Wednesday, November 25, 2020
Home Middle Column Paper: 'Global warming' causing airline turbulence

Paper: ‘Global warming’ causing airline turbulence

-

Via: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/global-warming-causing-airline-turbulence/

By Paul Homewood

image

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines

 

And guess what, it’s due to climate change!

From the Guardian:

 

United Airlines Flight 880 was carrying more than 200 passengers from Houston, Texas, to London’s Heathrow airport two weeks ago when it was battered by turbulence that threw people on to the cabin ceiling. Twenty-three people were injured. “We were flying along as smooth as can be and then were just slapped massively from the top as if someone had torpedoed us,” one passenger told journalists.

The aircraft, a Boeing 767-300, made an emergency landing at Shannon airport and the injured were taken to University Hospital, Limerick. No one was seriously hurt but all went through a terrifying experience and one, say experts, which will increasingly affect flights.

 

“It is predicted there will be more and more incidents of severe clear-air turbulence, which typically comes out of the blue with no warning, occurring in the near future as climate change takes its effect in the stratosphere,” Dr Paul Williams, a Royal Society research fellow at Reading University, said last week. “There has already been a steady rise in incidents of severe turbulence affecting flights over the past few decades. Globally, turbulence causes dozens of fatalities a year on small private planes and hundreds of injuries to passengers in big jets. And as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere keep on rising, so will the numbers of incidents.”

Williams said that at heights of around 10 to 12km (6-7 miles), a typical cruising altitude for a modern passenger jet plane, temperature changes caused by increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have the effect of making different layers of airflow move at increased speeds relative to each other. When this unstable airflow produces clear-air turbulence – and there are no visual clues to give a pilot warning of what lies ahead – then the aircraft is thrown about with considerable force. “If the effect is severe, it will overcome the force of gravity and fling people out of their seats. Turbulence of this severity is being encountered by planes thousands of times a year now,” Williams added.

In the United States alone, it is estimated that the damage, delays and disruption from turbulence already cost more than $500m (£374m) a year. And all studies suggest that incidents are getting more frequent. For example, in 2006, the US Federal Aviation Administration reported that the number of incidents in which turbulence caused serious accidents in US flights more than doubled between 1982 and 2003. Crucially, that figure includes adjustments made for the rise in numbers of flights produced by the growth of the aviation industry. “Several other studies have produced the same, consistent pattern of a considerable rise in incidents of turbulence – even after adjusting for the aviation industry’s growth,” added Williams.

As to actions that should be taken, Williams is clear. “Always keep your seat belt fastened. I never used to bother until I started studying incidents of turbulence and the injuries involved. Of course, that won’t protect you from someone else getting thrown in the air and landing on you, but it will substantially minimise your chances of getting hurt.”

As to tackling turbulence, limiting carbon dioxide emissions would be an obvious move, he added, though this remains a problematic political goal. More direct measures would be to improve the science of turbulence prediction and to find better meteorological algorithms for forecasting such incidents. Williams said that at present, the science involved had not reached the required precision for forecasting where and when turbulence might strike, but it was improving all the time.

“Engineers are also working on a technique that involves shining ultraviolet light along the path that a plane is taking,” added Williams. “Then you analyse the reflections that come back to the craft. From that, it has been found you can tell when you are likely to hit a turbulence pocket of air that is going to give the aircraft a severe buffeting.”

The problem is that retrofitting all the passenger aircraft currently in operation with ultraviolet detection systems would – at present – cost more than the expense that turbulence imposes on the air travel industry.

“It is currently too expensive for airlines. However, as more carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere, more turbulence disrupts flights, and more passengers get hurt, then we might see some action,” added Williams. “This problem is not going to go away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines

Readers may recall that Paul Williams is the same guy who claimed that the jet stream was getting stronger a few months ago, even though other junk scientists such as Jennifer Francis and John Holdren say the opposite is happening.

It is also the same Paul Williams who has been in receipt of £700K worth of Royal Society Fellowship grants since 2009.

Unfortunately for the credibility of Dr Williams, he also wrote this paper in 2013:

 

image

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1866.epdf?referrer_access_token=pA-uVJG8v4F99z191Yjb09RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ni4XSoWgFR-rK7mFrcF2h0BoT8uBvaVCjA4yyHgNVD6RHtMzYFhw5_CHEgT6KF1fjbFDnt0LLWs0Kr3GC853u6YweQUhfTUMvRCtmRcDFjv5_OKdDcfkxbjJUwMTCLFpTedXICNnKMz0mqaK8MeVfNzVxGFos9xbII49f0Ys1Y9srS12nfKoPcLr-NZeWhvG5XWO-4mdbtwIen_pTCBHt-8NT5_aT8pKOihKejSNJXdw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.huffingtonpost.com

 

In it, he states:

 

image

 

 

74 COMMENTS

  1. This is utter nonsense as putting CO2 in the air actually cools it as it drives water vapor from the air and water vapor is seven times better at heating air than CO2 and there are typically 188 times as many water molecules of water in the air than CO2. Water vapor does 99.8% of all atmospheric heating.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

    • the heating of the air is caused by thermal radiation from the ground, which is increased above ‘normal’ by the increased efficiency of radiative trapping. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how CO2 cools the air, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the temperature of CO2 – what you’re missing is the fact that CO2 more efficiently insulates (i.e. reflects efficiently BACK DOWN) radiation, which heats the ground, which heats the air conductively.

      this is highshool physics, you can do these kinds of experiments in your own backyard. I dont know why you’re confused.

      • Not true: CO2 traps nothing. That is one of Jim Hansen’s claims that he has never explained, nor can he which is why he does not. Heat from the ground passes through CO2 easily; it does not reflect anything. I am a former science teacher in Chemistry, Physics and Biology. What you are saying should not be part of the Physics curricula, but may be today as our school science programs have been politicized by evil politicians seeking more money and power through taxes. What you are saying is wrong and I have proved it many times in demos and books.

        • I dont think I know how to respond to someone who’s claim for qualification is “being a former science teacher”, and then doesn’t understand how CO2 re-radiates IR wavelengths back down to the surface, and how that process ultimately results in conductive heating of the air.

          It’s not hard, Adrian. It’s not voodoo. It’s well understood, it happens, you can check it in an experiment in your backyard, and no amount of you claiming to be anything is going to change it.

          • Sorry, but it is bullshit for money and power. If you have any doubt of my credentials then go to http://worldcat.org and input my name to the search input tab and see a listing of several hundred of my published works for all the big film and book publishers in education and national magazines where I have been on the mastheads of two including four years of doing a monthly column for POPULAR PHOTOGAPHY writing often on the chemistry of photography. You,like so many, have been defrauded in this matter. They only want to tax and control carbon for money and power. Our government is totally corrupt. It is just that simple.

