Saturday, December 5, 2020
Home Middle Column Watch: Exclusive clip of 'Climate Hustle' on Fox News - Steve Doocy...

Watch: Exclusive clip of ‘Climate Hustle’ on Fox News – Steve Doocy & Marc Morano reveal mystery climate mascot animal

-

Fox News on Sunday April 24, 2016 invited Marc Morano to explain how the armadillo was both a mascot for 1970s global cooling fears and a mascot for current global warming fears.

“This is significant,” Morano said after revealing a stuffed armadillo in a cage. “The armadillo was the only animal that was used a mascot for global cooling in the 1970s… It’s now being used as a mascot for global warming. They’re claiming the armadillo is migrating north to get out of the heat.”

“With global warming, they have a learning curve,” he explained. “They’re trying to go much further in the future [with their doomsday predictions] when the people making the predictions will be dead.”

According to Fox News host Steve Doocy, climate activists like Prince Charles sounded “like Jack Bauer, we’re running out of time.”

“As it turns out, we didn’t run out of time,” he quipped.

Doocy: “That’s like Jack Bauer on ‘24’: ‘We’re running out of time!’ As it turns out, we didn’t run out of time.”

Morano: “No, and this happens repeatedly, every time they give a deadline…”

Doocy: “This is a tactic, a tactic.”

Morano: “It’s a tactic of a doomsday street preacher on the corner that most people thought was crazy, and now it’s gone mainstream. We have elite scientists at NASA that give us deadlines, they pass, and they just cross it out and give us a new deadline and say we must act. It’s silliness.”

“The great climate catastrophe that has been predicted — has been CANCELLED!” Morano declared. “There’s nothing to worry about with global warming,” Morano agreed. “So say the top scientists around the world.”

#
Scientific American 2011: ‘Armadillo Moves North Across a Warmer North America – The armadillo is moving north thanks to climate change’ – Some of that migration can be attributed to opportunity: The armadillo in particular has been moving northward since it arrived in Texas in the 1880s and Florida in the 1920s, according to Colleen McDonough, a biology professor at Valdosta State University in Georgia. Some, however, is clearly triggered by a changing climate. Armadillos have settled into southern Illinois, Indiana, Kansas and Missouri – all areas that were “totally unexpected,” McDonough said.
#
Find a theatre near you and buy tickets at www.ClimateHustle.com – A one-night only showing on May 2 nationwide.

Related Links: 

Watch: Morano in Tux on TV for DC Film Premiere – Teases Mystery Animal that Was Mascot for both Cooling & Warming fears – Bill Nye’s not the only one who can wear a bow tie!

‘Doin’ the Climate Hustle’ – Is ‘global warming’ destroying the Earth?! ‘Watch Climate Hustle on May 2 and decide for yourself’ – And, just to be clear, that’s “hustle” as in “scam, con, rip-off, swindle,” not the best-forgotten dance craze from the late 1970s. Global warming activists would have you believe that the earth is being destroyed by those who don’t believe the hype.

Palin Warns Against Global Warming Political Agenda, Scientific Dishonesty During ‘Climate Hustle’ Movie Premiere

186 COMMENTS

    • “Are Green Lemmings afraid Armadillos will chew them up?”

      I don’t think so!

      Are Climate Deniers so incredibly stupid they can’t understand why an employee of the fossil fuel industry would lie about the dangerous nature of their product?

      Why would Fox News allow a prostitute for the oil and gas industry to appear on their channel without disclosing his conflict of interest?

      If they are lying to people about this, what else are they lying about!?

      “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

          • “Bingo! Hear those cash registers ring!”

            AGW is a fact that’s withstood over a century of testing, Adrian.

            Is it likely the people who discovered it were being paid to “make up reports” and no one on Earth has noticed in all that time except for you?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

            • You must be talking about the first book on this subject that Svante Arrhenius wrote in 1896 and published in 1897 therein he proposed burning a million tons of coal to put CO2 in the air to warm Sweden as the work of Lineaus had shown that bananas were growing there in 6000 BC. Little did he know that increased CO2 drives out water vapor which is a far better absorber of IR and heater of the atmosphere than CO2. CO2 drives it out per Le Chatelier, but he would not come along for another 25 years.

              Arrhenius saw the error of his ways, thanks to his students, and published a retraction book in 1899, but all you “global warming” liars and dupes never cite that book in spite of the fact that it was also published by the Heidelberg University Press and received more publicity than the first book in it’s time as it was the first such apology in modern science. That you behave in this manner confirms that you are either an ignoramus or a scoundrel.

              • This may be true if you lived in a snow globe. With trade winds and the atmosphere, anything you put into the air effects more than just a small region. Dust storms in China blow over the Pacific, Volcanoes have lasting effects for years. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is going to have an adverse reaction, other than creating water vapor. The reaction might occur across the planet and you would never see it.

                • The comment here was that the heating effects of CO2 have been known for over a century. That is true, but only in terms of its’ utter insignificance where it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and is one-seventh the IR absorber, molecule for molecule for molecule.

                  Your credibility would be vastly improved if you used your real name, as do I, and spoke in terms of facts, history and physical principles, as do I.

