Why Climate Skeptics Say What They Do

Written by Hans Schreuder

With almost all media outlets “sold” on subscribing to the “man-is-evil and causing global warming and/or climate change and/or climate disruption” meme, what do you expect kids and ordinary folk to “know” about “global temperatures”? classroom

The latest alarmist propaganda piece by Bloomberg typifies the pattern, as penned by compliant (unthinking) author, Alex Nussbaum with his question to schoolkids: “Boys and girls, are global temperatures rising or falling?”

Bloomberg isn’t letting on about all those cherry-picked temperature stations –  with no less than 806 inconvenient ‘cold’ weather stations dropped from climate scientists’ official sampling. So it’s no wonder Nussbaum can disingenuously claim “scientists almost universally agree the world is warming.” His assertion, itself, is doubly misleading because science has also never depended on consensus.

Specific historical proof of the fallibility of this is the 1,400 year “consensus” that the sun revolved around the earth, as well as all the planets and stars – a position enforced by the Papal seat no less. There are many other examples, although none so extreme as to have lasted 14 centuries.

In those days scientists who went against that consensus were either burnt at the stake or confined to house arrest. Nowadays they lose their government funding an/or university tenures. No denial can be tolerated!

We have an identical situation now with the hype over human produced carbon dioxide (CO2), with even the current Pope adding his name to the charade and no debate is allowed – after all “the science is settled” – nothing is further from the truth!

To date there has not been one single scientifically verified piece of evidence to link any warming with an increase in atmospheric CO2 despite no less than 4,000 peer reviewed (pal reviewed?) papers screaming alarm.

Oceans are not fast rising; neither North nor South Pole is melting unusually – both have had record HIGH ice extent during their most recent respective winters; Polar Bears are not becoming extinct – quite the opposite. Indeed, for every alarmist assertion based on statistics skeptics point to contradictions in the evidence. It just goes to prove the old adage, ‘there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.’ Science is hardly ever settled and the refusal of any scientist in the climate alarm field to debate the science behind any and all of the scare stories fed to the eager media is abhorrent to a proper scientist like myself.

It is absolutely impossible to supply empirical evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide causes an increase in the averaged world temperature.

Ordinary citizens have neither the time nor inclination to vet each and every official pronouncement. All they can rely on is their common sense and pose to the alarmists a few telling questions. Questions that needs answering include:

Are you aware that to get a climate science paper peer reviewed in established (government-sanctioned) journals, the authors have to, de facto, agree to the basic premise that any warming is due to humans?

Are you aware that any climate science academic who needs to raise funds for his institute has to agree that any warming is due to humans?

Are you aware that despite a constantly increasing level of atmospheric CO2 there has been no constantly increasing world temperature?

Are you aware that there is in fact no such metric as a “world temperature”; that temperature readings are routinely adjusted to fit a pre-determined agenda?

As mentioned earlier, we are seeing an increase of weather stations in cooler zones being routinely shut down “due to costs.” Is it more than mere coincidence that the temperature stations being lost are in colder areas? So, with this backdrop of apparent mendacity the alleged “warming” being claimed is a mere few hundredths of one degree, which is (a) well outside the accuracy of most thermometers, and (b) hardly stuff of a catastrophic meltdown. Indeed, when perusing our planet’s historic temperature records, slight variations of the order we’ve seen in the last hundred years or so are entirely within natural variation.

But let’s talk a little about that ‘evil’ gas – carbon dioxide – the supposed source of all this ‘dangerous’ temperature rise.

Please bear in mind that there has never ever, as yet, been presented any empirical evidence that can be interpreted as proof that the totality of atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the climate – quite the reverse – climate influences the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide! The man-made proportion of the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is only around 3%, that’s three percent and is the figure detailed in several UN IPCC reports.

As an increasing number of independent scientific studies are showing (such as those at Principia Scientific International) it is not even physically possible for any amount of CO2 to cause warming of the planet. In fact, CO2 is a cooling gas, by whatever means you look at it. Even NASA, now admits that CO2 helps to keep our planet from over-heating – http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate.html

To simplify the technical jargon it is mainly cooling that occurs in earth’s atmosphere by the actions of gases convecting. It can be said that re-radiated energy, in any case, never makes the emitter of that same energy warmer, else we would have found an unlimited source of energy! So few climate scientists, let alone policymakers, realise that all-important issue.

