APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Wolf DeVoon]

The fascinating "behavior" of these fanatics of climate change is how repressive they are to any contrary arguments.

You know, kinda like the way some folks who are "pro-choice" get when discussing when "life," not self awareness/consciousness begins...

Thanks. Prompted me to glance at the seat of consciousness.

Researchers at George Washington University are reporting that they’ve discovered the human consciousness on-off switch, deep within the brain. When this region of the brain, called the claustrum, is electrically stimulated, consciousness — self-awareness, sentience, whatever you want to call it — appears to turn off completely. When the stimulation is removed, consciousness returns. The claustrum seems to bind together all of our senses, perceptions, and computations into single, cohesive experience. This could have massive repercussions for people currently in a minimally conscious state (i.e. a coma), and for deciding once and for all which organisms are actually conscious. Are monkeys conscious? Cats and dogs? A fetus? [Extreme Tech]

Max Planck Institute smart guys on the other hand, think it's the prefontal cortex, based on monkey studies.

The precise question, however, is the brain function of a True Believer in impending global climate doom.

[Selene]

Good now glance at the seat of unconscious blindness that makes him the most dangerous Chief Executive in American Presidential history...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama defended his remarks about the threat posed by climate change, saying Republicans, including U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, were "the only people" disputing the gravity of the problem.

And the moron gets specific repeating the big lie...Goebbels would have been so proud!

"But, look, here's what we know: 99.5 percent of scientists in the world say this is a really urgent problem," he said. "Political parties around the world. The only people who are still disputing it are either some Republicans in Congress or - folks on the campaign trail.”

The man is a complete idealouge.

A...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/whos-dumb-one-obama-reacts-trump-climate-criticism-151732281.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a new climate change "story war" phrase I think is coming.

weather porn

You can see it on a screengrab from Drudge just now (it's a bit blurry from resizing):



Here's the article that it links to:

News anchors need to go beyond 'weather porn'
by Thomas M. Kostigen
USA TODAY
December 5, 2015

From the article:

Extreme weather and natural disasters account for quadruple as much television network news airtime as they did during 1990s, yet this actually deters viewers from taking precautions and actions. People reportedly find the inundation of information overwhelming, and therefore preventative actions are thought futile.

The idea that too much sizzle is being served up to viewers along with too little substance has been framed as "weather porn." Sure, disaster sights are provocative, but they can also serve to inform. This is where weather news largely falls down. Sights are left for viewers to see and reports for viewers to hear. What about what viewers can do?

. . .

The exceptionally compelling documentary Racing Extinction now airing on the Discovery channel ends by asking viewers to #startwith1thing: "The problems are overwhelming. But the solutions can start with you. It starts with one thing. One thing that changes the way you live, eat, act, drive, work." Environmental solutions are then proffered.

Imagine how much more traction could be had if instead of zippy names and signature gesticulations, hairdos or outfits, on-air meteorologists actually included serious tips with every forecast?

I am not sure how this would work from the standpoint of production, but I'd know when I see it.

Poor Kostigen senses something is wrong in the PR department and is trying to jazz it up a little. So he is running with "weather porn."

Since Obama has recently been hobnobbing with the world's powerful in Paris about climate change and they are desperately seeking a way to connect with a bored public, I predict the phrase, "weather porn," will start to be seen more and more.

After all, powerful people all have press staffs.

So where did the phrase come from?

It seems to have been coined by David Bauder, an Associated Press television writer, based on an offhand comment by news blogger, Andrew Tyndall. See the following article from December of last year:

Weather porn? Storms take over evening news
by David Bauder
December 12, 2014
Kansas City Star (and syndicated with different headlines by AP)

Tyndall's comment was against Ginger Zee of ABC.

Smartphones and social media have made video of dramatic weather, crashing waves and whiteouts of snow more readily available than a decade ago. Typhoon Hagupit in the Philippines wasn’t as bad as anticipated and struck far from an American audience last weekend, but ABC and CBS both ran storm video Monday evening. The images were arresting.