            • You are likely referring to Svante Arrhenhius book of 1897 wherein he proposed burning a million tons of coal to put CO2 in the atmosphere of Sweden to heat it. He followed that with an 1899 book apologia for his first erronious concept, but you “global warming, climate change” panic pushers never mention the second book. Thus, you have no hundred year peg to hang your hypothesis on.

            • Wrong.

              Global warming and climate change are facts. The anthropogenic part is attribution, not fact, not proven.

              If you think you have a paper that presents unequivocal, absolute evidence of an anthropogenic effect – and by this I mean presents evidence of each step in the chain – present it. Or a series of papers that proves, without equivocation or attribution, every step of the chain.

              You claim the science is there. Well here is your chance to present it.

              And no pages written by PR people, propagandists or administrators. Peer-reviewed, published works.

            • “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

              That is a bald-faced lie, because gasses don’t “trap” heat. They temporarily absorb it and they give it up pretty quickly, generally. “Trap” implies it is captured and not released.

      • Marc Moreno has infinitely more credibility than do you. While the “climate change” promoters have spent $550 billion of your money the oil industry has spent less than $30 million flying scientists to meetings where they would be allowed to speak against this nonsense. Now they want to put we deniers in prison or mental institutions! Ever hear of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia? It is happening here.

            • really fuckhead? what the fuck is “eveh”? btw, shit for brains…you misspelled the last name of your climate change denier!!! talk about a brainless piece of hillbilly white trash! go fondle your grandaughter, worthless pos.

                • As a republican you should be able to relate to that very easily!

                  Or did you forget who is running for president in your own party?

                  LMFAO!

                  Oh sweety – no wonder your wife killed herself to get away from you!

                • Vance accuses scientists of fraud but he is the one making up self-serving arguments and fabricating evidence. He thinks there is a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to justify funding, and that they hire “professional assassins” to stalk him. – Amazon Reviews

                  LOL!

                  You sound like a paranoid crack head!!!!

                  Maybe you ARE a crack head – it sure would explain a LOT!

            • “Vance accuses scientists of fraud but he is the one making up self-serving arguments and fabricating evidence. He thinks there is a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to justify funding, and that they hire “professional assassins” to stalk him.” – Amazon

              Are those professional assassins right outside your door Adrian?

              LMFAO!!!!

              I can send you a tin foil hat!!!!

            • The inattention to detail suggests you’re a shill – worthy of G W Bush!

              you cite someone and don’t even know his name? And pointing that out = anger to you?

              You truly are quite wingnut!!!

              I’m positive you are well acquainted with psychiatric intervention, Adrian.

              You seem to be a widower whose wife jumped off a bridge to get away from you.

              Take care, Sweetums!

            • Vance accuses scientists of fraud but he is the one making up self-serving arguments and fabricating evidence. He thinks there is a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to justify funding, and that they hire “professional assassins” to stalk him. – From Amazon Reviews

              So – psychiatric Tx is where you learned about mental illness?!

              I KNEW you had been treated for either a personality disorder or some sort of organic mental disturbance!

              Really – thinking professional assassins are following you is just a bit much Adrian! WAY TOO MUCH!!!!

              We can write you off as one YUGE wingnut!!!!

              btw, you can buy Vance’s books for $2.99 or LESS – some are going to .85 cents!

              i guess wingnuttery isn’t paying too well these days!

              good god i’d give my left nut to read your therapist’s prog notes on you!!!!

      • All products are dangerous.
        CO2 is not.
        Had we concentrated on real science based solutions to pollution since 1968 law win we would all be winners.
        I am a Green Cuckold, once stupid, not any longer.
        You have to be stupid to know stupid.
        Try facts not tax to win.

      • Many people and organizations who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have received a great deal of funding from fossil fuel interests as well, including but not limited to Exxon Mobil and one or both of the Koch brothers.

        I don’t hear you saying that the alleged facts they spew (which turn out to not be facts at all, but rather lies, propaganda and talking points) are in question due to their acceptance of fossil fuel money.

        Why not?

      • Amusing how you try to discredit Moreno and his website by referring to a website that is known to be funded by uber-left wingers.

        Desmog blog is run by a PUBLIC RELATIONS guy, not a scientist. He is associated with an individual who was convicted of money laundering.

        It recently was involved in a scandal where it presented obviously fraudulent documents are real.

        Anyone who takes what they present there seriously needs to have their medication adjusted.

  1. CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

      • “Excellent post.”

        If you like word salad, I guess…

        Was there a scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was likely to enter a new ice age?

        “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

        journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

                • “We need more basic science to destroy CO2 warming delusionists.”

                  Here’s some:
                  CO2’s intensity of greenhouse effect, as a function of it’s atmospheric concentration, is not a linear function, it is logarithmic.

                  The first 20 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for 80% of CO2’s total greenhouse effect at 400ppmv and higher. The increase from 280 ppmv (pre-industrial revolution) to 400 ppmv (today) has increased CO2’s total greenhouse effect by less than 1%.

                  The earth’s atmosphere was already opaque to updwelling IR transmission within the three major CO2 IR absorbance bands, long before the industrial revolution.

                  In addition, three of water vapor’s seven IR absorbance bands overlap to a 78% extent, with the three major CO2 IR absorbance bands (78% co-absorbance). On average, atmospheric water vapor molecules outnumber atmospheric CO2 molecules by a ratio of 45 to 1. The emissivity of a molecule is a measure of its ability to both emit and absorb photons.The emissivity of the water vapor molecule is 235 times greater, at S.T.P., than that of the CO2 molecule at S.T.P.

