Failed Peer Review & the Bogus Greenhouse Gas Theory
We are often told that we should trust only scientific studies appearing in ‘respected’ peer reviewed journals. But is the peer review system the true gold standard of scientific merit?
In Britain and elsewhere independent scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated and dismayed as to what mainstream publications class as ‘good science.’ Doubts are rising, even among the elite, as evidenced in the UK’s Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) reporting on the Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication (FSSC). In ‘Peer review: not as old as you might think’ (June 25, 2015) The THES asks: “Is peer review broken?”
Many are beginning to realize scientific ‘peer review’ as we know it, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Oxford English Dictionary says that it was not until 1967 that “peer review” was first used – in the US – to describe “a form of review of competence by others in the same occupation.”
Now, 50 years on, those deliberating at the FSSC and elsewhere are having to concede “peer review” should no longer be treated as a shibboleth or a “sacred cow.”
Peer review in climate science is laughingly dismissed as “pal review” after government research credibility in this field nosedived since 2009 and the ‘’Climategate’’ controversy. Then, thousands of leaked emails exposed a clique of government-funded climate alarmists conspiring to keep skeptical papers out of the major science journals. An international conspiracy to make man-made global warming appear as “settled science” almost succeeded that year in convincing world leaders to agree to massive cuts in industrial CO2 emissions at Copenhagen (COP15).
So, this brings us to the crux of this article: peer review of the so-called greenhouse gas theory, cornerstone of man-made global warming alarmism. This ‘theory’ is famously credited to Svante Arrhenius (1896). From his paper ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’ we are told that carbon dioxide (CO2) might be our climate’s control knob. Though in the paper, Arrhenius refers to carbon dioxide as “carbonic acid” as per convention at the time and contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest that burning “fossil fuels” would cause global warming.
Peer review of the climate Co2 theory? Well, none was done at that time because formal science journal peer review only widely existed since the late 1960’s.
The most famous contemporary debunk of the Arrhenius climate theory (1896) was by fellow Swedish scientist Knut Angstrom. Angstrom objected to the value that Arrhenius had used as the absorption coefficient for CO2. At the time Angstrom refuted the quantitative accuracy of the absorption coefficient (1900), but Arrhenius rejected Angstrom’s numbers. By 1906 Arrhenius gave a revised estimate of the effect of a doubling of CO2 being 1.2°C directly and 2.1°C with the water vapor feedback effect included.
Thus, Arrhenius had acknowledged that he had overestimated the impact of a doubling of CO2 by about two hundred and fifty to three hundred percent. This overestimate had to have come largely, if not exclusively, from an overestimate of the absorption coefficient for carbon dioxide.
In 1909 Professor HW Woods performed his famous definitive experiment debunking the GHE. That seemed to nail it. Though a few scientists continued to consider Arrenhius’s work for about a decade. But by 1905 most had rejected Arrenhius on the basis that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was so small compared to the amount of water vapor that even a doubling of it would have an insignificant effect on global temperature.
We know this was the consensus of opinion in the scientific world into the 1950’s. In 1952 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) flatly rejected the GHE and any notion carbon dioxide controlled climate. The AMS wrote that the theory:
“was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.”[1]
But mainstream scientific dissent was systematically brushed under the carpet from the 1980’s when it was recognized the world had switched from an era of cooling to a 30-year warming trend. At the same time scientists noted atmospheric levels of CO2 had been rising, too.
Opportunists such as billionaire, Maurice Strong, saw the chance to impact public policy and take advantage making a ‘correlation equals causation‘ claim, breathing new life into the forgotten GHE. As climatologist Dr Tim Ball noted:
“Global warming uses pseudoscience to achieve a socialist political agenda. It was chosen because it was a global threat that required global governance. It was created through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), sponsored and organized by Maurice Strong. It is the originator of what is broadly called the Green Agenda, an economy based on eliminating CO2 and shifting to alternate energies through Agenda 21.”
History was then re-written to make it appear the GHE had never gone out of fashion. Leading the way was Spencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics. Weart is pre-eminent among establishment science historians with his GHE propaganda. Weart’s book, ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ was made compulsory reading for modern students in this field.
The Hidden Fudged Numbers of L. F. Richardson & G S Calender
Critically, Weart and others appear to not realize that modern government climate computer models rely on the GHE equations made by British math guru, Lewis Fry Richardson. In the 1920’s Richardson created a simple but flawed equation to model the atmosphere into a series of layers but he never intended this to be used for climate forecasting. Richardson’s work was identified and exposed by PSI researcher, Derek Alker (2016).