The concern is that video makes weather stories catnip to producers, irresistible even with limited news value, said Patrick Burkey, “Nightly News” executive producer.

Others use a more blunt term: weather porn. The extra time spent on these stories can’t be explained by an increased frequency of or interest in bad weather, and they’re rarely used in context of a discussion about climate change, Tyndall said.

“If Ginger Zee reported in the role of climatologist rather than meteorologist, I would praise ABC’s ‘World News Tonight’s' decision as a daring intervention into a crucial national and global debate,” he said. “Instead, she is more like a pornographer.”

Back then, it was simply a cute phrase, but now I believe it will take on a propaganda-like load.

I believe climate change supporters will try to use it to shame broadcasters into toning down the doom-and-gloom a little and tone up the climate change preaching.

Now why would they want to tone down the danger? The answer is easy. It's because the doomsday narrative of manmade climate change supporters has been wrong on so many predictions, the entire narrative has become an object of mockery and cult humor. Nobody other than those inside the "cult" are taking the end of times story seriously anymore--at least not in the general public.

But a good weather scare still works to get eyeballs on the boob-tube, so it plays.

Now, what does Kostigen (the eminent sage in the first article) propose? (As will those after him?)

Er...

Serious tips

Yup.

Serious tips...

During weather forecasts, he wants images of hurricanes and destruction of property from bad weather--that is, "weather porn"--to be followed by "serious tips" about what people should and should not do about the climate.

And what does that mean? Well... use less gasoline and ride a bike. Eat less beef so there are fewer cow farts in the world. That kind of stuff.

Now, here's the problem.

Unless a TV network wants to commit suicide, it will never scare people with a huge disaster like a tidal wave or tornado, then recommend each individual do something no more effective than rubbing a rabbit's foot to stop a thunderstorm. (Imagine if 20 million people rubbed a rabbit's foot at the same time! We can change the world, folks! ) It might do that once in awhile. I've seen some real boneheaded stuff on the news recently. But not as a regular policy. It needs viewers for news, not comedy.

But there's even a deeper problem for climate change supporters. Kostigen and people like him have been living on the inside of a self-perpetuating bubble for so long, they don't know what persuasion actually looks like.

They don't think through their metaphors within the context of the core stories in the culture. (Al Gore, with all his crazy stuff, was good at this part. At least he used images like a lonely polar bear on a desolate chunk of ice in the water as a metaphor for a vulnerable human species on a fragile planet in an uncaring universe of outer space. )

"Weather porn" does sound good to those who are clueless about persuasion. So I think they are going to start using it and this term will become commonplace with establishment press people. Why? Well, it does sound sexy. I mean, pornography, sex, (wink wink), get it?

But instead of shaming broadcasters into preaching climate change namby-pamby efforts to the plebeians, I think it will have the opposite effect.

I think the anti-manmade climate change people will get an epiphany and start using this term to mean big thick biased science reports, the luxury surrounding fancy climate change conventions, fat government grants to study climate change, new climate laws and things like that.

Imagine images of that stuff.

Weather porn indeed, but porn for the climate change insiders, not the unwashed masses...

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Respectfully, there is no turning back the cult of 'climate change' or uncritical local TV sermons.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a curiosity from the storytelling and propaganda angle:

Scientists Enlist The Big Gun To Get Climate Action: Faith
by Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
December 6, 2015

From the article:

The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

. . .

Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a non-Catholic who advised Pope Francis on climate and is on the pontiff's science academy, says he thinks this new alliance will play a major role in what he hopes will be a historic agreement.

. . .

In some ways, the enlisting of the faith movement is a sign of scientists' desperation, but it's also a realization of the need for a moral revolution on climate, said Ramanathan, who actually briefed the pope on climate in a parking lot.

The world will not act enough on climate change, Ramanathan said, "until we teach this in every church, every mosque, every synagogue, every temple."

Does anyone else get a feeling of cognitive dissonance?

Michael

[Jonathan]

Here's a curiosity from the storytelling and propaganda angle:

Scientists Enlist The Big Gun To Get Climate Action: Faith

by Seth Borenstein

Associated Press

December 6, 2015

From the article:

The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

. . .

Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a non-Catholic who advised Pope Francis on climate and is on the pontiff's science academy, says he thinks this new alliance will play a major role in what he hopes will be a historic agreement.

. . .

In some ways, the enlisting of the faith movement is a sign of scientists' desperation, but it's also a realization of the need for a moral revolution on climate, said Ramanathan, who actually briefed the pope on climate in a parking lot.

The world will not act enough on climate change, Ramanathan said, "until we teach this in every church, every mosque, every synagogue, every temple."

Does anyone else get a feeling of cognitive dissonance?

Michael

Nothing new, here. Same old thing: Zealots enlisting any means available -- other than actual scientific proof, that is -- to push, popularize and impose their political agenda.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Rand agreed with "Reality to be commanded must be obeyed." That's science. Science isn't "followed." Science is done and understood.

Now, where in there goes "faith"?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course, we of the "empirical proof for real" side see what's going on.

Do those of the green cloth see it?

Michael

[Jonathan]

"Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris..."

Heh. What a reasonable, rational, pro-science mindset!

But why stop there? Why not just cut to the chase and round up all of the "deniers" and ship them off to camps where they can be forcibly reeducated or, if they refuse to change their views in the face of torture, why not just "recycle" and "compost" them? Quit pussyfooting around and get down to the true goal of torturing and killing!

J

[BaalChatzaf]

"Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris..."

Heh. What a reasonable, rational, pro-science mindset!

But why stop there? Why not just cut to the chase and round up all of the "deniers" and ship them off to camps where they can be forcibly reeducated or, if they refuse to change their views in the face of torture, why not just "recycle" and "compost" them? Quit pussyfooting around and get down to the true goal of torturing and killing!

J

AGW is currently a secular religion...

That is O.K. My -real religion- is thermodynamics...

In recent commentary I made on B'rashis (Genesis) I pointed out that when God transformed the cosmos which was tohu v' vohu (totally mixed up and chaotic) to an ordered system He was violating the second law of thermodynamics. The people in my congregation let me get away with stuff like that, because it amuses them. They think I am somewhat eccentric.

[Selene]

Which one is the lying ignorant American who served in Vietnam?

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Science and Consensus??????

About 150 years ago almost one hundred percent of certified physicists subscribed to the existence of aether, the elastic medium which is supposed to carry light waves from Here to There.

So much for consensus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's because there were very good reasons and overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, as I'm sure you already know. When just about every expert in a field agrees that some proposition is true, then that is very strong evidence that that proposition is true. The scientific consensus represents the propositions for which everyone who has access to the best data, arguments, and relevant skills in that field agrees are true. These people and their process may be fallible, but that does not make them automatically wrong.

What was interesting was how many physicists still believed aether existed even after the famous after the Michelsob Morley experiment showed contrary results. the MMX has been done thousands of times with ever more sophisticated equipment.

The conclusion is still --- No Aether --

The aether theory was respectable until the MMX busted it. All it takes is one contrary fact, properly observed and corroborated to take down the most beautiful theory or hypothesis. Facts Rule, Theory sometimes serves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exactly. So if you want to disprove AGW, why not find the facts and explanations which actually do that instead of claiming (wrongly) that scientific consensus is meaningless?

One method is so see predictions that do not come out. If we believed the IPCC then battery park in Manhattan should be underwater because of sea level rise produced buy human caused global warming. One can still walk dry shod across Battery Park. In t he past we have had CO2 levels much higher than they are today all without human causes and the Earth did not turn into Venus then. It isn't turning into Venus now. None of the dire predictions of the IPCC have come true. That pretty much tells me their computer GCM models are not very good.