                  • “CO2’s intensity of greenhouse effect, as a function of it’s atmospheric concentration, is not a linear function, it is logarithmic.”

                    Very good try, as a first guess. Over the years, clear sky optical thickness has changed little, although CO2 has increased considerably.

                    “The first 20 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for 80% of CO2’s total greenhouse effect at 400ppmv and higher.”

                    About half of CO2 absorbing effect is in the first 7 meters.
                    Main spectral line is extinguished within 10 meters.

                    “The earth’s atmosphere was already opaque to updwelling IR
                    transmission within the three major CO2 IR absorbance bands,
                    long before the industrial revolution.”?

                    Standard greenhouse theory; Greenhouse factor is 1/3
                    (Kiehl&Ramanathan and Ferenc Miskolczi)

              • Even the IPCC occasionally screws up and admits the truth – and Michael Mann too!

                … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

          • “There was a great “scientific consensus” that we were entering an ice age in the 70’s”

            No, sweetheart.

            No, there wasn’t, and you already know there wasn’t because I just pointed you to the peer-reviewed paper that told you there wasn’t.

            The first person to prove our greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet was named Eunice Foote… so why are you babbling dementedly about Jim Hansen and Al Gore instead of pointing out the mistake in her work?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

            • There was considerable doubt about the work done in that time as there was so little CO2 in the air, 280 parts per million, 0.028% they could not get repeatable results and it was complicated by the seasons when plants were either absorbing or emitting CO2. There was much coal burning in England at that time and CO2 would pool in valleys in the winter due to a lack of wind.

              The great deception of the 19th century, continued to this day was the work of Svante Arrhenius, Sweden’s greatest theoretical chemist, but a man not strong in experimental work. He thought CO2 could be used to warm Sweden in 1896 and published a book on the concept in 1897 which is lauded by the global warming fraudsters.

              A year after publication some of his students showed him his errors and wrote a follow-up, publishing in 1899, rescinding the 1897 book, but the “climate changers” never cite that work in spite of the fact both were published by the Heidelberg, Germany Press, the finest technical publishers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The “Global Warmer – Climate Changers” are totally corrupt and have cost America $7 trillion according to the analysts of Forbes Magazine.

              • “they could not get repeatable results”

                …according to you.

                According to absolutely everyone else who’s ever studied the subject for over a century, greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation, and since emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, that means they must warm the planet.

                Adrian, do greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation?

                “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation”

                missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

                • If you understand the physics of a greenhouse you will see that there are no “greenhouse gases.” Absorbing IR is not what a greenhouse does; it traps IR physically: It does not absorb it. “Greenhouse gas” is comity code for physicists committing the crime of ripping off the American taxpayer with phony grants.

                  • “there are no “greenhouse gases.” Absorbing IR is not what a greenhouse does; it traps IR physically”

                    Adrian, it seems like you and Adrian are having a disagreement.

                    Would you like to get your personalities together and have a discussion in private before we continue?

                    Greenhouse gasses either absorb IR or they don’t.

                    Which one is it?

                    “Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation… This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO₂ an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.”

                    scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

                    • “Is English not your first language?”

                      It is!

                      I speak a number of other languages as well.

                      Your post would have been a dodge of the question in any of them.

                      What you’ll be looking to post is either yes or no.

                      Do greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation?

                      What do you think, Adrian?

                      “This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is the critical requirement for greenhouse gases.”

                      http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html

                    • As I have explained many times: There are no “greenhouse gases” as gases cannot form transparent solids and function in the manner of a greenhouse. The term is physics comity code wherein the perpetrator is saying, “Let me get away with my BS and I will let you get away with yours.” Government has totally corrupted big science.

                    • “There are no “greenhouse gases” “

                      Uh huh, and what would a greenhouse gas be, if it could exist?

                      What is the definition of the term, Adrian?

                      “green·house gas. noun: greenhouse gas; plural noun: greenhouse gases. a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation, e.g., carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons.”

                      lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+a+greenhouse+gas%3F

                    • I’m sure you’ve been told – though perhaps you are simply ignorant of the fact – that the name “greenhouse gas” is a complete mistake. A GREENHOUSE uses physical barriers to TRAP heat. A misnamed “greenhouse gas” cannot “trap” heat, it temporarily absorbs it and usually generally rather quickly re-emits it so, at best, it delays it a very short time on it’s inevitable escape to space. I know, it’s semantics, but the problem is it creates the mistaken view that “greenhouse gasses” form some sort of physical barrier that actually can “trap” heat and that simply is not the case.

                      Plus do you have any concept of how sparse even 400 ppmv is?

                    • No, at low atmospheric levels under 1,000 ppm, CO2 does not absorb enough infrared radiation to effect our global temperatures more then 0.000001 degrees Fahrenheit.

                    • “at low atmospheric levels under 1,000 ppm, CO2 does not absorb enough infrared radiation to effect our global temperatures more then 0.000001 degrees Fahrenheit.”

                      How do you know, sweetheart?

                      Where are you getting your information?