            • Well im sure you for one at least, are impress at your films. what they have to do with the matter at hand is another issue, and that they are not peer reviewed at all, is another. One might question if peer review is important, and to help us understand that it is – one might refer to youtube movies which … prove.. its possible to walk on water.

              Your films, of course, and publishing a column on photography or films somehow qualifies and legitmises you to completely misunderstand basic physics in ways that are .. cunning to me. I’m not sure why you think clicking a shutter means you can completey ignore simple science and physics.

              I’ll tell you what adrian, you can point me to some published papers you’ve had pass peer review on the matter, then – and only then – will I take your comments seriously. Until then, Im sure you understand, I will defer to research,the fact you can do this expermient in your own back yard, basic common sense and intellectual honesty.

              yes, im sure governements are corrupt in some way – anyhow, getting back to the matter at hand which is the simple fact that CO2 is more opaque at IR wavelenths.. unless you thunk that is a government conspiracy too.

              is it also a government conspiracy that the earth orbits the sun? or have you chosen to join us from your self imposed exile in the dark ages?

              Returning once more to the topic.
              CO2 is opaque to IR. period. Its proven, its demonstrated. you can show it in your own back yard. That you are utterly ignorant of this baffles me, but as I said, I cant repel ignorance of this magnitude. I can only enjoy it’s humor

              • You are among the many who have been hornswaggled into believing this BS so you will be happy to pay outrageous taxes and prices for energy that will be 20 times what they should be.

                I prove what I say and have documented it all in “Vapor Tiger” on sale at Amazon.com for only $2.99 in Kindle format and $5.99 in paperback, the lowest prices they would carry it for and you can read it there. do the demos included and prove it for yourself.

                The participants in this have already made about $1 trillion on this fable with much more to come. They have corrupted physical science, educational publishing and more to get virtually unlimited power over fools like you. Again, I prove what I say and the “peer review” process you honor is only part of the corruption, but be my guest and play the fool.

                You should improve your spelling, writing and typing. Your present work makes you look like an idiot in print.

                • just to clarify your point here – I believe the scientific literature and easily demonstrable experiments that confirm CO2 is opaque to IR, because its a government conspiracy?

                  and, because CO2 is opaque to IR, its made people rich?

                  I wont point out then, that the peer review process is why you have a computer. but anyhow.. I think youve probably blown your mind – so far on this site I have found one guy who thinks the optical transmissive properties of a gas is a global conspiracy, and a chap who is yet to be convinced that the ground heats up in sunlight.

                  I can see this site has truly become, the pillar.. or refuge.. or the last few mental “giants” of those more interested in mental masturbation than an intellectually honest pursuit.

                  Ah yes, a “proof” in a self-published book. Now THAT just screams accuracy impartiality.

                  on your way vance, you want to think science is a conspiracy – thats fine. I also hold that you cant speak sense to religious people, on the grounds that if you could, they wouldnt be religious – same deal with you I suspect.

                  dont you have some more .. uh.. “science” to self-publish?

                  • You clearly have no training or understanding of the physics of gases or the corruption of academia. I have been published by the largest organizations in the business, including Britannica and The Smithsonian, but no one will touch anything opposing what the government wants to see. So, I go it alone to try to illuminate fools like you. No gas is “opaque” to IR. Do some serious reading in the pre-1988 books and you may come to your senses. The butts I am trying to save include yours.

                    • You dont save people’s butts with pseudo science.

                      You either publish in peer review, or you dont – and i will watch you bleat as youre proven wrong with common sense, every single time.

                    • You clearly have no training, can barely write a coherent sentence and hide behind a “handle” name. My name and work are well known and I am in a group of “global warming deniers” that include men like Dr. Wm Gray, aka “Dr. Hurricane,” for whom I edited a paper, Dr. Lindsen of Harvard, Dr. Robert Essenhigh, former Chair of Atmospheric Physics at Ohio State, Dr. Jay Lehr of Az State and on, and on through a long list of honest men who say, and prove, anthropogenic warming is BS for money, power, new taxes and bureaus. Your heroes are evil men and women who will not be happy until on their arrival you fall to your knees and scream, “We are not worthy! We are not worthy!”

                      I have a demo that for less than $10 in materials proves conclusively what I say and you will soon be reading all about it as I am determined to take this card house down.

                    • Vance, produce a peer reviewed publication that demonstrattes CO2 is 100% transparent to IR.
                      Until you do that, you can pretend to be a god among goat herders for all I care.

                      You let me know when your peer reviewed publication exists, until then, you’re bleating.

                    • You poor twit, your ignorance is amusing. Go to the American Meteorological Society or NASA or anywhere you can see IR absorption charts for the gases of the atmosphere and there you will see that water vapor absorbs about 4.3 times as much IR in terms of chart area as CO2, but does it in the shorter wavelengths and when you make the adjustment of E = (h x c)/W where E is energy, h is Plancks Constant, c is the speed of light and W is the wavelength that water vapor is 6.83 times the absorber of IR energy as CO2 and has about 188 times as many molecules so it does 1200 times as much atmospheric heating as does CO2 or 99.8% of it, then you may understand that you and the people you admire are full of crap.

                      Jim Hansen’s BS papers were all reviewed by people who worked for him at GISS as they were put on said “boards” to be sure no one called out Jim on his crap. He is bad joke in the community of real atmospheric physicists, but he sold out for money and is thus admired by jerks like you.

                    • Ah yes, the core of the problem – you have no idea what you’re talking about.

                      CO2 reflects energy longer wavelength energy more efficiently – that means anything that is IR, is reflected back down to the ground, where it heats the ground.

                      The ground heats the air far, far more efficiently than the relatively paltry quantitity of water vapour ever could.

                      One more time, since you’ve royally screwed up – and now you’ve shown why:
                      It’s not the WATER that is dominant in heating the air – its the dirt.

                      But yes, CO2 does it too – its just that the dirt is SO much better at it – there’s just so much more of it and the heat capacity matters (sorry – I had to use a technical term there that you’re probably unfamiliar with).

                      One more time – since you really dont seem to get it.
                      Water doesnt heat the air as well as the ground.
                      The ground is heated by re-radiated IR, from the CO2.

                      CO2 and water dont heat the air as well as the ground does.

                      If you want to talk about how the air is heated, talk about how the ground does it. Okay?
                      Are you with me yet?

                      Water – heats air only little
                      CO2 -heats air only little
                      Ground – heats air A LOT!

                      HOT ground heats the air even MORE!!

                      why you’re talking about water in the air is a mystery to me, it indicates you are utterly, utterly clueles of the actual processes at hand – learn a little. Stop talking about how much you think you know, and actually go and find out so you dont embarrass yourself and the rest of humanity quite so expertly.