However, the fact of the matter is that temperatures have increased some. But there are many natural drivers that can account for the increase. Clouds are the Venitian Blinds of the earth. If cloud formation is in any ways reduced temperatures will go up some. There is also the effect of the oceans on surface temperatures. None of the IPCC models takes the Pacific Decadal Oscillation into account. Nor the El Nino . They reduce everything to the CO2 level which is going up some. The earth air, ocean system is a fantastically complicated thermodynamic contraption. None of the IPCC models correctly capture the system. There is even some evidence for a natural driven 1500 years warming cooling cycle that has not been taken into account by the IPCC computer models. Have a look at -Unstoppable Global Warming- by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. Sure enough we are warming up some, but it is from natural causes, no capitalistic CO2. But fear not. The cycle has a cool down side. Remember the Little Ice Age (1300 c.e - 1800 c.e). Europe froze its ass off. And it was all natural.

If you want a fairly safe bet, bet on a cooling period some time during the next 500 years. Strictly speaking we are still in an Ice Age, there is Ice at both poles. We are currently in a moderate inter-glacial period during that Ice Age cycles. Enjoy the warm climate. Human culture advances when it is warm and regresses when it is cold.

[BaalChatzaf]

However AGW is sound science done by honest scientists. A proponent of science respects the work of scientists and the scientific method.

Quoth the Raven, nevermore...

"Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting--

"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!

Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!

Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"

Quoth the raven, 'Nevermore.'"

I think you should read this one Naomi...

Climate Change Catastrophes in Critical Thinking

This is to be a work in progress. As I collect more interesting evidence, I'll be sure to add it.

Abstract

This article explores the phenomenon of global warming, climate change, and the extraordinary consequences popularly speculated. As a hypothesis can only be scientific if it is testable, this article tests key assertions of climate change Catastrophism against the facts of the geological record. Finding that, climate change Catastrophism lacks scientific support, the implications of neo-catastrophist behaviour with special regard to global warming is considered and in this light, the proposed remedies for global warming are examined against contemporary crises and opportunities. This article finds that the impact of excessive land clearance is of far greater concern.

The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)

Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13

Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20^th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded. Abstract

This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

This is an extensive analysis, the next section is:

1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the "Greenhouse Effect"? Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition

Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:

"The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."

This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19^th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837). We may compare this description of the "Greenhouse Effect" with that of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18), which lacks the misplaced 19^th century usage:

"The incoming solar radiation that the earth absorbs is re-emitted in the form of so-called infra-red radiation - this is where the vital 'greenhouse effect' begins. Because of the chemical structure of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth, and then emit it, into space and back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric re-emission helps heat the surface of the Earth - as well as the lower atmosphere - and keeps us warm."

This explanation describes the "Greenhouse Effect" as "vital", perhaps because, as Whitaker points out, it warms the earth's surface. Wishart (2009, p. 24) explains that this "Greenhouse Effect" is useful for a completely different reason:

"The Moon is another excellent example of what happens with no greenhouse effect. During the lunar day, average surface temperatures reach 107ºC, while the lunar night sees temperatures drop from boiling point to 153 degrees below zero. No greenhouse gases mean there's no way to smooth out temperatures on the moon. On Earth, greenhouse gases filter some of the sunlight hitting the surface and reflect some of the heat back out into space, meaning the days are cooler, but conversely the gases insulate the planet at night, preventing a lot of the heat from escaping."

In Wishart's explanation above, the Greenhouse Effect" is no longer a warming mechanism but a thermal buffer that moderates the extremes of temperature. In fact, Plimer (2001) uses the term "greenhouse" to denote interglacial periods (e.g. Plimer, 2001, p. 80). In describing the conditions when life evolved on earth 3800 million years ago, Plimer (2001, p. 43), like Wishart, is more reminiscent of Frankland (1864) and Tyndall (1867):

"The Earth's temperature had moderated because the atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide and water vapour created a greenhouse."

The above quotes demonstrate a confusing array of "Greenhouse Effect" definitions, including the first one which seems to contradict itself. Plimer (2009, p. 365) really describes this situation very well when he writes:

"Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is. Well ... do they? Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works. There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea. What really is the greenhouse effect? The use of the term 'greenhouse effect' is a complete misnomer. Greenhouses or glasshouses are used for increasing plant growth, especially in colder climates. A greenhouse eliminates convective cooling, the major process of heat transfer in the atmosphere, and protects the plants from frost."