                      “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

                      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

                    • I’m not saying that CO2 has no effect, just pointing out that atmospheric levels below 1,000 ppm have no measurable effect on our average global temperatures.

                      Check the math for yourself instead of just reading those solar panel sales brochures your always pulling up.

                    • “atmospheric levels below 1,000 ppm have no measurable effect”

                      I understand this is what you believe!

                      How do you know?

                      Where are you getting your information?

                      “The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C.”

                      lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+the+average+temperature+of+the+Earth%3F

                • CO2 has a logarithmic response to solar radiation. At 280 PPM 95% of CO2s heating effects have occurred. At 380% there is no heating effect. We can double our CO2 concentrations and not feel any effect.

                  • “CO2 has a logarithmic response to solar radiation.”

                    Mmmmmm. Not quite correctly stated.

                    What you meant to say is that the relationship between CO₂ and temperature is roughly logarithmic… which is absolutely correct!

                    Stammon, does a logarithmic function have an upper bound?

                    “100% opacity of the atmosphere to IR in the CO₂ absorption bands — even IF it existed — would not prevent a lower atmospheric warming tendency (and upper atmospheric cooling tendency) in response to further increases in CO₂. This is why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead…the atmosphere is so strongly radiatively insulated against loss of IR to space that the temperatures climb until radiative energy balance is achieved. Models have quite adequately explained the temperature profile on Venus with the known atmospheric composition, just as they explain the temperature profile here on Earth.”

                    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker

                    • Actually it does not have an upper bound. But if CO2 was 99% of our atmosphere, perhaps we could melt lead in Bangor.

                  • That is utter nonsense. Your 95% at 280 C is fiction, not math. It fails to take into account that during an ice age the CO2 increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was a response to a natural temperature rise owing to solar heating caused by the Milankovitch cycles.

                    Now the situation is completely different. CO2 is the forcing, and temperature is the response. In these conditions, and these conditions alone, models show, by observation of their aggregate response, that temperature responds logarithmically to *changes* in CO2. Not absolute value.

                    Here is the way it works. Let’s say that the earth’s (or a model’s) climate sensitivity under today’s conditions is 3 C for a doubling of CO2. The value 3 C is the average of many models studied by IPCC. We start at 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2 concentration and global average temperature anomaly = 0, with a pre-industrial base. Doubling CO2 to 560 then gives a 3 C anomaly. Doubling again to 1120 ppm gives another 3 C, or 6 C total. It does not stop and become negligible, as you claim.

                    Complicating matters are runaway feedbacks, which are not logarithmic. That is for another day, after you understand basic arithmetic and the need to limit the range of applicability of your curve fit.

                    • What? Are you following me around like a puppy? CO2 has a logarithmic temp response to concentration. We are already well into the 99% range. Your models aren’t working. It’s that simple.

                    • Hansen’s “forcing” is utter nonsense. The one paper he has written on it includes no mathematical model, equations or any of the tools of theoretical science. He wrote it nine years after first mentioning the term. No one would publish it so he put it up in a private database and asks $1 per page for 38 pages of gibberish. I have seen it and there is nothing there, but bits and scratches of charts of time periods when the tempers were rising per some ground stations that were probably next door to fast food stores with the fryer exhaust aimed at the temperature recording device in its little slatted hut 20 feet away. (That actually happened.) This is all fraud for new taxes, controls, bureaus and Federal bullshit including putting people like me who dare to opposed in prison for speaking truth to power.

                  • LIsten dummy: If CO2 absorption were “logarithimic,” I assume to base 10, doubling the quantity would increase the absorption by a factor of 100 as the antilog of 2 to the base 10 is 100. Clearly that is not the case. Furthermore, CO2 is not only a poor IR absorber, but it is a trace gas with only 0.039% of the atmosphere where water vapor has 1% to 4%, 26 to 103 times as much with each molecule absorbing seven times as much IR from sunlight as does CO2.

                    • CO2’s effects are logarithmic, which means its ability to absorb radiation diminishes as CO2 concentrations increase. What you are describing is what would happen it CO’s effects increased geometrically with increased CO2 concentrations.

                      logarithmic- linear- geometric

                      CO2’s ability to absorb and re-radiate radiation is logarithmic and not linear. The CO2 molecule has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. However, the water molecule has many more vibrational modes and absorbs many more radiation frequencies, including some of the radiation absorbed by CO2. As a result, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of 400 ppm, only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains.

                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0027.jpg

                    • We’ll find out soon enough. Meanwhile, your AGW fantasies are killing poor people all over the world. Have a nice day.

                    • You’re kidding, right? Let’s just start with food prices going up because of our burning corn for fuel. That’s a sin, to burn food when people are hungry, and I am a farmer.

                    • You completely forgot to cite your sources for your claims.

                      You claimed that some AGW hypothesis is killing poor people all over the world. Do you have any evidence for your claim? That is quite a serious accusation there, farmer boy. You can either retract it or evidence it. If you don’t evidence it, then I’ll disregard it, file it as your delusion.

                    • Soon enough?

                      There’s a well known phenomenon called “crank magnetism” — cranks seem to attract lots of cranky ideas just like a magnet.

                      Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                  • This is nonsensical, has no basis in fact and is meaningless. 380%? “We can double our CO2 concentrations and not feel any effect?” OK, so then is has no effect! On that we agree as it will continue to be a “trace gas” which means, “Forget about it!”