                      (one more time in really small words – ground heats air the BEST!. okay? water vaopur? meh CO2? meh. ocean? meh. ground! woot!)

                      btw, its cute you regard the most basic equation for determining the rest energy of a photon as “an adjustment”. Youll find when you get into university, that this is actually pretty standard conversion – and all of this has nothing at all to do with your most fundamental stupid that you cant comrprehend we are actually talking about reflection of light, not absorption. Anyhoo!. it’s fun to watch you shoot your feet.

                    • Your “dirt hypothesis” is ridiculous, but considering the source, consistent. Are you aping the English by leaving out articles? I am not impressed and I have long ago received a degree from one while you continue to hide behind a “handle.”

                      Put up your name, credentials and publications and I will continue to try to education you. Otherwise fuck off. That is an old English expression I am sure even you will understand.

                    • its not an hypothesis, it’s a proven process.
                      your degree does not embue you with a claim to understand science or the physics – what you have so far, is a claim for conspiracy theory, backed up by the fact you think surfaces are not made of molecules, and that you cant find the letters “CO2” on a transmission plot, much less understand what transmission is.

                      I dont need to put MY name to the science that was done by the astronomy department of ohio university – why would I repeat something that is already done hundreds and hundreds of times, in observatories all around the world?
                      Are you struggling to find peer revieewed publications on the transmissivity of the amosphere?

                      I dont know why, I can immediately find scores in say – phs Rev, or ApJ, or A&A – you ARE familiar with peer reviewed journals right? or are you still of the opinion that your self-published rubbish is worth more than the roll of special paper in the smallest room in your house?

                      (self published nonsense is invalid as intelligently vetted scientific literature, for the same reasons as vlogs of walkin on water).

                      Looks like you’ve got quite a long way to go – apparently you’re unaware even that a surface of – well anything – is made of molecules.

                      This would constitute primary school level science. Indeed, for an old guy with a lifetime thinking his self-published nonsense has any gravity at all, this is really tragic.

                    • No name, no credentials, no citations, just BS and fake quotes: You are nothing “catie.” Show us your credits, degree, publications, etc.

                      My degree is in Physical Science Education with a major in Chemistry, minors in Physics and Biology, preparation “across the field” for teaching and a career in educational publishing where I have over 700 copyrights, made millions, in every high school in the US and the USSR. I know of what I speak and write; you do not.

                    • I’m confused Vance; can you help clear something up?
                      Your last post implies that the education level of your opponent matters – is that what you’re attempting to imply?

                      Please help, this is starting to smell like an embarrassing double standard (embarrassing for you, not for me)-
                      1. Does qualification level of your opponent matter, or not?
                      2. If It does, are you claiming to hold qualifications superior to those of the qualified, published research scientists you oppose (you know, the guys with hundreds of peer reviewed publications, where you have zero, and hundreds of hours of research experience, where you have zero)?

                      From experience, I regard your most likely course of action here is to ignore the fact I’ve pointed out this absurd double standard, and you will forthwith dismiss much more that I write – and this too is a double standard.

                      Fortunately for you, you dont need advanced degrees to acknowledge a double standard, however, unfortunately for you, it’s not professional, intelligent nor intellectually honest to do so.

                      You tell me vance, are you able to understand that you’ve painted yourself into a corner by implying education level matters to you?

                      (Vance, did you actually teach children it’s okay to be a dishonest as this? How shocking. That is utterly appalling – I’d submit that not only are you demonstrably unqualified to be a researcher, you’re also demonstrably unqualified to be a teacher – and I don’t need to be a teacher to know that. All the videos in the world wont validate nor justify your dismissal of one of the pillars of science: intellectual honesty)

                    • That you refer to me as an “opponent” confesses your state of mind. Where that is the case your level of preparation and accomplishment are germane; as well that you are not sincere which is clearly indicated in your addressing me and lack of regard for the facts.

                      The issue is “global warming” I have proved in print it is a false concept. The effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is that of reducing its capacity for capturing heat from sunlight.

                      The surface temperature of Earth is 10 Celsius degrees. That will not heat air and whatever residual heat is in earth is soon gone when the sun sets and is insignificant for every ton of air on every square foot of this planet.

                      I taught for eight years, seven in Los Angeles and worked part time as a film production consultant, script consultant and location still photographer. I left teaching to become an independent educational supplemental materials producer and theatrical film writer and script consultant, did a special project for Disney, produced for SVE, EBF, UEVA and several small producers, was offered the Editor-in-Chief post for McGraw-Hill, but turned it down as my then wife did not want to live in NYC. Was offered a staff producer job at Universal, but did not want to be tied to other people’s problems as I was enjoying working on my own ideas. Made several million Dollars in the process, but it all came to an end with corruption in the government and school systems so I moved on to computer software.

                      I have spent my life in research and writing. I have not wasted my time publishing in journals coming from the garages and basements of academia. I grew up in that world as the child to two college professors and knew well how corrupt it was and is even more today.

                      In 1972 Doubleday & Co.hired me to review a set of scripts written by two Ph.D.s at Harvard wherein they claimed the cooling towers from the then-planned 1,000 nuclear power plants would turn America into a steam bath. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the “ton-of-air-per-square foot” I knew, got some engineering data, wrote a short paper and sent it to the leading men in atmospheric science. All agreed with me there was no problem. Doubleday hired me rewrite and produce the scripts. That is real research.

                      When Jim Hansen and Al Gore came along in 1988 I knew in a minute they were bullshit and have been working against them since. It has cost me much, but I will not become part of a corrupt enterprise. Your heroes have destroyed science education if not physical science itself. I stand with a rank of men who know better and can prove it. You hide behind a nickname worthy of a dog and do nothing, but make one snarky, insulting remark after another without credentials, experience or real talent in the physical sciences.

                    • Vance, you are an opponent. you represent misinformation, dishonest “science” obfuscation and misdirection. Worse: you are vocal about it and demonstrably bereft of understanding. I am interested in scientific transparency and intellectual honesty – you violate both. So yes, you are an opponent.

                      “The effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is that of reducing its capacity for capturing heat from sunlight.”
                      So what?
                      The process relevant to this particular blog is the greenhouse effect, not direct radiative heating which is, by comparison, rather negligible in terms of the net heat transfer.

                      “I have spent my life in research and writing”

                      ….and you have a sum total of zero peer reviewed research papers. And you apparently dont understand the greenhouse effect and its relevance.

                      “…I knew in a minute they were bullshit”
                      I dont care about Al gore. Why are you talking about Al gore? I care about correctly understanding and representing the science. Science is not politics.

                      So – Vance, tell me why you dont understand the significance of the greenhouse effect.