All talk of so-called atmospheric “feedbacks” is scientific gobbledygook as there is never any mention of where the extra energy to “cause” the feedback is coming from, a vital detail that escapes all but the most thorough expert.

As a scientist I could go on and on, backed by at least 30,000 scientists from all over the world and by at least 6,000 papers and articles that were not accepted by the mainstream publishing journals – for political reasons.

Please be advised that when anyone claims that any one year is “warmer” than any other year, when the difference over the past 18 years is barely 0.5°C,  they are clutching at straws in their bias towards scaremongering. And keep in mind, during this same period the atmospheric level of CO2  has kept on rising, all due to perfectly natural causes.

To many who have followed the global warming debate, it is becoming increasingly clear that the true agenda, hidden in plain view, but kept from the public due to lack of media publicity, is the UN’s highly-political Agenda 21 – a route map to an unelected world government controlled by the rich elite (that nefarious ‘one percent’)

For lazy journalists, the politically motivated or plain stupid, it is so much easier to just go along with the consensus, to not rock the boat, to appeal to the authority of government-approved ‘experts’ etc. etc.

The truth remains, regardless of what you read in the newspapers or are told by these so-called experts.

The truth is that the minor warming period during the latter part of the last century is more likely than not perfectly natural and driven by a highly active sun, the same sun that has since gone into a much quieter mode – quieter than in the past 100 years – and may even be heading for hibernation. For the future of mankind let’s pray that does not happen!

Study of our planet’s evolution of the species in and out of ice ages tells us it is cold, not warmth, that is the enemy of life. So there is less reason to be scared about a bit more warmth when more cold is shown to be substantially more harmful.

During the last two documented and widely acknowledged warming periods, two thousand years ago when the Romans ruled the world (Roman Warm Period), and one thousand years ago (Medieval Warm Period) there was prosperity, abundant harvests and life was good. Moreover, neither did the ice caps vanish nor the seas rise alarmingly and only the extreme edges of Greenland were colonised.

Even a cursory search on Google may inform you of the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) and Dalton Minimum (1790 and 1830) periods of cooler climate, when famine, disease and war were the order of the day.

To repeat myself, the answer is hidden within that UN’s Agenda 21 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 which hammers out the message that are too many people and not enough resources. It is the classic Malthusian meme many of us learned in our schooldays and which has been proven wrong time and time again. The Iron Age did not stop when the world ran out of iron, neither did the Bronze Age or the Stone Age stop, etc. etc.

The climate alarmists (modern day Malthusians) scream inexorably “we’re running out of fossil fuels!” –so let’s all panic! But, oh dear, geologists keep discovering new natural sources of these hydro-carbons that appear to be able to last us at least another 1,000 years. And so on and so forth it goes. Indeed, hydrocarbons are being discovered elsewhere in our solar system, thereby casting doubt on the very notion of fossils in ‘fossil fuel.’ Indeed, it appears increasingly likely that earth makes this marvellous natural source of energy on a 24/7/365 basis and long may we continue to enjoy it!

Further reading:

For a detailed report on most climate alarm scenarios presented in the past, please refer to:http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/12/07/climate-depot-special-report-az-climate-reality-check-subprime-science-exposeacute-the-claims-of-the-promoters-of-manmade-climate-fears-are-failing-presented-to-un-summit/

Here is proof, one of many, that there is no magical greenhouse effect on earth, keeping earth warmer that it should be and being enhanced by the increase in carbon dioxide   Lunar cooling/heating disproves Greenhouse Effect on earth  
The scientific truth about atmospheric carbon dioxide is that is causes atmospheric cooling and no warming at all is even possible; quite the opposite of what you have been told thus far: http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate.html

Please immerse yourself in this   letter to Aussie Climate Minister Greg Hunt  and decide if you have been shown any evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

One of the pillars of the UN IPCC science is effectively overthrown in this report: http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/13/kiehl-and-trenberth-debunk-climate-alarm/

For any further research please refer to http://principia-scientific.org/

Comments (38)

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    The Global Warming Doctrine, if I may say so, reminds me very much of the islamic ideology (as opposed to the islamic religion).

    It must be learnt, preferably off-by-heart, and recited parrot fashion.