                    • Sorry to burst your bubble. The radiative effects of CO2 are logarithmic and not linear or geometric.

                    • Who says? A nutberger with calling himself “odin2” because he is a nobody without portfolio, degree, credentials, publications, position, or title giving no citations or mathematical example, proof or arguments, just tasteless invectives, ravings and nonsense? You are truly insane.

                    • It appears like I have lots of company. 🙂

                      Huang, Y., and M. Bani Shahabadi (2014) Why logarithmic?, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 13,683–13,689

                      Huang, Y., and M. Bani Shahabadi (2014) Why logarithmic?, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 13,683–13,689

                      http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4697

                    • Very pretty math, but it has virtually nothing to do with CO2. And why was this the sub-head?

                      “Water Vapor Decline Cools the Earth: NASA Satellite Data”

                      That is the fact as defined by Le Chatelier, but it will be very slight as there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place.

                    • “Who says? A nutberger with calling himself “odin2″ because he is a nobody without portfolio, degree, credentials, publications, position, or title giving no citations or mathematical example, proof or arguments, just tasteless invectives, ravings and nonsense? You are truly insane.”

                      LOL!

                      I believe you are correct that Odin is a mentally unstable individual.

                      He’s also a compulsive liar, though he is right that the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature is roughly logarithmic! He is repeating a dishonest Climate Denier talking point intentionally crafted to make it seem like the warming effect of CO₂ is limited… and it’s not. A logarithmic function doesn’t have an upper bound.

                      “A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.”

                      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

                    • Do you understand what “logarithmic” means?

                      Assuming the common base of ten where no other is specified, a doubling of the concentration would increase the heating effect by a factor of 100 if it were “logarithmic” as “2” means 10^2 or 100! That is patently not the case. It is not possible physically. When these people say that they are confessing their ignorance, skullduggery or both.

                    • It is only a “dishonest argument” the way you present it.

                      For the purposes of this discussion, refer to the following graph: Graph of the natural logarithmic function y = lnx.

                      http://www.librow.com/content/common/images/articles/article-11/graph-ln.gif

                      While this is NOT the graph of CO2 versus temperature, BASED ON THE THEORY OF THOSE WHO ARE FULL OF CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM, it is a reasonable stand in for this discussion.

                      You will note that as you add more CO2, which is the X axis here, the temperature change, which is the Y axis, quickly shrinks even as the amount of CO2 grows ever larger. The small change in CO2 on the left initially produces a large change in temperature, but this effect is quickly ‘extinguished’ and it takes more and more CO2 yet you get less and less temperature change as a result.

                      Now on to reality where we see this effect in real life, as the more CO2 was added to the atmosphere, no matter whether the source was anthropogenic or other, the less temperature changed:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                    • I dealt with your disingenuous remarks – disingenuous as they were clearly meant to deceive and distract from reality – in a previous post.

                      Now on to the other important thing REALITY teaches us about more CO2 and a warmer Earth: Despite the scare mongering of you and your ilk, i.e. those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, warming and more CO2 turn out to be GOOD for the biosphere, GOOD for plants and animals, GOOD for humans!

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html

                      Greening of the Earth and its drivers

                      Nature Climate Change (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3004

                      What’s more, this isn’t news – it was known since way back when you & your ilk first started with your scare mongering, alarmist, KNOWN FALSE claims of climate catastrophe:

                      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

                    • No, actually the IPCC and climate scientists including but not limited to Michael Mann say so… and all you respond with is juvenile ad hominem, which does not surprise me. Why don’t you tell the IPCC and the authors of this paper how you feel about them?

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                    • Take the mean of 0.1 C for a decade and you are well within the statistical variance of the process, nothing more; nothing less.

                      Michael Mann was caught erasing the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age that followed to make his “Hockey Stick,” the blade part of which has been shown to be false. He was absolved by the Penn State Faculty Senate, the same one that overlooked pediphelia in its Athletic Dept. for 20 years and very aware that the school was getting millions of Federal Dollars that would stop if they discredited Mann. Please don’t tell me academia is free of corruption. Both my parents were college professors and I know better.

                      You people talk about the absorption of methane and that of CO2 being “logarithmic” when if that were true a doubling of the concentration would increase the IR absorption by 100X! There is no way that can be true. You are all full of BS.

                    • Eight separate investigations found that no data manipulation occurred. One of these investigations was carried out by Pennsylvania State University, and concluded in its report: “there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. All eight investigations reached similar conclusions. http://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controversial-climate-research-unit

                      Michael Mann releases his data and tools used on his site: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php

                      8 independent committees who investigated the ‘Climate email gate debacle’ found that the scientists involved did nothing wrong. There was no scientific fraud committed.

                      Some relevant studies:

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

                      http://www.clim-past.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034187/abstract

                      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

                      http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-to-warm-beyond-levels-seen-for-at-least-11300-years-15701

                      http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/climate-in-context-microscopic-evidence-of-a-warming-world

                      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

                      More recently studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann’s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.

                      As did ‘Ljungqvist et al. 2012’ which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. ‘Marcott et al. 2013’ used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.

                      Check it for yourself. Best of luck.