                    • I am an “opponent” only in your mind. I have documented by credentials, publications by all the major educational publishers in several media while you have provided nothing, but a false name, no credentials, no publications, no verifiable affiliations.

                      “Scientific transparency” is a nonsensical term. You wail about “peer reviewed journals” but quote none, cite none and are unaware most are micro-publications by professors trading off publication to maintain their careers. I grew up in that world and my parents participated in it, but my dad fortunately broke into the bigtime in that business and no longer had to play with the skunks and scoundrels.

                      The “greenhouse effect” is BS as it cannot happen without solids and CO2 is a rare species at the level Hansen claims it is acting as a “greenhouse.” It is not as it cannot and if you understood junior high General Science when it was properly taught you would realize the “greenhouse effect” is a fraud. Just watch Hansen when he talks about that stuff: His eye shift nervously. He lives in fear someone will crush him with reality, but he is always surrounded with sycophants jealous of his money. When asked to do a paper on his “forcing” concept he rambled all over melting glaciers and Arctic ice, but never got near the question. Now he charges $1 per page, $38 for a paper that is nonsense and no one dare challenge him for fear of upsetting the money train from Washington, DC as he and his cohorts sell out America.

                    • vance, your credentials are irrelevant in the face of the qualified scientists you rail against.
                      you do not have peer reviewed publications.

                      I provide links to peer review when I make a point that requires it. As yet, there is no occasion.

                      “The “greenhouse effect” is BS as it cannot happen without solids”
                      The ground vance, is a solid. The ground, vance is what the sun spends most of its time shining on in my country. The ground vance, has a rather high heat transfer coefficient…. the ground.. vance. The ground.

                      “”Scientific transparency” is a nonsensical term”
                      Why? do you not seek to be transparent about what you call your science? If not, then again: you’re worse than the people you rail against.

                      You also charge money for your pseudo science, you’re in no position to complain about others. You are an unqualifed “researcher”.

                      I await your interpretation of “green house effect” – this time with the information that indeed, the ground forms the solid critical to that process. Please continue to explain now, in the context of the vastly higher heat transfer coeficients of the solid ground, versus the relatively insignificant heat transfer coefficients of water, and anything else in the atmosphere.

                      Later on, vance, I’ll enjoy watching you summarize your results of a simple kitchen experiment involving CO2, a pair of sealed bottles, alkaselza/dry ice, a pair of thermometers and a broad-spectrum lamp. Yes vance, you’re about to prove that CO2 is opaque to IR. I’ll even let you know how to do it for free – no charge , like you do.

                    • Vance, I have 2 further questions to submit to you, following your dismissal of science from people with qualifications vastly superior to yours (I refer to the climate change scientists who have degrees, qualifications, knowledge and experience you can only dream of).

                      1. Why were you unable to understand and interpret the significance of the atmospheric transmission spectrum I linked above (from researchers more qualified than you), specifically: why were you unable to identify the LABELLED CO2 absorption features and understand their significance?

                      2. Since you dont accept data from people with qualifications vastly superior to yours, why are you unwilling to conduct a ~1 hour, $3 dollar experiment in your kitchen that will demonstrate – free from conspiracy theory – that CO2 is opaque to UV?

                      (and, the third, yes, there are three. Oops, numeral literacy isnt your forte anyhow)
                      Why are you so demonstrably dishonest and contradictory on these matters? Where does it get you?

                    • I have to admit, I enjoy the irony in people trying to insist the petroleum industry is impoverished, struggling and oppressed by all those mean evil research scientists that have a bankroll vastly in excess of the total personal wealth of the sultan of Omar.

                      Vance – add up the total amount of money the automotive+petroleum industry is worth, then add up the total the climate change science research grants are worth, and let me know who you think is manipulating you.

                      in any case, the original point was about your primitive failure to comprehend the proven, and provable fact CO2 is opaque to IR. You seem hellbent on coming across with a more paltry understanding of basic science than a schoolkid, and that you fund your own publications, rather than have them vetted by the normal peer review process incumbent on every other scientist would suggest to me, that your “conclusive proof” is as reliable as youtube movies claiming to extract zero-point energy from the universe (just fyi, you cant do that either, basic thermodynamics prevents it.

                      Vance. broadcasting your name does not lend you any credibility – it just makes you louder at pseudo science. Conversely, an anonymous handle does not mean what I say is without merit – it just means you dont have a photograph of me to rant at. If you need a photo to rant at, that’s your own peculiarity and has nothing to do with me, basic thermodynamics, your failure to understand industries peddling CO2 are VASTLY more wealthy than the climate change scientists put together, or your failure to comprehend basic first year physics.

                      Vance, so far you know nothing of my training – but your oft-cited claim to fame is merely self-published books and riding on the coat tails of other people – “edited a paper” – editing research papers, by the way, is something professional published researchers do. Reading some manuscript and sending the author some comments is vastly different – and if that’s the limit of your credentials, you’ve got a long way to go before you can claim to have anything even remotely worth more than the special paper on the roll in the smallest room in your house.

                      Vance – lets be clear – do you really think the net worth of the climate change scientists is so vastly greater than the net worth of all the industries set to benefit from you peddling your scientifically bereft twaddle?
                      Really vance? you really think the sultan of Omar is a poor impoverished guy sitting in his slum? I find this kind of point so utterly laughable. How truly ignorant can a person be?

                      Seriously the research scientists are SO much more wealthy and powerful, and have SO much more to gain than the entire petroleum/fossil fuel/automotive/etc. industry all over the world? It’s fascinating that you are so unable to accomplish even the smallest semblance of basic math and intellectual honesty. Really, it’s just breathtakingly ignorant.

                      (incidentally- I turn off my auto correct because I also type in other languages. Let me know if you’re really struggling to cope with typos).

                    • While you hid behind a phony name I use mine proudly having written for every major publisher in education films, having put my products into every high school here and the Soviet Union, there lies a story… Written for 12 national magazines from SEVENTEEN to the The Smithsonian with every photo mag and SKIN Diver on my list. Several books for New York publishers, licensed FCC broadcaster, done hundreds of radio shows, had my own TV show in Santa Barbara, spoken to audiences of 1500 plus several times. See WorldCat.org for a partial list of my 800 copywritten pieces. You have nothing, not even a name.

                      CO2 is no opaque to IR, you idiot. Nor does it reflect it as Gore and Hansen have claimed. Nor does “…manmade CO2 stay in the atmosphere 500 years while “natural” CO2 goes into the oceans as Hansen has claimed having forgotten the Wohler synthesis in 1832, a milestone in physical science.

                      The Forbes analysts say this nonsense has cost America about $1 trillion and the Federal government has spent $550 billion on grants to promote this false case that I can prove with two 2.5 liter soda bottles, 650 ml of distilled water, a quarter teaspoon of baking soda and 13 drops of White Distilled Vinegar to demonstrate that the feared air of 2100 AD the President and Al Gore fear will be one degree Celsius cooler and not five degrees hotter, nor will America turn into Death Valley, but the green plants will love.

