene transition roughly 34 million years ago, polar ice caps formed with levels of CO₂ at roughly twice today’s levels, or around 800PPM.”

                      You don’t deny you said that, do you?

                      Now you claim just the opposite. You have to understand that when you take both sides of an argument while claiming to be some sort of expert, you look like you don’t know what your are talking about…but of course, you don’t.

  7. Icarus62 where is the credible experiment that proves that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect exists?
    I have asked you this question not less than 10 times on many different blogs. You have not been able to provide one credible experiment. Why should anyone believe that you know one ounce of quantum physics or any other relevant science to back up your non-scene.

    • It’s a measured fact that the greenhouse effect exists, being the difference between absorbed solar radiation and the surface IR flux, i.e. around 155W/m².

      Your assertion about having asked me this question 10 times before without getting an answer is a nonsense, unless (as in this case), you’ve deliberately sneaked it into a comments section as a new comment rather than a reply to one of my comments, so I’m less likely to see it and give you the inconvenient truth.

      People have asked me difficult questions at times. This wasn’t one of them.

      • To bad but your answer is wrong. What
        do you do about all the “heat” generated by the molten lava
        layer both at the surface (volcanoes) and the heat generated under
        the surface. A review of many geologist shows that nuclear reactions
        in the lava is keeping the lava from solidifying.. This heat has to
        go somewhere like warming the oceans and keeping the planet warm .
        Only a total nitwit would believe that 400 ppm of CO2 can account for
        155W/m2 of “back radiation” when no one can provide
        experimental data that proves the effect exists.
        55 years ago
        when I took quantum physics the professor stated and proved that a
        gas as CO2 does not heat the atmosphere when it absorbs IR. My
        experiment and many other experiments prove that the “greenhouse
        gas effect ” does not exist.
        Even John Tyndall the
        physicist(1850-60) that discovered the physics that showed that
        certain gases absorb IR, repeat certain gases
        absorb IR, stated that the “trace gases ” as
        CO2 could not cause global warming. He accounted for water/ vapor
        being the primary factor in the imagined warming of the planet.
        Tyndale’s work although correct, never showed what happen to the
        energy after it was absorbed. Quantum physics did not come along till
        50 years later.. It took the work of Einstein, Max Plank and other
        scientists with understanding of quantum physics.(new information is
        discovered every day)

        Water and evaporation is important in
        temperature control as it cools the land and the oceans.

        • You asked for proof that the greenhouse effect exists. It’s simply a measured fact. The Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K, radiating at 395W/m². The Earth’s effective mean radiating temperature is 255K, radiating at 240W/m². The difference is the greenhouse effect, by definition. Agreed?

          • Just because you write down numbers doesn’t mean it is so. And there is the problem, the total thermodynamic process of the Earth is still poorly understood. We still do not understand well enough how the ocean currents and Earth’s mantle interact thermodynamically. The other great problem is entropy. You can use temperature all you like but there are many forms of entropy where temperature is a poor metric. To assume as you have by taking the difference between two measurements as the net effect is one of the greatest acts of poor science you can do, especially, when you don’t have a complete picture of the Earth system.

            So in answer to your question. NO! The difference is not the greenhouse effect, and it is NOT a definition. For the definition of Greenhouse Effect is the thermal radiation that is given off by the Earth’s surface that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere and how that energy in the atmosphere is dispersed. Thus the major points are, the thermal energy by the the Earth’s surface is not the only energy, the energy in the atmosphere and its thermal and entropic dynamics and the dispersal mechanisms are poorly understood, and the many unknowns we still need to learn about, like the oceans, the deep ocean thermal and entropic properties, the radiative properties of the planet Earth via radiation, and many other subtle things are happening that are poorly understood. That’s why computer models are made, to help us understand what is going on. But when you put bad/poor/inadequate data into a computer, and add poor computer programmers, and worse yet, add a poor scientist desperate for attention and for a research grant, thus conjuring up a wacko theory, you get …. ta dah…. a stupid hair-brain idiotic the-science-is-settled moronic theory called Global Warming, along with a poor scientist who has now money to spread his stupid theory to more unsuspecting students and politicians so as to create world-wide havoc! Now that you can call a very green($)house effect!