                      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets

                      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php

                      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering-wsl.html

                      http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/viewer/#app=cdo&cfg=paleo&theme=paleo

                    • The University of Pennsylvania receives millions of Dollars in Federal grants that they feared would end if they fouind Michael Mann to have been the scoundral he is in fact. They then demonstrated what they are all about in the football scandal where they covered up for child molester for 20 years to protect the millions of Dollars they take in for football. The institution, like many of its kind, is totally corrupt.

                    • Michael Mann was innocent. 8 independent committees who investigated the ‘Climate email gate debacle’ found that the scientists involved did nothing wrong. There was no scientific fraud committed.
                      Do you now apologise for falsely accusing Michael Mann?

                      Can you promise never ever to accuse him again and to stop playing that disgusting carnard.

                    • Michael? Is that you hiding behind the pseudonym John? That is the same misspelling of “apologize” you made in a previous email threat to me. I can just see your fat little face and bald pate glaring into the screen as you try to cover your tracks. Has the judge yet found against your in you suit with Mark Steyn? He has the goods on you Michael and proved you defrauded the Federal government. How much of that $500,000 VA Attorney General Cuccinelli sued to recover have you paid back. I understand there were some legal technicalities in that case, but I do believe Ken won. I thought I recognized your phony, pretentious language in these stalkings.

                    • You did not apologise. Just to annoy you. Apologize is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and apologise is preferred in varieties of English from outside North America. Oh dear.

                      Now you claim I’m Michael Mann?
                      *facepalm*

                      Adrian, nice try though, you must have been a real short-term hero in your denialist study group. Have you ever thought that you might be bored simply because you’re kind of stupid? Oh wait, paradox.

                      Now, you need to be a big boy here. Pay attention. You accused someone (Michael Mann) of something that he was innocent of. The fact that you can’t acknowledge that says more about you than you think.

                      You need to apologise, Adrian.

                      Think before you reply, before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. Any further dialog between us can be from this factual basis.

                    • “The radiative effects of CO2 are logarithmic and not linear or geometric.”

                      That’s true! The effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature is roughly logarithmic.

                      Does a logarithmic function have an upper bound, Odin?

                      “Mercury Average temperature: 167°C”

                      nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html

                      “Venus Average temperature: 464°C”

                      nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

                    • I like how, in a typical show of liberal cognitive dissonance, “Adrian Vance” responded to your calm, clear, 100% accurate statement:

                      The radiative effects of CO2 are logarithmic and not linear or geometric.

                      with “tasteless invectives, ravings and nonsense”, then accused you of doing what he was in the process of doing.

                      So who’s insane?

                    • Thank you. I can’t figure Vance out either. He certainly sends mixed messages (and vitriol). 🙂

                    • I made my original comment based on his single reply to you, then toned it down after realizing we’re on the same side and his outburst towards you was inexplicable. All you did was state a fact. But then again, you approached him in a confrontational fashion (after he responded to Stammon in similar fashion) so perhaps that set him off.

                    • Perhaps. My reply about bursting his bubble could have set him off. If it did, he is a bit thin skinned.

                  • I would not go so far as to say that – rather that at a point, i.e. about where we are, the heating effects of more CO2 become negligible unless we’re talking about orders of magnitude changes, which we aren’t.

                    Your idea is right but you need to be more careful how you express it.

                • No gas acts as a “greenhouse.” It is a bad analogy. Two atmospheric gases absorb IR energy directly. A greenhouse only traps energy until an absorber, like water vapor or CO2 captures it or it is absorbed by a solid like dark, damp soil from where it will not be re-emitted.

                  • “Two atmospheric gases absorb IR energy”

                    Good!

                    There are a few more than 2, but at least 2 atmospheric gasses absorb infrared radiation.

                    If emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, how could these gasses not warm the planet?

                    “While the dominant gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are transparent to infrared, the so-called greenhouse gasses, primarily water vapor (H₂O), CO₂, and methane (CH₄), absorb some of the infrared radiation. They collect this heat energy and hold it in the atmosphere, delaying its passage back out of the atmosphere.”

                    http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm

                    • Methane does not absorb IR significantly if you consult the IR absorption charts and even if it did with only 18 ppm it is not even considered a trace gas. Furthermore, it oxidizes to CO2 and water vapor in sunlight so it is gone at dawn.

                    • Here is that citation: The distinction is critical. Molecule per molecule, methane is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale, and 105 times more potent on a 20-year timescale.”

                      This is total bullshit. Methane has the same absorption profile as nitrogen, but for slightly higher absorption profiles in the two frequencies where it absorbs IR poorly. The telling fact here is the claim is the bizarre reference to a “timescale.” This is utter nonsense for something as simple as absorption. It has an utterly linear relationship with time. If it is exposed for twice as much time it will absorb twice as much IR. Time does not alter physical properties and CH4 disassociates in sunlight to CO2 and water vapor on first light per “swamp gas” or “Wil-O-The Wisps” fame in fables. Methane does not absorb IR, period.

                    • No, there are no significant IR absorbers beyond water. CO2 is not a significant IR absorbing gas. Do the the math analysis. I have. Can you? I seriously doubt it.

                    • “there are no significant IR absorbers beyond water.”

                      Uh huh, but you just said there were.

                      Are you changing your mind?