                      The increase in CO2 we have enjoyed has increase the orange and corn harvests by 35%. Other crops have not been studied in this respect, but they surely have benefited from the additional CO2, much of which is not man-made as there is more than can be accounted for by man alone and it is probably coming from volcanoes.

                      You are an idiot, but you are not dangerous as have no name, no publications, no education and no brain.

                    • “CO2 is no opaque to IR”
                      notwithstanding your typo there – (obviously your auto correct didnt catch it, but I’m sure it helps you a lot so you can pretend you’re grammatically prudent when it’s actually just your auto correct doing it all for you)

                      Yes, it is, and since I know you’re allergic to meteorology sites, here is one that isnt.:
                      http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/Images/atmos_nirtran.png
                      and another
                      http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

                      Sure, water vapour is a great greenhouse gas – but the quantity of water in the atmosphere isn’t changing so much with time – but the CO2 IS. Methane is also a super greenhouse gas, and that too, is changing with time. Again, water vapour content not so much.

                      This means that the opacity of the atmosphere is changing with time – what solar energy does reach the ground is absorbed; since there are many, many many free energy levels in the molecules comprising the soil, and It can also re-radiate – in terms of emission, it radiates like a black body and therefore, more strongly in the infrared.

                      Both water and CO2 (and methane) are strong absorbers in infrared – CO2 being a linear molecule and therefore more accessible vibrational modes than water – has higher einstein coefficients associated with the emission lines in the infrared. that means that water tends to hold onto its heat energy more readily than does CO2, which re-radiates strongly in the infrared, back down to the ground. The water is effectively a sink of solar energy and can transfer more efficiently only condictively, whereas the CO2 keeps it in play more actively, via radiative transfer.

                      Water is a lousy way to move heat around – it just wont do it. It cant even do it very well in the air – it’s just too big, too heavy, moves too slowly and hits very few other molecules to transfer energy. The ground of course is in direct contact with the air over a HUGE surface – the H2O is effectively negligible by comparison.

                      One more time.
                      1. Radiation from sun – partially absorbed and refelected by atmos. strikes the ground & heats it.
                      2. ground radiates like a grey-body, most strongly in IR AND conductivly heats air at air-ground interface.

                      3. paltry quantities of water, methane and CO2 all absorb at specific frequencies.
                      4. water traps heat energy as kinetic energy, CO2 re-radiates most efficiently back down to the ground. Water does not – to your credit, you got this part right, you just failed to intelligently interpret the significance of it.

                      5. ground continues to heat and continues to conductivity heat air with heat transfer coefficients several orders of magnitude greater than that of any gas.

                      6. Paltry quantity of H2O molecules continue exchange heat very poorly with the rest of the atmosphere with heat transfer coefficients several orders of magnitude lower than the ground.

                      7. Ground continue to exchange heat very efficiently with the ground layers
                      8. Ground layers mix with higher layers, via convection and kinetic mixing.
                      Then again, your argument appears to be that this basic physical process is actually the illuminati conspiring to make CO2 a linear molecule, or something. I honestly have no idea how you regard such an easily demonstrable process as being a conspiracy theory. It’s a complete joke – as is your understanding of such an elementary process. That you further think the IMMENSELY wealthy petrolum/fossil fuel industry is somehow being oppressed/suppressed by the VASTLY UNDER FUNDED climate research community is laughable in the extreme. Maybe you think money only talks when the physics gets too hard for you.

                      One more time: your problem is you think water is significant sink of solar energy relative to the
                      it aint. Why aint it? because there is just a lot more dirt on the ground than there is water in the air, and the dirt has a VASTLY higher heat transfer coefficient than does the water vapour.

                      I’d suggest you bother to get off your butt and find out some of this stuff – dare to enter a university grounds for once and ask someone who knows, if you’re not able to crack a textbook.

                    • You are even more ignorant than I had imagined. That is summary of all the IR absorption spectra for air and you are misinterpreting it. It does not say air is opaque to IR. If it were, as you and Jim Hansen claim, no light energy would strike ground. Some is absorbed per these lines, but most passes through. Water is by far the best IR absorber and it has many more molecules than CO2.

                      Reflection requires the formation of a surface. Liquids and solids can form surfaces as their molecules are in contact. Gasses cannot as their molecules are in motion and they carom off one another. This is the reason the “greenhouse gas” is an inside joke that all the skunks use as a comity code. You have no idea the skullduggery in academia. Both my parents were college professors. I grew up with these skunks and learned all their tricks by the time I was 13.

                      I repaired my typo so you can stop ejaculating over that.

                    • so you dont see the part where it’s labelled ‘CO2’?
                      thats one of the absorption features of CO2 – let me know when you find it.

                      Surfaces are made of molecules. Molecules reflect – actually this is just re-radiation in this case, but its effecitvely the same.
                      Let me know when you figure out that like everything, surfaces are also made of molecules – which reflect.

          • i hope you dont think you need an airconditioner, or use an air-cooled engine. According to you, air conditioners cant work.

            oops. need to rewrite your latest self-published claptrap? how about you attempt something with some intelligent rationale, rather than ignorant pseudo science?

            • You are a raving, anonymous, coward idiot with no credentials or publications or you would cite them. I have published with and been hired by the biggest publishers in the nation, if not world, for many years, not the garage outfits that pepper academia with nonsense like that coming from Jim Hansen who charges $38 for a paper that is utter nonsense. “Paper Tiger” is $2.99 at Amazon.com in Kindle format and if you do not have a Kindle they will give you a Kindle reader for your computer.

              I will soon revise “Paper Tiger” to include my most recent demo of the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces it’s capacity for heating the atmosphere by reducing the amount of water vapor it can hold per Le Chatelier.

              My work is a matter of a 50 year public record with many awards and millions of Dollars earned in publishing and film. You have nothing or you would cite. Your “peer reviewed” journals are frauds as has been proven many times by the honest people in physical science.

              • so what?

                You simply have no idea how the heat transfer works.
                Do you need me to give you citations that sunlight heats the ground? Really vance?

                Do you need me to give you citations that the hot ground heats air? Really? Really really?

                (children can do experiments to show these in their house. why cant you?)

                You love to tell me over and over about your primitive scientific degrees, your paltry self-publication of pseudo science, and how that entitles you to respect, yet you demonise people with vastly superior scientific degrees and absolutely breathtaking publication records.

                Sorry vance, even a child can see – that does not compute.

                Vance, go learn about ground heating.
                Go do the experiments in your house. Really.

                Dont bother replying until you learn about ground heating, heat transfer coefficients, and CO2 opacity and can talk about them in an intelligent, informed way.