The "Greenhouse Effect" was originally defined around the hypothesis that visible light penetrating the atmosphere is converted to heat on absorption and emitted as infrared, which is subsequently trapped by the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared. In Arrhenius (1896, p. 237) we read:

"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."

This quote from Arrhenius establishes the fact that the "Greenhouse Effect", far from being a misnomer, is so-called because it was originally based on the assumption that an atmosphere and the glass of a greenhouse are the same in their workings. Interestingly, Fourier doesn't even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).

In spite of Arrhenius' misunderstanding of Fourier, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11^th Edition) reflects his initial opening description of the "Greenhouse Effect":

"

Greenhouse Effect

noun the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface."

These descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" all evade the key question of heat transfer. Given that the "Greenhouse Effect" profoundly affects heat transfer and distribution, what are the thermodynamic properties that govern the "Greenhouse Effect" and how, exactly, is this "Greenhouse Effect" governed by these material properties? Moreover, all of the elements expressed in the preceding quotations can be found in Arrhenius' proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect". While Arrhenius credits Tyndall with the thermal buffer idea expressed in Plimer (2001) and Wishart (2009), he then goes on to express the more complicated idea described in Press & Siever (1982) and Whitaker (2007). The "atmospheric re-emission" that "helps heat the surface of the earth" of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) is the key to Arrhenius' original proposition, which revolves around the backradiation notion first proposed by Pouillet (1838, p. 42; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 61). However, Pouillet used this idea to explain rather than add to the thermal gradient measured in transparent envelopes while, as we shall see, Arrhenius treated backradiation as an addition to the conductive (i.e. net) heat flow indicated by the thermal gradient.

It gets better, the author, apparently a geologist, his resume is on the site, concludes that:

4.0 Conclusion: a Greenhouse with neither Frame nor Foundation Cannot Stand

In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning.

The Hothouse Limerick

There was an old man named Arrhenius

Whose physics were rather erroneous

He recycled rays

In peculiar ways

And created a "heat" most spontaneous!

Timothy Casey, 2010 Since its original proposition by Arrhenius, the definition of the "Greenhouse Effect" has been chaotic and, as such, has successfully obfuscated the weakest and most important part of that proposition. Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone. In fact the physics, as we have examined them, only allow compositional changes to redistribute heat within the absorbing mass of the earth if no change in mean incident radiation occurs. This predicts that atmospheric warming due to increased opacity can only result in surface cooling, which effectively does no more than alter the thermal gradient, thereby redistributing the heat without adding or subtracting from it. This was confirmed by observations of surface cooling during eruptions that ejected ash and carbon dioxide into the stratosphere (Angell & Korshover, 1985) and by observations of stratospheric warming as a consequence of these same eruptions (Angell, 1997). The "Greenhouse Effect" would predict that backradiation from this warmer stratosphere would instead warm the surface significantly. Evidently, this did not occur. If the power recycling mechanisms that typify the "Greenhouse Effect" really existed, we could build cars that ran on nothing but their own recycled momentum and free energy machines could be built to create energy out of nothing more than spent energy. With a viable "Greenhouse Effect" a windscreen would not need a demister as the heat back-radiated by the glass would prevent ice and water drops from condensing and double-glazed windows filled with carbon dioxide would be self heating. In reality, heat flows and is conducted via two modes of heat transfer. One mode of heat flow is by contact transfer, and the other is by radiative transfer. By taking the radiative transfer part of conductive transfer and adding it to the total amount of conductive transfer between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere, Arrhenius (1896) duplicated a portion of the existing heat pro rata to the degree of absorption by carbon dioxide when, in fact, this portion of radiative transfer is already included in the conductive transfer figure.

In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?