                      If a gas absorbs infrared radiation, and emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, how could this gas not warm the planet?

                      Answer the question, Adrian.

                      “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

                      science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20feb_1

                    • CO2 is primary gas in the atmosphere of Venus. The high temperature of that atmosphere is more due to the proximity of the sun and lack of water than anything, as well the proximity of the sun where heat energy impinging on the planet is so much greater than that of Earth given its proximity of the sun and inverse square law.

                • Notice how they mention water vapor first… because it’s the key (misnamed) “greenhouse gas”. Adrian Vance is correct, you know. A greenhouse uses physical barriers. And you’re 100% wrong when you claim

                  emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down

                  because heat is also transported through the atmosphere, prior to finally being radiated away as infrared, by other mechanisms. Can you name any of them? I doubt it, but maybe you will prove me wrong.

                  • “you’re 100% wrong when you claim emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down because heat is also transported through the atmosphere, prior to finally being radiated away as infrared”

                    Bodie, you and Bodie seem to be having a disagreement.

                    Would you like to have a chat to your personalities and figure out which one is correct before we continue?

                    If there’s another method by which heat energy escapes into space besides infrared radiation, what is that method?

                    “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

                    climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

                    • I am asking YOU how many ways heat can get transported to the top of the atmosphere – you, typical ignorant child that you come off as, probably either aren’t aware or, worse, deliberately hide any knowledge you do have of the many ways heat is transported BEFORE it finally is radiated at the top of the atmosphere, beyond any CO2.

                      You are very smug and hide your rude attitude behind a mask of innocent sounding yet insulting retorts. SO let me make my question clear again – YES, at the very top of the atmosphere, the heat must leave by radiation alone, but HOW MANY WAYS CAN IT GET TO THAT POINT? Your assertion that it only travels by infrared radiation is 100% incorrect UP TO THAT POINT.

                      Now I’ll say I might not have made myself clear enough, even though I did, but I think the above rectifies that.

                      Clearly you’re simply attempting to evade the question with your usual rhetorical nonsense. Now answer the question. What other ways is heat transported from ground level to the upper atmosphere BESIDES infrared radiation?

                      Or do you simply not know?

                    • Also, since you’re offering a page from your level of understanding (NASA’s “CLIMATE FOR KIDS” page), please explain in detail how heat gets “trapped” and whether that means, to you, that it stays right there, or does it wind up going somewhere else – i.e. NOT trapped.

                      I’ll give you a hint: No heat is ‘trapped’, it is merely delayed. Your page is wrong, and I suspect you know it, but perhaps I’m giving you much more credit, considering that you’re ‘go to’ source is “Climate for Kids” or whatnot.

            • “No, there wasn’t, and you already know there wasn’t because I just pointed you to the peer-reviewed paper that told you there wasn’t.”

              Did you mean “pal reviewed”?

              True science demands repeatability.

              One lonely peered reviewed paper is incapable of establishing scientific fact.

        • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc24ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc24:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPriorityGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc24……

      • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc67ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc67:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsAssureGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc67……..

      • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc25ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc25:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsServicesGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc25……….

      • Sir:

        If the atmosphere above the ground is colder than the Earth there will be warming.

        I do not understand the second paragraph at all. It makes no sense in the terms and principles of the physics I learned undergrad.

        Same for the final two lines and the graphic….

          • I am trying to promote the truth and you are noting the Kindle copy prices. I was a Chemistry major, Physics minor undergrad and you were nothing or you would use your real name and put up your credentials.

            For 3/4 of my publications go to worldcat.org and input “Adrian Vance” to the search routine and you will see 614 published citations. There are about 200 more they do not have nor my national magazine Editorships, nor a number of my books. I am telling you the truth. You are swallowing lies by known liars. If you like your myth you can keep your myth, period. They want you to happily pay more in taxes, feeling you are saving the planet. They are defrauding you. It is just that simple.

              • If every time anything appears on whatever you have written about “global warming” appears anywhere and the first post pops up in an hour; it is nasty, mean and destructive and by “James T. Means, Ph.D.” Then what else are you to think?

                Similarly, a nutcase that we have traced to the lab staff at UC Berkeley, “Smiling Hotei” is on your case similarly, but not quite as consistently, and he says he knows where you live, puts up your street address, town and state and threatens to “…come to your door,” do you not feel somewhat threatened? Even if he is a little oriental guy he could have a gun or knife and attack you because he too believes he is “saving the planet.”

                That, sir, is my reality for the simple fact of writing on the science that I know to be true and can prove with experimental demos I have done many times and published several times, as well as actually done, and presented for all to see and understand, the mathematical facts of the ice and its melting, the atmosphere and its heating and much more.

                What have you done other than grace this public forum with crude, insulting, socially unacceptable language and curses?

        • “This is a meaningless, unlabeled, unexplained fantasy; nothing more.”

          Look up and understand Potential Temperature.
          Heat flow is perpendicular to the contours.
          Are you having trouble with that?
          It is similar to a stream flow, as depicted in an elevation map.

      • “Back radiation cannot warm, since the atmosphere above the surface is colder.”

        While that is true, the rest of the story is …
        1) During periods of sunlight, when the sun is warming the surface of the earth, the down dwelling radiation causes a small increase in the rate of warming of the surface of the earth.
        2) During periods of low sun or darkness, when the surface of the earth is cooling, the down dwelling radiation reduces the rate of cooling of the surface of the earth.