    It must never be questioned despite all its contradictions, uncertainties, and false and misleading assertions.

    The consensus doctrine must override the rights of the individual.

    Debate on the matter must not be tolerated.

    Saying anything contrary is blasphemous.

    Non-believers must convert or face the adverse consequences.

    Any believer who becomes a non-believer is an apostate.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Mack, 2015-02-10 01:51
    Amazon jungle and ocean phytoplankton as “lungs of the Earth” is a simplified analogy of leaves to human lungs. Fauna lungs exchange atmospheric O2 for oxidation products they produce, like CO2. Flora leaves or “lungs” exchange atmospheric CO2 for photosynthesis product they produce, O2.

    I do not believe it is impossible for humanity to mess up our Mother Earth. I promote chemical engineering to solve problems and protect the environment. I find too many self-proclaimed environmentalists lack appropriate knowledge to solve environmental problems. They just cause expensive controversy, without reconciliation with Nature and fellow man. They employ a pathetic culture ignoring intellectual progress since Bacon 1600.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      Thanks Pierre, It was very interesting to see how much you’ve gone into the emissivity thing. You have to average this out among oceans,jungles,deserts and mountains,…there’s a lot of work and science involved and I commend your work and the other scientists here at PSI. Myself, I would have painted a surface “sky blue”,(local paint shop)and then taken a reading from an “absorptive-emittance”? meter. 🙂 😉
      The thing I was meaning about the Amozan being the “lungs of the world”…it’s the sort of thing you hear from David Attenborough. The oceans being about 70% of the globe may have this role..according to satellites….This clip is worth a look at Pierre..


      I’m slightly of the more optimistic persuasion than you regarding Man’s ability to mess up our Mother Earth, I believe that even if we created a nuclear “winter” with bombs..the earth would bounce back more quickly than imagined.
      Thankyou again for your reply.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Mack, 2015-02-10 01:51
    Check one of Schreuder’s links and you will find my estimate of atmosphere emissivity = 0.830 and surface = 0.1025, for global combo emissivity = 0.70827, not far from Prof Nasif Nahle value of 0.82. I used S-B Law with consensus values for temperature and intensity to infer effective emissivity because it is difficult to estimate emissivity of radiators of complex composition.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/physics-proves-radiating-gases-decrease-global-temperature.html

    I do have emissivity of radiation gases as functions of temperature, pressure and CO2 for engineering purposes, but the range does not extend to high altitude atmosphere conditions and trace compositions. I also have emissivity for photo-plankton filled oceans, jungles, deserts and mountains, but they are for smooth surfaces, known compositions, difficult to integrate for a meaningful average, and not affected by atmospheric CO2. Pursuing a better estimate for Earth’s emissivity has no value and hence no interest for me.

    The important conclusion is exchanging non-radiating O2 for radiating CO2 increases atmospheric and global emissivity. Since intensity and radiation rate to space, measured average 239 w/m2 of Earth’s surface, is set separately by energy balance, independent of Earth’s composition and CO2, S-B Law says radiator temperature drops (slightly) with increasing CO2.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html

    I think the science is settled.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]Since intensity and radiation rate to space, measured average 239 w/m2 of Earth’s surface, [/quote]

      It has never been measured, Pierre, it is the result of the well known “climate science” nonsensical CALCULATION for the “black body Earth”.

      You can only arrive at this number if the Earth has cooled completely to the absolute zero, which is not the case apparently.

      Now, if your scientific paper is based on this false number, your results are automatically false as well. Please strike the word “scientific”.

      Time to start considering counter argumentation, Pierre. Your “science” is certainly not settled.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]Mack, 2015-02-10 01:51
      Check one of Schreuder’s links and you will find my estimate of atmosphere emissivity = 0.830 and surface = 0.1025, for global combo emissivity = 0.70827, not far from Prof Nasif Nahle value of 0.82. I used S-B Law with consensus values for temperature and intensity to infer effective emissivity because it is difficult to estimate emissivity of radiators of complex composition.[/quote]

      More consensus values from those with not a clue of how thermal EMR is generated or transmitted. There is no S-B Law only an equation involving opposing radiances. The S-B equation is “never” applicable with flux through a dispersive media.

      “The important conclusion is exchanging non-radiating O2 for radiating CO2 increases atmospheric and global emissivity.”