            • You have to remember that the greenhouse effect is fundamentally about radiative flux:

              (1) At the top of the atmosphere, the Earth absorbs solar radiation of:

              S = (1-σ)TSI/4

              …which is around 240W/m², and radiates the same to space. Agreed? Very straightforward.

              (2) At the surface, it absorbs S + λA, where λA is downward longwave radiation from the atmosphere, and of course it radiates the same – We can say that the surface flux G = S + λA. Agreed?

              (3) Now, the portion of G that is absorbed by the atmosphere is not λA but 2λA – it has to be, because the atmosphere radiates λA upwards to space, and λA downwards to the surface, which is downward longwave radiation, so the total flux from the atmosphere has to be 2λA. Agreed?

              You should be able to see that the greenhouse effect, by definition, is λA, which is the magnitude of the downward longwave radiation which augments absorbed solar radiation at the surface, and is also the difference between G and S, i.e. the difference between surface flux and the top of atmosphere flux (because G = S + λA). OK? It’s not the portion of surface flux which is absorbed by the atmosphere, because that is 2λA.

    • “where is the credible experiment that proves that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect exists?”

      Gedanken proves that, greenhouse gases Cool.
      Below the clouds, effects is saturated. Above the clouds, radiating to space, extra cooling lowers clouds. Lower clouds, lower surface temperature.

      “Earth’s clouds got a little lower — about one percent on average — during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university”

  8. “Hughes says a number of his colleagues at places such as NASA and the University of Maine “have urged me to march in lockstep with Albert Gore, the drum major…”

    One would think “colleagues” of a unI professor would at least advocate “marching” with fellow scientists.

    Then again, one is “a number”….

    • “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2”
      “iconic and biodiverse landscapes are changing as rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fuel the growth of trees at the expense of grasses, leading to an increasingly wooded landscape.”

  9. If global warming was caused by CO2 (which it isn’t), warming rate (rate-of-change of average global temperature) instead of (as usually presented) the temperature itself would vary with the CO2 level. To be valid, the comparison should be between the temperature and the time-integral of CO2 level and/or the time-integral of any other factor(s) proportional to energy rate (such as TSI).

    Thus any co-plot of CO2 level and temperature or any other implication that average global temperature depends directly on CO2 level is misleading and physically and mathematically wrong. But ignorance can be fixed.

    An analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com derives a physics-based equation which, using the time-integral of forcings, accurately calculates the uptrends and down trends of average global temperatures irrespective of whether CO2 change is included or not. The paper at this link discloses:
    1. A reference which provides historical evidence that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
    2. The two factors that do explain climate change. The correlation is 95% with measured average global temperatures since before 1900; including the current plateau. The analysis also predicts the ongoing down trend of average global temperature.
    3. An explanation of why any credible CO2 change does not cause significant climate change.

    The two factors are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

          • Read the exchange. Z …This is SOP of Warming Cargo Cultists . If everyone would just shut up and agree that C02 is a pollutant destroying the planet Nature will cooperate. Clearly, They believe skepticism angers the Gods who are withholding the heat to punish doubting Humanity !

            I am permanently banned from Greg Ladens blog, Mother Jones, Grist, PBS (Moyers blog). Grist and many others. I have not violated the terms of service and have been threatened by others who continue to post .There is Real Fear in that community . Fear and Rage .

            Keep up the Good Work ! People enjoy your posts !
            .

  10. ‘Prominent Scientist’ ?

    Sadly he expresses himself as an ignorant climate denier with fear mongering and attack on people rather then any science facts: ‘Hughes says a number of his colleagues at places such as NASA and the University of Maine “have urged me to march in lockstep with Albert Gore, the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster.”

    “It’s human nature for them to pound the panic drum,” said Hughes, but added he isn’t convinced global warming won’t be as bad as feared. “In fact, it’s going to be a big plus, in the balance.” — More atmospheric CO2 would greatly increase agricultural production.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/antarctica-might-go-green-say-scientists-only-2km-of-ice-and-50c-of-warming-to-go/ More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...