                Really, dont bother until you are informed. Reading what you write is like watching a car accident.

                • You are the one that needs to learn how the atmosphere works. It absorbs energy from sunlight. “Ground heating” has very little to do with it. That is why the temperature drops an average of 15 degrees overnight. The ground sucks, literally…

                  All of your “ground heating,” Clausius-Clapeyron and Antoinne equations do not work. They are mathematical models that incorporate flawed functions like linear regression and never make an accurate prediction. They have been consistently wrong in this work.

                  CO2 is not “opaque” to visible light or IR. It absorbs a small amount of IR where water vapor absorbs about seven times as much energy and is the heating element of the atmosphere. Again, you are a know-nothing phony with no credentials, publications or even a name. Stay in your parent’s basement where you belong.

                  “Greenhouse gas” is BS. There are no such gases and a layer of CO2 in the stratosphere does not reflect “ground heat” to heat the gases in the air as Al Gore shows in his “Oscar winning” slide show. He has made half a billion Dollars on this BS. You should be pissed. Some of it is your money as well as mine; more of mine as I have paid much higher taxes than you.

                  • Vance,

                    your #1 problem is that you think greenhouse effect describes direct heating by the sun, of atmosphere only.

                    Wrong.

                    Go find out what people mean by “greenhouse effect”, and then you can complain about it.

                    Dont bother to post until you’ve correctly found out how greenhouse effect works AND you can post a link to it, to prove you’ve read it.
                    this will help you get a headstart, and you can try a few keywords from there.
                    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Clark5/publication/278727987/figure/fig1/AS:[email protected]/Figure-1-Greenhouse-effect.png

                    Honestly, vance, you’re not even talking about the right thing. It’s tragic.

                    • What nonsense: The energy figures are off by a factor of ten, if not 100. At least there is no reflection shown as does Al Gore, Jr. in his “Oscar winning film,” make that narrated slide show. How much re-emission are you going to get from a component that is only 0.04% at the surface and probably 0.01% at 20,000 to 30,000 feet where it appears to be shown as CO2 diffuses at a rate 1/6th that of the prototype “air” molecule per Graham’s Law of gas diffusion.

                      You are way out of your league, but keep looking forward to those 30 times today’s energy bills in electrcity, motor fuel, etc. and I will make you really sick as I patented a process that will make me a billionaire if your side wins, but America will fail and become India. Check out http://CO2Au.blogspot.com and then cry yourself to sleep, turdlet.

                    • I’m not out my league vance, this is pretty much higschool science.

                      Interesting, wrong by a factor of ten you say?

                      that would make the total solar energy flux on the surface something like 17 W/m^2.

                      But okay, let’s get some data of the solar energy flux at the surface- and again since I know you’re allergic to anyone who has superior research qualificaitons to you, we’ll turn to the forestry services.

                      http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp142.pdf

                      This is quite old – 1972, I’m assuming you’re sane, and you dont think the sun has changed significantly since then.

                      therein, are reports of about 700 Calories per cm-2 over a day.

                      I’ll help you with the math here, because I’m not convinced you’re tuned in.

                      700 calories per day per cm^-2 is: 700/(24*60*60)=0.008 per second, per square cm.

                      Now – we have 100*100 cm in a square meter, which means we have about 81 calories per second, per square meter.

                      that is: 81 cal m^-2 s^-1

                      Still with me? this isnt hard math.

                      Most physics students know, or can find out that we have about 4.19 watts in a cal^s-1

                      therefore, in 81 cal m^-2 s^-1 we have about 339 watts^m-2

                      Still with me vance?
                      Well – looky at that. the cited literature is. .uh.. in fact it’s slightly BIGGER than the value above which is different to the idiotic notion of it being 18 watts m^-2

                      So far vance, the research and (very, very basic) calculations prove you wrong.
                      Over to you – cite your references, or otherwise, you’ll have to conceed you’re just basically screwed up, and a liar.

                      which is it vance?

                      As for reflection : vance, water and CO2 emit in the infrared. They also absorb in the infrared. They are line emitters, not broad spectrum, I’ve already given you the reference, why are you stupid about it?

                      Wonderful, you’ve been proven wrong two times now with citation to literature. and you’ve not managed a single citation at all!

                      Want to make it a third time?

                    • All of that nonsense refers to sunlight on the surface. The issue is in the atmosphere and I am tiring of wasting my time with a blithering idiot. Go play with yourself. I am gone from this waste of time. You are an obnoxious waste of time.

                    • yup. refers to heating of the surface.

                      this is how the greenhouse effect works – it’s what you’ve been talking about. Didn’t you know?

                      if you’re talking about something else, fine, its not the greenhouse effect and has nothing whatsoever to do with turbulence – which is the point of this article.

                      I’m glad you’ve just conceeded that nothing you’ve posted here has anything at all to do with the topic of the article.

                      I’ll catch you next time you post more idiotic psudo science, and again, prove you wrong.

                    • see, vance – this is exactly the kind of cheap lazy cop out I would expect from someone as dishonest and disingenuous as yourself – you cant address the topic – youve been proven wrong in this blog alone, two times after pointing to extant literature, you demonstrate you dont actually understand how turbulence works, much less ground heating – heck, you dont even believe the ground is heated by the sun!

                      if you were confused about my spelling in this case, you could refer too all the other times I’d not made the same typo, elsewhere in this blog, when demonstrating your clumsy, incomplete and uninformed pseudo science really is junk.

                      Your failure to understand even the most basic processes here is appalling. That you blisfully drift on, PROVEN to be wrong, and simply ignore the fact is a crime against science.

                      People like you vance, should be held to account. You’re wilfully causing damage, wilfully spreading ignorance, you validate bad science, sloppy logic and dismissal of people with actual science credentials – stupidly enough, you pretend your credentials which are VASTLY inferior, are worth anything at all. They are not.

                      get yourself some integrity, stop lying, stop making it up, learn what it is youre talking about, develop some honesty and stop trying to screw everyone else by being such a pointless dishonest fool.

                      On your way, you inept pointless and talentless hack. You dont belong in the 21st century.

                    • CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.

                      CO2 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 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.

                      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 more.

                    • none of this has anything at all to do with the article.

                      Youre still ignorantly bleating on about the completely wrong process. You’re still unqualified to do it, and you still demonize people with vastly superior qualifications to you, while pretending yours mean anything. they dont.

                      Your pathetic pseudo science got nailed to the wall with its complete lack of informed intelligent discourse, and is worth less than the single-ply paper its printed on – you have the audacity to charge for it and in the same breath, incriminate other people who earn a living from their informed, tested and peer-reviewed experience.