        If it weren’t for this down dwelling radiation, it would not be uncommon to see a daily low to high temperature swing exceeding 40 to 50 degrees F daily in a given location, instead of the often occurring 20 to 30 degrees F daily swing. Without any down dwelling radiation we would for example, be seeing orange crop failure in northern Florida in August, due to night time frosts.

        While it appears that your understanding of the radiative physics is somewhat correct, there are others that believe the myth that a warmer body will not absorb radiation from a cooler body. Exchanges of photons, both emissions and absorbances, between two gray bodies always occur in both directions, even at two different black body temperatures.

        Unlike most folks, I’ve actually gone outdoors and measured the down dwelling radiation of the atmosphere with my electronic instrumentation, which measures the block body temperature of the atmosphere. My target on the ground absorbs about 97% of the down dwelling radiation that impinges upon it..

    • The “greenhouse” in greenhouse effect is a metaphor…. Science is not saying that CO2 or any gas creates a solid shell around the globe, like a greenhouse is solid glass or plastic. What does happen is that when CO2, methane and other gases are concentrated in the atmosphere, they react different than oxygen and nitrogen. This reaction makes the gases more active, like when you open a can of Pepsi, a cause and effect. The carbonation is present in the can prior to you opening it, but there are no bubbles. The reaction of harmful gases to the atmosphere has been shown to increase and hold heat in the atmosphere.

      • The two studies that quote this figure have been discounted and labeled as invalid by SCIENCE Magazine and one could be subject to criminal prosecution. The first by Naomi Oresekes, then at Scripps Institute classified scientists not expressing a personal opinion in their studies and articles as believing the hypothesis where they did not.

        In the Doran-Zimmerman study case a grad student claimed to have surveyed 10,265 members of the American Geophysical Union, but had no documentation of having done such a mailing and that it would have cost over $10,000 for all the printing, postage with return covers and weeks of tabulation by a crew, which they could not document, the alleged study has been called a fraud by several investigators.

        • OMG! what a dweeb! You’re not a scientist – you’re not even credible even with your cut and paste job!

          Let”s just say the vast majority of scientists agree with global warming.

          A Far bigger percentage than the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists, yet you seem to be able to make that leap just fine!

          You’re a fking joke.

          • “Let”s just say the vast majority of scientists agree with global warming.”

            Uh, do you live under a rock? Ever heard of the “Global Warming Petition Project”?
            The petition begins as follows:

            “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and other similar proposal.”

            To date, this petition has been signed by 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s.

            BTW, as soon as you brought out the ad hominem, you lost the debate.
            Now, it’s time to go back to your safe space.

      • The “97%” consensus bollocks claim is nothing but a psysops operation, and you fell for it. Why is it never 96% or 98%? A 97% consensus implies that 3% disagree (skeptics, or if you prefer “den***s”). Psychologists have noted that “3” is the “liars number”. The psysops factor is associating the skeptics with “3”, the “liar’s number”.

  2. According to Milankovics studies in the earths orbit around the sun, the earth should be in a cooling pattern and has been for the last 6,000 years, except for the last hundred or so years where CO2 levels and temperatures have been rising.

  3. Feb 3, 2016 What global warming? Large parts of Earth expected to COOL over next five years

    LARGE areas of the globe are set to cool over the next five years, according to weather forecasters. In its latest five-year forecast, up to 2020, the Met Office has said the Antarctic ocean is expected to cool over the period.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/640519/What-global-warming-Large-parts-of-Earth-expected-to-COOL-over-next-five-years

  4. I feel like this is going to be more spectacle than a measured response from the scientific community I’d hoped it would be. Arguably that would be boring and not very “entertaining,” but having Sarah Palin there to attack Bill Nye gives the whole thing a whiff of reality TV and will likely do more harm than good. Hopefully I’m wrong.

    • It could be that or it is migrating attempting to find food or shelter because Texas has been devastated by a long drought (except for the recent Houston rain). These droughts could be the result of shifting weather patterns caused for some reason other than divine intervention. Historians have documented proof of cherry blossom blooms and insect patterns, from around the world, that show spring is consistently starting earlier. Even slight temperature changes can cause animals and insects to occupy different areas. Napa Valley in California is publishing articles about how a few degrees in temperature difference can and from their experts are saying, will affect one of the most productive and popular crops in the world.

      • A slight drop in temperatures and change in wind patterns, can reduce
        wheat crops. Warming has peaked, before the severe cooling to come.
        Yet, the Evil Elite are scare-mongering to enforce Carbon Taxation.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

New Climate Theory – Jupiter Herding Micrometeors Towards Earth?

New theory suggests Earth’s 60‐Year climate cycle may be driven by planetary oscillations directing micrometeors toward Earth, creating more dust – which change cloud...

Bill Gates Urges $35 Billion per Year for Renewable Energy Research

When he isn't dissing "representative democracy" for its failure to address the climate crisis, urging ordinary people to accept higher green energy utility bills...

Hubble Captures Unprecedented Fading of Stingray Nebula

Astronomers have caught a rare look at a rapidly fading shroud of gas around an aging star. Archival data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope...