1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Crickets.............
And to think hucksters like Al Gore have made millions on this scam and continue to be recognized as experts as they feverishly peddle this dribble. It is a sad testament to the gullibility of his useful idiot followers.
“he planet is fine. The people are f%$&ed.” - George Carlin.
Bad science, bad arguments.
The issue is *not* the distribution of thermal energy among chemical species in the atmosphere, but ability to absorb infrared radiation. All wavelengths of sunlight that can be absorbed by atmospheric gasses are absorbed high in the thermosphere and reradiated into space long before they get to surface.
When sunlight is absorbed by the surface, it heats the surface. Think tarmac in July in Dallas at noon. This heat is transferred to the atmosphere by two mechanisms, convection, when air molecules of any species contact the surface, and by radiation. Heat is mostly radiated at infrared wavelengths, the surface converts sunlight to infrared wavelengths.
Gas molecules containing only one element, like N2 or O2 react only weakly with infrared radiation. They are unpolarized and cannot interact with long wave radiation. Molecules with different elements like CO2, H2O and CH4 have electric dipoles and interact with longer wave radiation, converting it into rotational and vibrational modes of the molecule. Random rotation and vibration of molecules are just forms of heat. The mean time between collision between “greenhouse gas” molecules and N2 or O2 is on the order of nanoseconds, faster than they are likely to re-radiate the energy they have absorbed.
The effect is to transfer heat from greenhouse gasses to the more common species. The transfer takes place more or less instantaneously, the entire bulk is at thermal equilibrium in no time. There is naturally so much CO2 in the atmosphere that all the IR radiation emitted by the surface will be absorbed. The question is at what altitude. With higher concentrations of CO2, more is absorbed at lower elevations and has the effect of heating the surface. Without any greenhouse gasses, the earth would be a frozen iceball. With more greenhouse gasses, other things being equal (and they never are), the surface would be warmer.
No one seriously doubts any of this.
“1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet. “
They don’t know. But they’ll often say it’s not the change in temperature but the “rate” of accelerating change that’s the catastrophe. However Karl 2015 put that to bed. Rate of warming is NOT accelerating.
“2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.”
Again crickets, however they’ll dazzle you with lapse rate data for “trapped” LWIR, but ignore increase convection heat losses at lower emissivity levels.
“3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’ “
Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years, again that’s not the problem it’s the “rate” that’s going to kill us all. But the rate isn’t accelerating the only thing that’s accelerating is the amount of ‘adjustmentst’ to the sea-level graphs, the latest being the GIA. A complete joke. Zwally 2015 shows that in Antarctic Ice gains in the interior exceed losses on the coast. So guess what? That slows sea-level rise considerably, and I don’t think they’ve adjusted current data or graphs for that.
“4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.”
Increased polar precipitation due to global warming was predicted by Hansen (criminal) however the observations are just the opposite of what was predicted. Precipitation as snow in western Asia is causeing “long-term, large scale cooling” in winter months (Cohen 2014). And as Zwally noted causing land ice gains in Antarctic. So far the predicted “hotspot” in the tropical tropopause, that was the signature of AGW, is MIA. All this means is that “warming is causing cooling”. In other words: a negative feedback.
“5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.”
We’re at 400ppm, we were at 250ppm during the LIA, at 150ppm all plant life on earth dies.
CO2, in past was 5 time it’s current levels, on a geological scale we’re bouncing off an all-time low. Meanwhile, despite all predictions to the contrary, Global crop yields continue to set records every year.
“6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles. “
Zwally “Ice gains exceed losses” on land in Antarctica, this is contrary to all predictions.
Antarctic SEA ice is also setting new annual records every year, why? Global warming of course, warmer air causes more precipitation which causes desalinization of the ocean raising the temperature sea ice can form (fresh water freezes at higher temp than salt).
However it’s all self-correcting: More sea causes more reflection of sunlight (albedo) causing cooling.
Artic ice is melting. Lowering albedo causing oceans to absorb more heat...so the theory says. However the ice sheet also acts as a blanket “trapping” ocean heat.
Warm tropical waters pouring into an ice-free Arctic causes massive heat losses into the atmosphere, leading to more precipitation, leading to more snow cover in Asia, leading to more albedo, leading to colder regional winters there (Cohen 2014).
Again, self-correcting.
“7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans. “
The typical explanation is milankovich, with natural CO2 enhancement. But now Anthro CO2 is “accelerating” the warming towards catastrophe. This theory conveniently ignores that the Eemian was still warmer than the Holocene.
The hole in the AGW theory is their insistence on a positive CO2 feedback.
EVERYONE agrees that a doubling of CO2 will cause about 1C of warming, EVERYONE.
The “climate-scientist” then add an additions 3C as “positive water vapor (WV) feedback” to all their models.
There’s no evidence to support it, in fact the net feedback as I’ve shown with polar ice and precipitation may indeed be negative.
Bottom line we’ve had 0.8C warming since the Industrial revolution, Karl 2015 tells us that the warming is NOT accelerating, and to get another 0.8 warming we’d need to double our CO2 levels from 400 to 800pp.
That’ll take at least two hundred years, assuming no feedbacks.
Everyone can relax.
rktman, I can get to crickets with one question.
Tell me when, in the history of Earth, has the climate ever been static?
One piece of evidence supporting man-made global warming would at least be a start for a conversation.
Thank you so much for all of the facts and figures! Appreciate it.
There is science, and then there is criminal enterprise. Settled Science or rules of the universe should be considered eternal truths. It would be extremely foolish to base ones life on faulty rules, but there you have it, half or more of the worlds folks wrapped up in lies, deception, and dead end ideology. Pretty selfish to draw in those who deny their self serving ways and cause the innocent to suffer, and for what?