                      I’ve proven two times here alone, that you’re ignorant and immune to thought and information.
                      If you refuse to learn, refuse to use your brain, and refuse to be intelligent: Quit while youre behind. Grow up, get some integrity and get some spine.

                    • My name and credentials are here and a matter of public record at WorldCat.org. Yours are not and you are nothing. I prove what I say. You ramble with misspelling, nonsense ravings and phony “science.”

                    • Your name is associated with pseudo science.
                      You have zero publications.
                      I have proven you two times here, that you’re wrong and ignorant.

                      No amount of whimpering about names or spelling is going to save you vance. You’re wrong, you’re proven wrong, and self-publishing how you bypass peer review. Sorry Vance, time to grow up, and quit while you’re far, far behind.

                    • Fool, go to Worldcat.org and input my name write down the 600+ listings you will see there, roll it up and shove it up your ass.

                      Or buy a copy of “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com for $5.99, read it, do the demos and see for yourself that anthropogenic global warming is bullshit, roll it up and shove it up your butt.

                    • you do not have peer reviewed literature
                      do you not have advanced qualifications
                      The people you demonise do.

                      Pathetic, you use this blog go peddle your pseudo science, when you proved two times here you have no idea what youre talking about.

                      Self publishing means nothing. A 15 year old can do it – and if they do, they would have a better grasp of the science than you.

                      Stop talking about my butt, go learn what science is and how to publish in peer review.

                      You’re done, you’ve not once referred to any literature, and you’ve not once indicated you know anything even remotely like what you’re talking about. quit while you’re behind.

                    • “Peer review” has been corrupted and easily proved when you see the “peers” are all employees of the author, as in the case of Jim Hansen, many times with his 50 lackey Ph.D.s at GISS.

                      I have a very well regarded name in science education both in film and computer software. You do not even have a name!

                      I argue the issues with facts. You attack the authors with insults and behind a “handle,” not your real name. What is it?

                      My publications are documented at Worldcat.org and you have none. That database does not include the ten national magazines in which I have been published here and in the UK, plus none of my books. You have nothing.

                      My books on this subject all include simple experiments that prove what I say. You have nothing, not even a name, but you snipe at me anonymously and expect people to believe your angry invective.

                    • so you contradict yourself.

                      you insist on publications – yet you vilify the people who publish
                      you insist on academic qualifications – yet you demonise anyone with better qualifications than you

                      This is symptomatic of a desperate, angry old man.

                      Your books on the subject are written from a point of view of complete ignorance of the facts, and the data. I’ve proven that two times here, and you have not a single time, shown anything you say to be accurate, correct, or even factual.
                      You cant even use the right words to explain what you mean. you dont know the ground is heated by the sun, and best of all, you didn’t even understand that a ‘surface’ is comprised of molecules.

                      You’re a scientific wash out, and that is why you’re forced to self-publish. That youre forced to self publish is why you lash out at peer review – you cant make the grade, and that pisses you off.

                      again, you’re done – you’ve brought nothing to this table but ignorance, obfuscation – I’ve shown you two times. you lack scientific publications, credentials and intellectual honesty.

                      If you want to further your position, demonstrate anything you say has scientific accuracy – since you demonise science, you’re actually going to find it impossible – at this point, what you sustain is little better than faith. A religion.

                    • When you have a name, a documented degree, publications with real publishers and not the garage and basement “journal” gang that take about $500 for each “paper” they publish, learn to spell, capitalize where needed, make coherent sentences, publish experiments that prove your contentions, as have I many times, won a few awards and honors, as have I, you will be entitled to venture a civil opinion, which none of yours are and some may actually read them, which I doubt anyone does. I am authentic and prove it. You are not and do not.

                    • Adrian, stop feeding the pathetic troll caitie.

                      You’re biting at every piece of bait it throws at you. Don’t feed the trolls.

                    • I know you are right and that it is cruel to flog dumb animals, but he pisses me off hiding behind a phony name, lauding garage publishers who only make it by requiring authors to buy hundreds of copies of their papers and books. My parents were both college professors, I grew up in that world and know well the corruption therein. It kills me what these people have done to science education which has been the work of my life.

                    • You are a total know-nothing phony without a name, credentials of publications of any kind.

                      I was raised in academia and knew well about the “journal” publishers who were all garage and basement operations by professors, many retired, who had a racket going by selling space to the “publish or perish” market. Most studies are BS done for academic PR, promotion and tenure.

                      I have over 800 publications in film and print, ten national magazines here and in the UK you can document at WorldCat.org, wrote and produced for Society For Visual Education, Encyclopedia Films, Doubleday & Co., Ziff-Davis, Amphoto, ROA Films, was a well-known “script doctor” in the business, including a couple of feature films, technical adviser to the Lucy Show and have paid a great personal price for speaking the truth about the “global warming” BS. You are nothing. It is just that simple.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • You twit: You just don’t get it do you… I would like to see you in a real Chemistry or Physics class. You would be gone in a week and probably seeing the campus psychologist several days a week after your first suicide attempt.

                    • So – you cant explain why the ground is hot during the day vance?

                      You claim the ground is not effectively heated by the sun – then what is heating it?

                      It’s amusing you’re unable to answer this question without being a rather unpleasant and obnoxious individual.

                      Come along vance, be a sane individual – every other person on the planet can figure out the ground is hot on a sunny day because of direct radiative heating by the sun. You disagree, – fine, what is your explanation?

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj111d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj111d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash111GroupMarketGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj111d:….,….

          • Try this, believer…

            CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.

            CO2 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 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.

            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 as in a liquid or solid..

            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, the 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 more.

  2. What a steaming pile of Globull Warming bovine excrement!! The desperation in this “warning” is NON SCIENCE at its laughable worst… Since when does CONJECTURE qualify as SCIENCE? ROFLMAO!!
    Paul Williams puts the crack in crackpot.

    • Conjecture is the second part of the scientific method. We learn this in school. It follows observation. It is followed by a test of the conjecture, and a rejection if the conjecture is inconsistent with observation.

      This whole process is pretty mundane, easy to understand and a daily event for pilots.

      Flight over land during mid morning is bumpy – why? the ground heats the air. If the heating is more rapid, the air is more turbulent.
      if you dont like a bumpy ride, fly over water.

      What part of this are you struggling to understand? Everyone else has known about it since kittyhawk – I wonder why you didnt get the memos – they were distributed in school – It’s not even university level physics here, so I dont know why youre so excited.

  3. Any pilot will tell you ground heating causes more turbulence.
    Since CO2 traps the re-radiated radiation from the ground, and increases the radiative heating of the ground, this is a pretty simple and straightforward consequence.

    Kids in primary school learn this – we’ve known it for decades, why is it featuring here as if it’s something we didnt already know happens, much less something posters here can’t grasp?

      • You didnt know that Turbulence over mountains is due to the mountains pushing the air around?

        perhaps a little more education is in order.
        turbulence is nonlaminar flow of air – that can be caused by a few different things: -.e.g something moving through it – i.e. a parcel of warm air rising up, or simply following another aircraft, it can also be caused by laminar flow hititng something, like a mountain.

        As in pretty much anything, it’s not as simple as your average curly-joe thinks it is. But with a little more thought, a little more understanding, and a little education, you’ll get there in the end.

        Incidentally, turbulence over mountains is generally predictable, therefore, it’s not the subject of the article which addresses specifically the more random and difficult to predict thermal turbulence – you did read the article, right?

  4. oh, and a note to the mod:

    you’ve deliberately fibbed about the title here: ” Paper: ‘Global warming’ causing airline turbulence” and it’s this kind of fear mongering you yourselves object to – nowhere in the article does it claim GW causes turbulence at all.

    Mod, when you guys complain about what you call fear mongering – some of it – perhaps much of it, comes from yourselves completely and utterly disingenuously misreporting what it is that people actually say.

    Consequently, in at least some cases, and perhaps many – what you actually object to is not what scientists say at all – it’s what you think they’ve said, or what you’ve made up, or misreported what they’ve said.

    I have no problem with intelligent skepticism, of course not, but I do have a problem with people jumping up and down objecting to things that were not said, and simply fibbing about the detail.

    While I understand it’s a futile hope to ask you folks to practice a tad more geniality, perhaps you could turn your focus inward a little, and be a little more intelligent about what it really is, that you object to.

    “Global warming’ causing airline turbulence” <– agreed, this is stupid its also nothing to do with the linked article.
    "Global warming causing considerable rise in incidents of turbulence" <– is actually the thrust of this article.

    Practice a little intellectual honesty, and perhaps you'll receive something more respectful than a snort and shake of head.

  5. oh, I’ll also point out that pilots are not obligated to report incidence of clear-air turbulence, so intelligent, current statistics on the increasing rate (and/or severity) are impossible to obtain, much less say anything sane about.
    So Williams would be right to say the evidence is not compelling – there isn’t any, what there is, is biased, its not comprehensive nor does it contain information about the severity. Williams also points out that the dataset is insufficiently long to make a meaningful trend analysis.

    Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the article really, which is a comment based on perfectly sane, basic physics, that GW will drive an increase of clear air turbulence. The only problem with that is that it’s difficult to test from the extant data – new data has to be taken, and that takes time.

    Nonetheless, there is nothing in this article to be excited about – why are you all excited about it? Why does it even feature in this blog?

  6. Climate Change and Global Warming are real. In fact probably some time in the next 400 years, the earth average temperature will reach the highs that were seen over the past 400,000 years during the past 3 interglacial warmups. But have no fear, before long the glacial cooling cycle will begin and end with a mile deep glacier over Washington D.C. as happened during those past glacial cool downs.

    Climate Change and Global Warming are a natural phenomena and the 100,000 year glacial cycle is the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. In fact it is more powerful than anything man could attempt. The proof is that if CO2 were controlling them, or having any significant effect on them at all, then as the CO2 concentration went from the normal concentrations of about 200ppm to 400ppm the temperature would have responded accordingly. As a matter of fact, THAT is what all the climate change computer models have been predicting… BUT they were wrong!!!

    Instead the average earth temperature is exactly following the same pattern that has occurred in EVERY interglacial warm up of the past 400,000 years. This is easily seen the chart of the peer reviewed date from the Dome Fugi Antarctic ice core samples (which were duplicated in studies of the Vladivostok ice core samples) on the U.S. Government NOAA web site which clearly shows we remain cooler than the past interglacial warm ups.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html

    • “Instead the average earth temperature is exactly following the same
      pattern that has occurred in EVERY interglacial warm up of the past
      400,000 years”

      And to validate this, you point to research spanning the past 350 thousand years. Let me see – you’re trying to claim that the heating in the last – well lets make it 100 years – is replicated in that graph?

      okay – lets see – a graph with 350 thousand years on an A4 page – that’s about 85 millionth’s of a meter, per year.
      so for you to be able to actually see the kinds of heating we’re talking about now – over 100 years, you’re going to need to be able to have resolution of about 850 thousandths of a mm. …

      you’re kidding right? You REALLY think you can see heating rates of even a few fractions of a degree, over a century, on a plot that extends back 350 thousand years? really Stephen? The data does not exist.

      “Climate Change and Global Warming are a natural phenomena and the
      100,000 year glacial cycle is the most powerful naturally occurring
      climate forcing event”

      Super – so considering this is happening over a century – 1000 times faster than you expect – are you interested or still think you’re able to explain this all away with this plot that has nothing to do with what you say it does?

      • Examine the x axis temperature. We are several degrees C. cooler than the peaks of the past warmups. Even at the extremely rapid rate of warmup that has occurred over the past 100 years, it will be about 400 years to exceed the past highs.

        The predictions of the past 20 or 30 years by the global warming alarmists have predicted much more rapid warming based on their understandings of the warming effects especially of CO2 and their lack of understanding of the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event, the 100,000 year glacial cycle.

        Proof of that is all the failed predictions. Any predictions that have not failed are not different from the past occurrences of the glacial cycle. Take for instance the temperature plateau that occurred since 1997ish (note also there was a plateau around the mid 20th century which caused the scientific community to issue the global cooling hysteria). They have no scientific explanation for this as they have no scientific explanation for why and how the 100,000 glacial cycle was able to over power the 40,000 year orbital cycle.

        Essentially they just accept that both did. They call it an eccentric event. Like Aunt Milly that no one knows why she does what she does, she is eccentric. Lovely eccentricity. That is the excuse when science is not advanced enough to understand the problem.

        We are at the tail end of a normal natural interglacial warming cycle during which the warm up is parabolic. The is why we are warming rapidly and that is NOT “1000 times faster than you expect” THAT is EXACTLY what I expect! It is EXACTLY what has happened in every interglacial warm up of the past 400,000 years. That is Exactly what is happening now and it is Exactly why the predictions of the global warming alarmists are all wrong (unless they correspond with the natural glacial cycle). Global warming is real and natural. Many people are deniers and say it is man caused. Only problem is their predictions are wrong.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Strengthening the climate change scenario framework

Over the past decade, the climate change research community developed a scenario framework that combines alternative futures of climate and society to facilitate integrated...

German Think Tank: Climate Deniers are Holding Back Climate Action

According to a German think tank, most people are not aware of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, with a majority of people...

WMO: “impact of the COVID-19 confinements [on CO2] cannot be distinguished from natural variability”

Proof that ongoing expensive CO2 reduction efforts are utterly futile. Green hopes that the Covid-19 lockdown would have a significant impact on global CO2...