      In what possible way?

  • Avatar

    PhysicsGroup

    |

    And so in summary …

    The models are wrong because of the initial assumption that without GH gases the troposphere would have been isothermal. We know this assumption is made because we know the 255K temperature is at about 5Km altitude, and yet they say the surface would have been the same 255K. From there they get their sensitivity by assuming water vapor makes rain forests about 30 to 40 degrees hotter than dry regions and carbon dioxide adds a bit of warming also. In fact none of that happens.

    The assumption regarding isothermal conditions is inherently applying the Clausius “hot to cold” statement which is just a corollary of the Second Law which only applies in a horizontal plane. That we know because it is clearly specified (as here) that the entropy equation is derived by assuming that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy can be ignored. It is those changes which actually cause the temperature gradient to evolve, so we must always remember that sensible heat transfers are not always from warmer to cooler regions in a vertical plane in a gravitational field
    .
    So they cannot prove that the Clausius statement they use to get their assumed isothermal conditions is correct in a vertical column of a planet’s troposphere, and so they cannot prove the fundamental building block upon which they built the GH conjecture.

    Any questions are probably already answered here: http://climate-change-theory.com

  • Avatar

    PhysicsGroup

    |

    [i]When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).[/i] [url=http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html]source[/url]

    That’s a mean temperature 15 C degrees below freezing. But the Moon’s surface receives about twice as much direct solar radiation as does Earth’s surface.

    So the atmosphere keeps the mean surface temperature of Earth somewhat warmer than the Moon’s mean surface temperature, and a lot warmer than direct solar radiation could make Earth’s surface.

    The correct explanation is [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    PhysicsGroup

    |

    PS: There are five other members of our “Planetary Physics” group – all suitably qualified and having a solid understanding of thermodynamics. More importantly, we are all in agreement and will be delivering the same explanation based on [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]this[/url] valid physics at meetings in various cities in Australia and possibly elsewhere soon.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “There are five other members of our “Planetary Physics” group”.
      Would you care to name these five Doug?..or do you have some doubt that the 5 would want their names publicly associated with you?

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”PhysicsGroup”]PS: There are five other members of our “Planetary Physics” group – all suitably qualified and having a solid understanding of thermodynamics. More importantly, we are all in agreement and will be delivering the same explanation based on [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]this[/url] valid physics at meetings in various cities in Australia and possibly elsewhere soon.[/quote]

      So Doug, smelly Cotton sock puppet, now has an idiot group who fantasize of some radiation from the colder atmosphere toward a higher temperature ocean.
      This group of idiot believers, believe “the black body temperature for 51W/m^2 is -100°C”. In actuality the temperature for anything thermally radiating any flux “must be” greater than the temperature of the environment of that “thing”.
      “Our group now comprises myself and four other men and a woman, all of us suitably qualified in physics or, in one case, in engineering with a suitable understanding of thermodynamics.” I suppose, but you seem to have no one that has any understanding whatsoever of the generation or transmission of thermal electromagnetic flux. Truly pitiful

      • Avatar

        PhysicsGroup

        |

        “fantasize of some radiation from the colder atmosphere toward a higher temperature ocean.”

        Not correct. Such would not transfer thermal energy, as per my March 2012 paper.

        “the black body temperature for 51W/m^2 is -100°C” is a correct statement. The radiating temperature for Uranus, for example, is about 59K because that is what the black body temperature is for the solar flux it receives. Such temperatures are found in the methane layer near its TOA.

        Radiation is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature of a planet with a significant atmosphere. What is explained in our group’s [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]website[/url] is that, as about 3,000 others are reading each month.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          Physics Group February 10, 2015 at 12:06 pm
          “Radiation from the colder atmosphere does not penetrate ocean surfaces more than a few nanometers. Its flux…”

          (“fantasize of some radiation from the colder atmosphere toward a higher temperature ocean.”)

          “Not correct. Such would not transfer thermal energy, as per my March 2012 paper.”

          You, claim radiation with flux from a colder to a higher temperature. That is your fantasy. Such cannot… because there is absolutely no such flux. Truly pitiful!

          “the black body temperature for 51W/m^2 is -100°C” is a correct statement.”
          Only to someone like yourself that has no understanding whatsoever of the generation or transmission of thermal electromagnetic flux.
          Such a low temperature would result only in an environment with no opposing radiance. Truly pitiful!

          • Avatar

            PhysicsGroup

            |

            The hypothesis in the website is not about radiation. It is about the thermodynamics of planetary tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantle and cores, as determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            The mean temperature of the surface is not determined primarily by radiation absorbed by that surface.

            I have no reason to alter anything I wrote about radiation in [url=http://www.earth-climate.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]this[/url] paper written three years ago.

          • Avatar

            PhysicsGroup

            |

            When a cloud radiates from its bottom boundary towards the surface then of course there is radiation (carrying electro-magnetic energy) some of which may strike a warmer region on the surface. But the electro-magnetic energy in such radiation from a cooler source is not converted to thermal energy, as was explained by Prof Claes Johnson in his paper “Computational Blackbody Radiation” that was cited in my March 2012 [url=http://www.earth-climate.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]paper[/url] on radiation.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            When a cloud radiates from its bottom boundary towards the surface then of course there is radiation (carrying electro-magnetic energy)
            You or no one else has ever detected observed nor measured your claimed “radiation (carrying electro-magnetic energy)”

            “I have no reason to alter anything I wrote about radiation in this paper written three years ago.”

            Indeed you have no reason! you obviously have not a clue of EMR.

  • Avatar

    PhysicsGroup

    |

    Pierre – even Wikipedia could teach you some physics [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_heat_transfer]here[/url] …

    “Although often discussed as a distinct method of heat transfer, convective heat transfer involves the combined processes of conduction (heat diffusion) and advection (heat transfer by bulk fluid flow).”

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      Doug,
      Although there is “Thermal diffusivity” and for air,in fact, there is actually a thermal diffusivity number.,I think this number (alongside numbers for other solid substances) was measured from a sample of air confined to a sealed container. The interaction between the solid Earth surface and the open air is obviously very different, ie. it’s the REAL world…where air constantly moves over the surface. “Diffusion” is not the right choice of word Duggie boy. This is the real world…and you need to come into it.

      • Avatar

        PhysicsGroup

        |

        I am not talking about what happens at the surface interface, though it is a conduction process due to molecular collision between solid (or liquid) and gaseous molecules.

        Heat diffusion is strictly speaking the literal movement of warmer molecules in among cooler ones. A molecule may pass on average about 13 other molecules before colliding with one.

        In general I am talking about the conduction-like process which involves molecular collisions and also this diffusion without collisions.

        In physics the term “convective heat transfer” is used for all these processes, as well a advection in a gas, but if I use only the term “convective heat transfer” then most people don’t understand that it is primarily molecular collisions that are passing on the kinetic energy in the troposphere. Now I suggest you read the website where this would have been obvious.

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          Well, no wonder you can keep on and on from blog to blog spouting your physics nonsense Doug. All that’s required for you to do is create confusion by perpetually oscillating between macro and micro states. One minute it’s movement of bodies of air, the next molecular collisions.
          “In general I am talking about the ‘conduction-like’ process (whatever the hell that is) which involves molecular collisions and also this ‘diffusion without collisions'”
          It’s unconvincing gobble-de-gook stuff to a person such as myself.
          I prefer to believe in what I read on the front covers of even the most basic physics books you pick up…Heat Transfer…Conduction,Convection,Radiation.
          Sorry ..no mention of “Diffusion” there Duggie boy.

          • Avatar

            PhysicsGroup

            |

            The hypothesis is built only upon the micro state, as is blatantly obvious if you join the other 3,900 who have visited the website this year.

            I very specifically explain that there is no such thing as a body or “parcel” of air that can be held together by anything in calm conditions without wind. I have criticized Stephen Wilde and the Hockey Schtick blog scored a page of refutation on the website, as did PSI.

            If you want to read about molecular collisions then the Wikipedia article on Kinetic Theory will enlighten you. That’s a theory used successfully by Einstein and many others, and I have used it also in conjunction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            If you find anything difficult to understand in the website, firstly read all 5 pages and then refer to the page and paragraph and explain what you don’t understand. I am not here to defend the hypothesis (for which there is overwhelming empirical evidence) – merely to explain it and answer genuine questions.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “The hypothesis is built only upon the micro state…”
            then a little further down:
            “I specifically explain…can be held together by anything in calm conditions without wind.”
            Well there’s an eg of your typical oscillatory physics garbage Doug. Your hypothesis is built only upon the micro-state, yet the very next sentence argues about “wind” .Er…wind..very macro, methinks.
            Sorry Doug..you’re full of bullshit.

          • Avatar

            PhysicsGroup

            |

            Yes I said that, without wind, no packets get held together, and so they can’t exist. That then refutes the macro theory, because it needs wind, but wind does not form the gradient: it destroys it.

            Your comprehension is not particularly good, but if you study carefully what is written at http://climate-change-theory.com then come back and discuss it with me, perhaps on one of the other 12 climate blogs I post on, you might eventually understand that you can’t trap me out because the physics is correct.

  • Avatar

    PhysicsGroup

    |

    “One of the pillars of the UN IPCC science is effectively overthrown” by the fact that there is no valid physics which can be used to prove that isothermal conditions would be the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in calm conditions in a troposphere free of IR-active gases.

    Reasons are in [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-jan-2015-0-35-deg-c/#comment-182081]this[/url] and following comments.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Dr A Hamilton,
    There is no such thing as energy (heat) transfer by diffusion, in gases, liquids or solids.

    There are three mechanisms for heat transfer, conduction and convection, driven by temperature gradients, and radiation, driven by intensity gradients.

    Diffusion is a mechanism for mass transfer, driven by species concentration (strictly chemical potential or fugacity) gradients. Electrical energy transfers as current, driven by voltage gradients. Fluid flow is driven by pressure gradients. Money flow is driven by demand – supply gradients. These are Laws of Nature.

    You have been listening to Doug Cotton too much. He is not familiar with chemical engineering.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      Dr A Hamilton is but another alias,used by smelly cotton socks!

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Hans Schreuder, Interesting, accurate and useful essay. Thanks for linking to one of mine.

    GHGT AGW scare is built on a bizarre concept of average temperature for Earth. Temperature is a point property of the kinetic energy of molecules and atoms, by definition. Once can collect that measurement over time, say every minute for 24 hours, and compute a meaningful time average, say daily (sum/1440) of that point, if its composition is unchanged. The definition precludes any meaningful or consistent method for calculating an average temperature of dissimilar bulk matter. How would one calculate the average temperature of a kg of water at 20C plus 5 kg of silver at 30C plus 10 kg of nitrogen at 40C plus 0.1 kg of an unknown substance or flame at 500C? What is the average temperature of a moving automobile: surface, engine, interior, tires, radiator, and exhaust? What would it mean and what would you use it for if you could?

    Best I can find for Earth’s temperature is measure radiating intensity, I in w/m2, of whole globe with a remote, spacecraft-based, spectrometer and use S-B Law to deduce its average point radiating temperature: K = 100(I/5.67 e)**0.25. Still have problem assigning a corresponding value for surface-atmosphere combination emissivity, e, that changes. Further, if you could deduce e and K, what does K mean and what would you do with it? Build a thermostat to adjust fossil fuel combustion rate? When product CO2 increases emissivity a bit and has a vanishingly small cooling effect on K, -0.08C/CO2 doubling?

    Remember man causes deforestation, which reduces consumption of CO2 and sunlight by photosynthesis according to biochemistry, causing increasing atmospheric CO2 and warming. I recommend planting trees and jungles.

    Which is why a CO2 driven climate change skeptic like me says what I do. I respect the Precautionary Principle: know what you are doing, look before you leap, cause no harm, help your fellow man, the scientific method is best way to elevate belief to knowledge.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      Pierre,
      “Still have problem assigning a corresponding value for surface-atmosphere combination emissivity,e, that changes”
      According to Nasif Nahle, he arrives at that surface-atmosphere emissivity,e, as 0.82. He says this is a measured amount, but reading your comment,I’m having some slight doubtful thoughts about this measurement, and am wondering whether he might have taken the real average global temps. and worked backward through the equation to arrive at the emissivity as 0.82. ie. done a little bit of cheating. 🙂 …which I don’t mind. He’s really OK as far as I’m concerned.
      However I would like your thoughts about this surface-atmosphere emissivity of 0.82, thankyou.
      “Remember man causes deforestation”,
      I think in the large scheme of things this really doesn’t matter too much. The recent satellites have revealed the bigger part played by the ocean’s phytoplankton…to the extent that the idea that the Amazon jungle being the “lungs of the world” may not be true after all.
      Myself,as like you,I’m all for planting trees. Driving around town on a hot sunny day I look at all the trees the council people have planted roadside and get quite pleased at how their shadows on the asphalt are mitigating some of the urban heat island effect. Silly, isn’t it. We all wish for a better green garden world with less human impact.

  • Avatar

    CleanEnergyPundit

    |

    That man-made fairy-tale is nothing but the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever.

    In arriving at this opinion, I rely on two sources: see http://tinyurl.com/lfz53rt

  • Avatar

    Bobbrew

    |

    What a refreshing resurrection / resuscitation / recitation of facts. My first official science inquiry was air sea gas exchange and vertical mixing below and above the sea surface using radon profiles. The man who coined the term Global Warming helped me understand the principles and the techniques for that project.

    Dr Wallace Broecker, in this 60 second History Channel clip

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0aTlyQuvDv3U1Brc0h1WFQxWm8/edit?usp=docslist_api

    suggests Global Warming is caused by the same phenomenon that caused the last 10 cycles.

    If man is causing this one (which he is not) who/what caused the previous nine? Watch the clip and know. Hint- its what’s causing the ice coverage disparity at the poles.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    Dr A Hamilton?! That’s a new one Doug.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Hi Doug,

    the same stupid theory? Change your medication.

  • Avatar

    Dr A Hamilton

    |

    The surface temperature of the earth is not determined by the amount of solar radiation absorbed as that would be far too little. Nor does radiation from the atmosphere cause any heat transfer to the surface which is usually warmer.

    The effect of gravity causing the so-called lapse rate is what can be used to explain the temperature estimated as the mean for the earth’s surface. Similar calculations work on all planets and carbon dioxide does not cause any warming.

    The energy transfers into the surface from the solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere can be explained because it is possible for such heat transfers to occur by diffusion in gases, though they cannot occur by radiation. This is because the temperature gradient represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Those who think heat transfers are only from warmer to cooler regions in a planet’s troposphere obviously do not know or remember that, in the development of the equations for thermodynamic potentials the effect of gravitational potential energy is ignored. Such cannot be ignored in the troposphere.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    Why do skeptics say what we say and are a tad angry about it? Take, for eg., that Trenberth Earth Energy Budget diagram…
    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-1-1-fig-1.jpg
    Notice the cunning bastard Trenberth has got 342w/sq.m incoming solar at the TOA and 324w/sq.m as “backradiation” incoming from the atmosphere.
    The first figure is a genuine wrong calculation derived from the TSI…but the “backradiation” figure pulled from Trenberth’s ass is deliberately choosen to even more confuse any poor student with a whisker of dyslexia..342..324..342..324.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Are you aware that despite a constantly increasing level of atmospheric CO2 there has been no constantly increasing world temperature?

    Are you aware that there is in fact no such metric as a “world temperature”; that temperature readings are routinely adjusted to fit a pre-determined agenda?[/quote]

    I would call it a contradiction.

    The second weird thing is your reference to the historical temperature record. You do understand that what you see on those diagrams is the same “world temperature”, don’t you? No problem with that, Hans?

    Maybe it’s time to stop using the nonsensical “global temperature” argumentation?

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      Everthing can’t be expected to be said correctly Greg. They call it “Global Warming” so that automatically implies “Global temperature”. This, of course,is the great unknown,virtually immeasurable, easily corruptible, most fudgeable,figure that the AGW people will always fall back upon,especially when their asses are being frozen, for eg.in Massachusetts at the moment.
      Good article Hans, and plenty of reading in the links.

    • Avatar

      Hans Schreuder

      |

      Greg, you are always quick off the mark to leave comments on any and all new PSI postings. May I suggest you put pen to paper – so to speak – and send an article or two or three to PSI so that other can see how perfectly well-balanced and free of contradictions your own work is. No problem with that, Greg?
      The only reason the nonsensical “global temperature” parameter is used has to do with the terminology used by all and sundry, a sort of universal nonsensical parameter. Considering that all of climate alarm caused by human emissions of CO2 is a nonsense, the global temperature parameter is a minor issue.

Comments are closed