The God complex, you are so smart you single handedly saved the planet, from those idiot deniers. When you don’t believe in a higher power, you have to have a substitute even if it happens to be you.
Read later
Ever since Cain tried the Brothers-Keeper paradigm and the Tower-of-Babel tried to reach to heaven, man has wanted to pretend that the actons of man can somehow change the laws of nature, or of natures God.
In civil government we call it the technocrats. The technocrats are kind-hearted good national socialists. They believe man can engineer its way to the new heaven.
Examples:
Technocrats built high rise public housing projects because they believed that we could more efficiently and more effectively deliver social services to the poor. And the way to help the poor be not-poor is to deliver more effective social services. How did that work out?
Technocrats subsidize AMTRAK because they argue it is more efficient and safer. But what AMTRAK does is slow down freight trains and make them more dangerous. If technocrats really were technocrats and not imposters, they would shift heavy cargo from semi-trucks to trains and make the highways safer for buses and uber.
Technocrats believe solar/wind generation of electricity is so important that they are willing to subsidize it and actually burn more fossil fuel just to make solar/wind work.
If technocrats were really concerned about solving global warming, the intervention of man to reverse global warming would be easy: Have rockets spread reflective confetti in space to reflect back some of the rays of the sun.
If technocrats were really concerned about man, they would put priority on the imminent environmental danger: The need for fresh water. They would support both small and big government efforts to de-salinize salt water. Cricketts?
1: IF CO2 is the cause of climate chang,e why is it that climates always change FIRST, and then cO2 rises only after 800 years later?
2: How can just 0.00136% of our atmosphere possibly trap enough heat to cause global climate change? Where are the figures to show that just 0.00136% of the atmosphere back radiates enough heat to affect global temperatures?
These are the only 2 questions that need to be asked because these two questions expose this whole scam as an ignorant blatant lie-
Our atmosphere has just 0.04% CO2 in it- (that amount alone is nowhere near enough to trap heat in large enough quantities to cause global climate change)- man is responsible for just 3.4% of that 0.04%- this means that the total % of CO2 in the atmosphere due to man is just 0.00136% (3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%)
There is no thick blanket of CO2 covering the globe folks- there is nowhere near enough CO2 to cause even a microscopically thin blanket around hte globe- almost ALL heat blows right on past the insignificant amount of CO2 i n the atmosphere unimpeded- uncaptured- it is impossible that what little is captured is causing global climate change- only a small percentage of what is captured even gets back radiated- so a ‘small % of a small % = NOTHING SIGNIFICANT- Scientists should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting that 0.00136% of our atmosphere is causing cliamte change!
“The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example— so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)— long before humans invented industrial pollution.”
CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years— long before humans invented smokestacks. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
” Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes— confirming that CO2 is not a primary driver of the temperature changes”.
“Approximately 99.72% of the “greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes”
“If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?”
“Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be “effects” and our own sun the “cause”.”
” If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!”
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Like I always say, we (man) is just a pimple on earth’s a$$. We couldn’t do ANYTHING about global warming
1. If we tried to
2. if it we actually happening
It would be like trying to prevent earthquakes in California by pounding giant stakes in the ground to keep the tectonic plates from moving.
Ridiculous, right? Well, so is all this climate change nonsense.
Man isn’t causing it, and man can do NOTHING about it.
It’s a NON issue. “Climate change” is beyond our control.
I don’t know about whether human activity has any effect on climate. What I do know is that:
a.) The climate has been changing cyclically since the beginning of time.
b.) There is a lot more money to be made convincing the rubes that it is their fault than in allowing them to believe it is caused by natural events beyond anyone’s control.
c.) If enough of the rubes can be convinced climate change is caused by Western Civilization, they will vote themselves back into serfdom and servitude in order to “Save the planet”.
For those who accept the AGW construct, the first 6 questions miss the point that an ideal level of these phenomena is not the issue. The problem is change within an interrelated, dynamic system, that occurs too unevenly and/or rapidly for the system to adapt and maintain a critical balance. The assumption is that we would prefer not to have the biological system collapse abruptly. That the climate changed before without human intervention (as suggested in Question 7) does not make rapid climate change desirable now. Just as Edmund Burke realized about politics, too much change too fast crashes the whole system, with disastrous results for society (example: Bolshevik Revolution massively changed Russian society and economy resulting in collapse, starvation, massive die-offs — I was too much of a bad thing too fast).
AGW theory has an internal logic that is compelling — if all factors of an extremely complex system have really been considered. As always, GIGO happens.
For me the difficult questions for AGW are:
1) How do we know that all the data has been collected accurately, and weighted properly, as opposed to having been massaged (or effected by confirmation bias) to create outcomes that fit the theory?
2) How do we know that all effects of a dynamic system have been considered, when the system is subject to natural inputs that are not fully known or anticipated (effect of future solar activity, oceanic CO2 and heat absorption, heat dissipation into outer space, etc.), and the manner in which climate change itself changes the way the climate changes?
3) The killer: What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed remedies for AGW will have the anticipated effect on the climatic stability. What is the total cost? Does it make sense to incur such enormous costs entirely on speculation? Have prior attempts to manipulate nature of a vast scale worked out as anticipated, or were there unintended consequences?
Politicians ignore the fact that there is absolutely ZERO information on item 3. This is all about redistribution of wealth for political benefit.
You don’t have to be factually incorrect to be a simpleton or uninformed. Just by questioning the premise you are in disagreement with a consensus of 97% of all scientists.