The Arhenious back radiation hypothesis turn out to be a subtle contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Somehow heat gets counted twice. Which implies a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

I will tell you how green houses work. they have glass windows which prevent the hot air from rising (as hot air does) and leaving. That means the glass panes heat up and eventually radiate the heat out. As a result cooling is delayed so while the sun shines in through windows the temperature in the greenhouse goes up. The quickest way to cool off a green house is to open the roof panel. You can test this your self. Leave your car parked in the sun a while with the windows shut. Hot isn't it. Now get in and open up the windows. Wow! It sure cools off fast doesn't it?

[Selene]

Nature detests imbalance...

[BaalChatzaf]

Which one is the lying ignorant American who served in Vietnam?

A...

Swift Boat John.

[Selene]

Which one is the lying ignorant American who served in Vietnam?

A...

Swift Boat John.

He never met a super wealthy widow that he did not like!

[moralist]

Adam writes:

He never met a super wealthy widow that he did not like!

Kerry embodies the liberal value of unearned entitlement.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

To me he's worse than Obama.

[william.scherk]

What's that saying about headlines with question marks in them? From a rather trashy pop-science angle in Tech Times (apparently based on an article in a tainted Nature group journal). 

Can Climate Change Alter Course Of History?

Experts have time and again linked climate change to frightening large-scale effects on human civilizations. But how does a shifting climate make or break an empire, as demonstrated by history?

Nature Geoscience proposed the association between the Little Ice Age – ushered in by three major volcanic eruptions in 536, 540, and 547 A.D. – and historical events such as the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of the Arab Empire.

The dramatic social change that swept through Europe and Asia at that same time included food shortages, a pandemic plague outbreak in Eastern Europe, the changing of Chinese dynasties, and the migration of Slavs and other groups across Europe. The collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire even paved the way for the reign of the Byzantine Empire.

Scientists cannot exactly pin all these upheavals down to the climatic shift of their era, but a connection is likely – albeit controversial.

“Ultimately, there can be very little doubt that these sorts of abrupt climatic events place great stress on societies, and can sometimes tip them over the edge,” said geographer Francis Ludlow of Ireland’s Trinity College Dublin.

The demise of what remained of the Roman Empire, for instance, which was then limited to the Mediterranean, was sped up by the loss of land and agricultural output during the mini ice age. Shorter growing seasons affected crops and led to famine as well as greater human vulnerability to disease.

The widespread food shortages are believed to contribute to the mobility of disease-bearing rodents into the empire – eventually reaching pandemic status as it conquered much of Europe, killing millions, and weakening the empire.

And it wasn’t just the Romans who bore the brunt, but also the Eastern Turk Empire around modern-era Mongolia and China’s Northern Wei and Sui dynasties.

Historians pointed to great political turmoil in central Asia during the same period, with a conflict brewing in the regimes of Northern China. Meanwhile, in Europe, Slavic groups were spreading across the continent probably due to social instability from crop shortages, famine, and outbreaks of illness.

 

[Selene]

And the point of this is that during the long history of man the climate has changed and will continue to change?

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                              

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Selene said:

And the point of this is that during the long history of man the climate has changed and will continue to change?

Maybe, but I tend to think the crux is the tempo, amplitude and effect of particular changes -- effect on human beings and the resources they need. In this case, the authors retrospect a Northern Hemisphere 'little ice age' in antiquity at a momentous time in human history. Going by the abstract, I think the authors are doing interesting, if not good or useful work; our mileage probably varies. I find the mention of "the Justinian plague" intriguing and find I know almost nothing about this slice of human time::

Cooling and societal change during the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to around 660 AD

Climatic changes during the first half of the Common Era have been suggested to play a role in societal reorganizations in Europe and Asia, . In particular, the sixth century coincides with rising and falling civilizations, pandemics, human migration and political turmoil. Our understanding of the magnitude and spatial extent as well as the possible causes and concurrences of climate change during this period is, however, still limited. Here we use tree-ring chronologies from the Russian Altai and European Alps to reconstruct summer temperatures over the past two millennia. We find an unprecedented, long-lasting and spatially synchronized cooling following a cluster of large volcanic eruptions in 536, 540 and 547 AD, which was probably sustained by ocean and sea-ice feedbacks, as well as a solar minimum. We thus identify the interval from 536 to about 660?AD as the Late Antique Little Ice Age. Spanning most of the Northern Hemisphere, we suggest that this cold phase be considered as an additional environmental factor contributing to the establishment of the Justinian plague, transformation of the eastern Roman Empire and collapse of the Sasanian Empire, movements out of the Asian steppe and Arabian Peninsula, spread of Slavic-speaking peoples and political upheavals in China.

I find most notable about 'effects' of any purported 'abrupt' climate system lurch is that of scale -- when considering the acceleration over two centuries of  urbanization (and consequent saturation, extent and amount of humans on earth).  What the heck kinds of scales is it necessary to gauge elements and variations of the climate system? You would think that a thing like 'change' is measurable, in some metric, a yard per day or a decibel by hour or a degree by X. That is where the discussion gets to slow down to consider. But that is boring and for another day, so ...

If a comparable climate dip to that of late antiquity  could occur  in our Northern Hemisphere, would immediate and indirect effects be comparable to antiquity? It is at least an interesting question, to my eyes, anyway.  Our library has a subscription to the rag, I hope, so maybe I will report back on my stab at comprehending the no-doubt dense article.

 

Sort of to address an implication of your question, Adam:

Climate change within an overall Goldilocks range may not be a BFD.. But I can conceptualize the purported problem as like too much too soon  too fast, That is what those afflicted with Alarmism identify as salient, at least.  For me there is an ironic angle to climate change projections and scenarios. Some countries will 'win' with otherwise 'alarming' warming in the pipeline.  Canada is one such country among a select few.

If Toronto turns into the torrid equvalent to Lagos by 2100, BFD. Business will still get done, and get done in Dubai, Sahara and Martian conditions. If certain waterways move up shores in Lower Canada, unless there is unforeseen disaster, again a problem but ultimately no BFD to an industrualized first world state. That is the Rand in me speaking. Fuck the losers, Canada will win with the projected scenarios of 'scary' climate change this century.

How do you like your Martini, over thirty years or one hundred? --  and how warm can your Martini be before you gag.  Christ, Toronto (Chicago) is as hot as fuck today. It feels like Dubai or Dakka. Yah, well, Dubai feels like Venus ...

[BaalChatzaf]

On 12/5/2015 at 11:54 AM, Selene said:

Good now glance at the seat of unconscious blindness that makes him the most dangerous Chief Executive in American Presidential history...

And the moron gets specific repeating the big lie...Goebbels would have been so proud!

The man is a complete idealouge.

A...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/whos-dumb-one-obama-reacts-trump-climate-criticism-151732281.html

at one time 99.5 percent of physicists  insisted that all of space was filled with a highly elastic material  with very great stiffness and no mass.  It was called aether.  In 1887 Michelson and Morley performed an experiment that shows there is no such substances.  20 years later  Einstein produced a theory that explained everything aether explained without assuming aether existed.  So much for consensus.   Physics is not a popularity contest or a measure of agreement.  Physics is hypothesizing causes for things  and then testing the hypotheses   So far the grim warnings of the IPCC crew have not come to pass.  One can walk in low Manhattan without wading through three of ocean water.  Here is something the IPCC has not done:   The critical experiment.  The drop dead prediction such that  if it does not come out in fact then the theory must be scrapped.  It is called Science.  When do you suppose the IPCC will finally do some science with all the billions of $$$$  taken from the pockets of the tax payers   to fund whatever it is they are doing.   Model building????  I would prefer it if they did thermodynamics and finally get handle  on the heat exchange feedback mechanisms that regulate heat flows in the atmosphere and in the oceans.  The key to earth's climate is the oceans.  Instead they focus on atmospheric CO2 concentration.   Water vapor is much more  a  "greenhouse"  gas than is CO2.  Also there are methane clathrates.  But CO2  is the villain.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is plant food.  Without it plants do not grow and without plants animals will perish. 

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

at one time 99.5 percent of...

The lie used to be that "97 percent" of scientists believed in doomsday anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate stagnation/global cooling/give us power and money. Now Obama isn't satisfied with such a low number, and has changed the lie to "99.5 percent." Perhaps his method of arriving at that number "improved" on the previous method's "science," which was not to actually read and discover the scientists' views, but to program a computer to do a word search of only the abstracts of their papers and to look for a limited selection of words which were assumed to be indicators of disagreement with AGW, and if those words were not found in any give abstract, then it would be taken as proof that the author of the paper was an AGW believer/supporter/advocate. I'd love to hear what Obama's new and improved method was for adjusting the lie to 99.5 percent.

J

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Here is something the IPCC has not done:   The critical experiment.  The drop dead prediction such that  if it does not come out in fact then the theory must be scrapped.  It is called Science. 

Indeed! Hear, hear! Amen, brother! Hells yeah! Fo'shizzle What he said!

J

[william.scherk]

On 1/21/2016 at 2:31 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

None of the IPCC models takes the Pacific Decadal Oscillation into account.

Wrong.  And you leave the impression that the IPCC itself authors Global Circulation Models. That is also wrong, Bob.

On 1/21/2016 at 2:31 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Nor the El Nino .

Wrong.

On 1/21/2016 at 2:31 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

They reduce everything to the CO2 level which is going up some.

You no longer believe this, I think.

On 2/10/2016 at 11:04 PM, william.scherk said:

On 2/10/2016 at 8:51 PM, Selene said:

And the point of this is that during the long history of man the climate has changed and will continue to change?

Maybe, but I tend to think the crux is the tempo, amplitude and effect of particular changes -- effect on human beings and the resources they need.

Yeahbut. Climate has always changed.  Right?  Right -- but what does that mean in terms of a human lifetime?  Consider the local climate in your area. Has it changed in your lifetime?  Did you expect the climate to change appreciably in your lifetime in your local climatic zone?

Allied to the concepts of tempo, amplitude -- over a human lifetime -- is the concept of differential effect. The theory of anthropogenic global warming predicts that if the appreciable increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will have differential effects by latitude, then the warming effect of the higher concentrations will be felt in the Arctic, and that CO2 will be found above 400pp, which is the estimated global average concentration at this time. It also predicts a larger release of methane from warming/melting permafrost, and that these concentrations will tend to 'pool' ...

Is the current bout of unusual warming in the Arctic something we can point to as having occurred before in recorded history? Is it a natural variation in climate that is simply going through a cycle that we don't understand?

On 2/10/2016 at 11:04 PM, william.scherk said:

Climate change within an overall Goldilocks range may not be a BFD.. But I can conceptualize the purported problem as like too much too soon  too fast, That is what those afflicted with Alarmism identify as salient, at least.  For me there is an ironic angle to climate change projections and scenarios. Some countries will 'win' with otherwise 'alarming' warming in the pipeline.  Canada is one such country among a select few.

If Toronto turns into the torrid equivalent to Lagos by 2100, BFD. Business will still get done, and get done in Dubai, Sahara and Martian conditions. If certain waterways move up shores in Lower Canada, unless there is unforeseen disaster, again a problem but ultimately no BFD to an industrialized first world state. That is the Rand in me speaking. Fuck the losers, Canada will win with the projected scenarios of 'scary' climate change this century.

I asked in another thread "what would it take to change your mind," and I answered it, by reference to the Arctic. 

I haven't had a single answer back  from anyone.  Does that mean that minds are unchangeable, or that folks just prefer not to talk about that threshold?

I don't know.  It could be that nothing would change a mind like Ellen's or Michael's or Jonathan's or Bob's -- but that doesn't make sense to me.  It could be that my question begs some other question, or is framed in a way that seems like a trap.

But I am genuinely curious -- for those who have thought about it, what would change your mind from a position of Skepticism or Lukewarmerism (or some nice way of saying Denial)?

Do the 'changes' in the Arctic mean much of anything to you and your sense of global warming?

Geological process porn!  (From the SIberian Times story "Trembling tundra - the latest weird phenomenon in Siberia's land of craters")