We know that from 1950 new, more detailed measurement of the absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide revealed that there were some wavelengths of infrared radiation that carbon dioxide absorbed that water vapor did not. Richardson never knew this.
Richardson’s key climate equation is little known but the work of Guy S Callendar is widely lauded by GHE believers. Callendar composed a famous early history of the role of CO2 in climate analysis. But his article is little more than cherry-picked fakery. It purported to show that temperatures around the world had increased by half of one degree Celsius between 1885 to 1950. Callendar gives the temperature record for five areas; the British Isles, Japan, Turkestan, New Zealand and Chile. But the temperature records for all other areas, including the United States, Canada and Australia, he deemed not suitable for inclusion.
Not surprisingly to us skeptics, of the five Callendar showed, two – Japan and Chile – did not show any temperature increase. Turkestan showed an increase of about half a degree; whereas the British Isles and New Zealand showed a temperature increase of about 1°C. Callendar then concocted an average of his five chosen figures; (0+0+½+1+1)/5= half of one degree.
But for some reason Callendar only showed the temperature record for UK going back to 1850. Yet the Central England Temperature Record (CET) goes back to about 1820 and if he hadn’t cherry picked it away it would have revealed that the temperature in 1830 was just as high as it was in 1950. Thus Callendar – through biased selection of the countries and the time period – got partial support for his thesis that temperatures around the world had increased by half of one degree over a 65-year period.
Callendar’s connivance as a data cherry picker was nothing unusual. The Royal Society has been warning readers since the 1830’s to beware. The RS admitted their reviewers were not selecting papers to publish based on the “certainty of the facts” they contained. As our cited Times Higher Ed. Article admits, on the question of peer review:
“….the committee focused on their “importance and singularity” and the quality of their communication.”
Facts weren’t the be all and end all in establishment science, you see. But facts should matter and empirical evidence is abundantly available to discredit the GHE, as Hans Schreuder shows.
The Military-Industrial Complex Co-opts Science
In 2009 Phil Jones, head of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and among the most influential of world government climate scientists admitted it was standard practice to ‘hide’ data. Even pro-green The Guardian newspaper was shocked at the extent these ‘scientists’ sunk to by hiding temperature data that discredited their alarmist theory, as shown in ‘Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws’ ( February 1, 2010).
No one must question such ‘settled science’ when it is so owned and paid for by a clique of powerful international actors. Even the AAAS admits President Dwight D Eisenhower had famously warned about this:
“During the 1961 address, in which the president famously warned of the danger to the nation of a growing armaments industry referred to as a “military-industrial complex,” he included a few sentences about risks posed by a scientific-technological elite. He noted that the technological revolution of previous decades had been fed by more costly and centralized research, increasingly sponsored by the federal government.” [2]
Is it mere coincidence that the modern ‘gold standard’ peer review system in scientific journals began so soon after?
These same people won’t allow any debunk of their precious greenhouse gas (GHE) theory to appear in any of the so-called prestige science journals, which they control. So much so, groupthink pervades the entire climate consensus academic establishment who want to believe carbon dioxide “traps” heat as part of a “greenhouse effect” making earth warmer than it should be.
But there is growing recognition of the dangers of “group think.”
Perhaps it is no wonder that Albert Einstein was among many who despised the secretive, error-prone and biased peer review system. In 1998 an extensive review of the literature on peer review exposed the problems. Too often there is a low level of reliability and agreement over the quality of submitted papers. Lack of objective evaluation criteria is rife and reviewers’ mistakes are hidden in their evaluations and bad papers accepted and good papers rejected. The general finding being that established journals are usually biased against innovative work. They tend to support the status quo.
But it gets worse.
We need to add to this farce the ‘Hansen howler’ – Dr James Hansen, NASA’s former golden boy who gave the game-changer 1988 ‘Global Warming has Begun‘ presentation to the U.S. Government, botched his famous 1981 calculations for the atmospheric CO2 ‘Window’. In Britain that very same year in a speech to the Royal Society, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also sounded the greenhouse gas climate alarm.
Then and now, consensus science relies on the junk science Hansen published in the journal, Science [3]
In that travesty, Hansen wrongly claims carbon dioxide absorbs in an atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers – which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. But the scientific reality is that carbon dioxide only has an effect on the atmosphere from about 13 to 17 microns – a far smaller, more trivial ‘window’ than Hansen’s bogus claim for between 7 to 14 micrometers.
No retraction of that junk paper nor apology or acknowledgement from Hansen, ‘Science’ or all those ‘experts’ who still cite that garbage. Again, any reliance on the ‘gold standard’ of peer review in the ‘best’ of academic journals is proven to be utterly misplaced.
Widely publicized peer reviewed but junk science underpinning government policy doesn’t die easily, even when proven so clearly wrong. Again, the system betrays us all.
Author of the Times Higher Ed. Article Aileen Fyfe admits:
“But the various research teams looking into the history of peer review, including my own, do not yet know enough about why the post-war expansion of scientific research, on both sides of the Atlantic, led to the transformation of refereeing into “peer review”, or why it then came to dominate the evaluation of scholarly research.”
As some of the participants at the Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication meeting suggested: “…as the internet era progresses, we will increasingly move away from journals as the key means of communicating science. It is, therefore, worth considering whether a process that developed for print journals at learned societies will still be fit for purpose in that brave new world.”
Some of us, like Einstein, think that the peer-review system should be abandoned in favor of a “market of ideas.” In an open arena the best research would more readily be identified by the crowd, hence reducing the cost of the review process.
Slowly, slowly some ‘big’ journals and scientific communities are following the lead of innovative online publishers such as Principia Scientific Intl. and making their review process public. Though whether it is too little too late to save the credibility of climate science research remains to be seen.
But all is not lost. In 2017 some of the ‘lesser’ peer reviewed journals permitted publication of studies debunking the GHE as we saw with ‘17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change’. Even in Japan, scientists are pointing out the hidden fatal errors James Hansen et al. rely on and another paper in 2018 shows how our planet’s temperature is easily explained without reliance on any GHE. Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory.
As ‘Slayer‘ Hans Schreuder warns: “The only way to save climate science is by the recognition that carbon dioxide does not “trap” heat and that there is no “greenhouse effect” making earth warmer than it should be.”
John O’Sullivan is CEO of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY to help our non-profit mission to defend the scientific method.
[1] See: CEP Brooks, American Meteorological Society (1951) in its Compendium of Meteorology (Brooks, C.E.P. “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” pp. 1004-18.
[2] ‘After 50 Years, Eisenhower’s Warnings Against a Scientific Elite Still Cause Consternation’ (February 11, 2011) Warren E. Leary: https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-years-eisenhower-s-warnings-against-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation
[3] Hansen’s Hansen J., Johnson D., Lacis A., Lebedeff S., Lee P., Rind D., Russell D., SCIENCE 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511, Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide].
Trackback from your site.
Rosco
| #
How do you explain this then ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x73g9bcp8a167g/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0
Reply
Hans Schreuder
| #
These five papers could be of interest to you:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/EE_20-1_Hertzberg.pdf
and
http://www.biocab.org/Observation_Backradiation.pdf
and
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf
and
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
and
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf
The absorption spectrum you quote does not constitute the greenhouse effect, it merely identifies the gases present in the atmosphere.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ross, Thanks for raising the issue but It’s disappointing that you had no picked up on the work of Norm Kalmonovitch who first raised this back in 2011. His analysis was discussed in some detail in the comments thread on Judith Currry’s blog and no one was able to refute it. See link: https://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/
Please do feel free to submit an article to us for posting and we will gladly run it. We have always posted your submissions in the past. So stop carping and start writing. We plan to post something in the coming weeks. But in the meantime ask yourself this: how is it possible for increases in CO2 above 325ppmv concentration to have any effect on temperature when the 14.77 micron band (13 to 17 microns) is already saturated?
If you can’t explain this then you’re not doing science.
Thanks.
Reply
Rosco
| #
John you are certainly not doing science by falsely attributing claims to people and ridiculing those false claims.
This is simply character assassination.
Just what evidence do you have that the 14.77 micron bandwidth is “saturated” ?
And by what ?
From data I have been able to access the absorption by water vapour at the wavelengths referred to varies from ~50% at the ~13 micron wavelength to ~100% at ~18.
The claim from Hansen was that additional atmospheric CO2 shifts the lower bandwidth to the left to values where water vapour absorbs less than ~25%.
I see no “saturation” here at all.
Besides the concentration of water vapour is highly variable all the time.
The 14.77 micron band (13 to 17 microns) is most decidedly not saturated.
Jerry’s arguments still do not explain why the radiation to space is greatly reduced as shown in the graphs. I don’t buy the randomly deflected photon argument not entering the aperture of the spectrometer – such a suggestion implies the engineers who design these things are idiots and I don’t buy that for one minute !
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
“Jerry’s arguments still do not explain why the radiation to space is greatly reduced as shown in the graphs. I don’t buy the randomly deflected photon argument not entering the aperture of the spectrometer – such a suggestion implies the engineers who design these things are idiots and I don’t buy that for one minute !”
First, I do not consider an attempted explanation an argument. Its just a physical construct that I imagine and share with you to consider. What you do with it is your business.
Relative to the last part of your statement, have you read my essay–How Stupid Am I? (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/)
Engineers did not design the experiment, scientists did. No, I don’t think Aristotle was an idiot but he certainly got several fundamental understandings of the natural world absolutely wrong. And it was a serious struggle for those who followed to correct his errors.
Rosco, because engineers make things, I am sure if the things they make don’t work as designed, their lifespan in the world of engineering is not long. The same standard of performance is not applied to scientists as you well know.
I am sure your comment will become a theme of one of my future essays. For I got up at 3:30am because I could not sleep because of it. So after I had my early morning coffee and pondering a bit, I am writing this.
We having a good and important discussion.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
Challenger “Accident” Engineers said: “Don’t launch; Managers said: “Launch.” The result is history.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
A friend had recently sent me this figure. To explain the information of this data one should ask the question: How was it measured and what is being measured? Of the portions of this infrared radiation between 8-9microns and 10-13microns we might assume has been directly transmitted through the atmosphere from the earth surface to the satellite where is has been measured by a spectrometer. And the missing portions between 9-10microns and 13-16microns have not been directly transmitted through the atmosphere.
Now, I must reason that detector of spectrometer is only intercepting photons whose trajectory is primarily vertical. The spectrometer is not a radiometer which measures the intensity of the radiation across the spectrum of wavelengths. Which measured radiation could be converted to a temperature by using the S-B radiation law.
The spectrometer only compares the intensities of photons of a specific wavelengths relative to each other and there is no measurement of the actual value of the intensity.
It is the ‘shape’ of the observed spectrum which is used to determine the temperature of the radiation surface assume to be a black-body according to Plank’s Distribution Law for radiation. Hence, also shown in the figure are the shapes of the spectrum of lesser temperatures than 300K.
But not only can the temperature of a spectrum be determined by the shape but it (the temperature) can determined by the wavelength of the maximum intensity. If you look at lower temperature shapes you can see how the wavelength of the maximum intensity becomes shorter as the temperature increases. And as I inspect the spectrum I conclude that the wavelength of the maximum intensity could be 15microns which makes the temperature of the radiating surface significantly greater than 300K.
Now what we do not know about this spectrum is the time of day it was observed or where it was observed. Or what the observed surface temperature, measured at the earth’s surface, at the time and location vertically below the satellite was.
All this missing information is quite important to actually explain the figure.
But my friend and I suspect you assume the ‘bites’ (my friend’s term) out of the spectrum is due to the absorption of the infrared radiation by certain greenhouse gases and they are.
But Richard Feynman taught his students (The Feynman Lectures On Physics Vol I pp 42-9): “Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.”
So when gas molecules absorb certain photons with a vertical trajectory they do not likely emit (induced emission) these same photos with a vertical trajectory. Hence, these absorbed photos are not detected by the spectrometer on the satellite. And certainly these absorbed and then emitted photons cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Of course you are free to disagree with Einstein, but than you have to explain lasers without using his assumption.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
What we don’t know about the spectrum as shown by Petty’s diagram doesn’t matter at all. As you can see the fact is that it is a consistent result across a “swag” of different satellite spectral recordings as illustrated by these 2 different graphs linked below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jebj46o3rismidj/Emitted%20Radiance.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqt3u13u1pp0j8q/irradiance2SMCM11L.jpg?dl=0
The fact is beyond dispute – between ~550 and ~800 per cm the radiation from the surface at all typical terrestrial temperatures is not exiting the atmosphere – this is irrefutable.
It is clearly shown in all of these graphs.
As can be clearly seen from the Planck curves this is not irrelevant !
No matter what the explanation as to why the radiation in these bands is not escaping to space.
This must reduce the total emissive power of the Earth so what evidence has anyone produced to dismiss this absolute reality ?
I’ll tell you – none !
Reply
Rosco
| #
Jerry said – “”The spectrometer only compares the intensities of photons of a specific wavelengths relative to each other and there is no measurement of the actual value of the intensity.”
Exactly – and they measure band by band and they compile the results to produce these graphs.
Just like is shown in this 4th version here :-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6sxsaxyk24xh2k/images9JGC5NX2.jpg?dl=0
Still doesn’t change the fact that the total emissive power of the Earth is less than it would be if it were a surface radiating directly to space or if there were no absorption of these wavelengths.
The total power emitted is the area under the curve and the area under the spectrometer measured curve is less than the area under the Planck curves of reasonable fit such as 280 to 300 K – this is irrefutable.
Look at the measured units – Radiance in units of mW/m2.sr.cm-1 and wavenumber in cm-1
Multiply them together and by pi and you get mW/m2 – the total area under the curve can be calculated by numeric methods or by integrating Planck’s equation for true blackbody radiation.
The total power emitted is less – this is irrefutable.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
First, thank you for agreeing I might have gotten something correct. But as you continue I do not know why you seem to ignore the last paragraph of my comment.
I agree with your statement: “Still doesn’t change the fact that the total emissive power of the Earth is less than it would be if it were a surface radiating directly to space or if there were no absorption of these wavelengths.” For given these assumed conditions I agree because the paths of the photons emitted from the surface would not be deflected from their straight line paths which as a first approximation we might assume to be perpendicular to the earth’s level surface.
What I do not know is if you accept Einstein’ “assumption that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission” which offers the likely possibility that all absorbed photons have been redirected along some other straight line path when emitted.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
I have no problem with any of Einstein’s work that I have read and understand.
I’m just not sure why any “scattering” of IR by deflecting the “photons” from straight line paths is relevant to the fact that these graphs indisputably demonstrate that the emissions from Earth to space are reduced in the wavelengths shown than indicated by Planck curves. If anything this line of argument supports greenhouse gas arguments – these gases “lock in” these photons in the atmosphere.
There are very important facts to be learnt by mastering some of the basics of spectral analysis which is why I raised this in the first place.
There are several ways to consider these graphs – one is to note the large amount of radiance that does not leave the atmosphere whilst the other is to note that the emissions originate from “objects” at substantially lower temperatures which belies any possibility of a “powerful greenhouse gas back radiative effect”.
There is also the obvious fact that simply changing the variable used to plot these curves changes the wavelength of peak emissions – from around 17 micron in Petty’s graph
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x73g9bcp8a167g/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0
to around 9.6 micron in this version
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jebj46o3rismidj/Emitted%20Radiance.jpg?dl=0
My point in raising this and the fact that Hansen has been ridiculed unfairly in this article by asserting something he NEVER claimed at all is that unless you can understand these spectral considerations any article containing meaningless generalisations and falsehoods isn’t even worth reading !
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
Maybe I did not state my understanding well. My understanding is that the spectrometer in the space craft has a small opening (cannot come close to spelling the proper term) through which the photons must enter to be sorted by wavelength and detected. The photons which enter the spectrometer must be directly coming through a small cone of space whose circumference gradually becomes greater toward the earth. So only the photons following direct straight lines paths within this cone of space will be detected by the spectrometer. And a photon which is absorbed and emitted in different direction from its former straight line path within this cone will unlikely remain in the cone of space which gets smaller and smaller as it gets closer to the spectrometer. Hence it misses the small hole. But we see that many other photons, which we understand should never be absorbed by any gas molecules, do enter the spectrometer as expected from the flux being emitted by the earth surface.
So let me know if this helps.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Need to add: the deflected photons, I imagine that all absorbed-emitted photons eventually make it to space or may be a portion the downwelling IR detected at the earth’s surface. But when this photo is absorbed by something at the surface, it is emitted upward again to become part of those photons being emitted by the matter of the surface because of its temperature. The second type of emission according to Einstein’s three process mechanism.
lifeisthermal
| #
It means the atmosphere emits less radiation from increasing co2. If something emits less radiation, it got colder.
It doesn’t mean the surface gets warmer, because emission depends on the internal state only, the atmosphere is not part of the surface internal state.
Simply: a cold gas cannot heat a warm heat source.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The problem with ‘climate science’s view of climate is that it has restricted the subject to fluids of this planet. Crass, dumb, numbskulls!
This planet, more than any other we know, has other agencies that help regulate this planet’s climate. It is NOT just about the atmosphere, it’s NOT just about the oceans, it’s NOT how they act together!
This planet, as far as we know, is the ONLY one that has life on it. Think about it!
This planet gets more than enough energy from the sun to run not only some mostly inert mechanical and natural process, but it powers all life — ALL LIFE — on the planet, and natural life as an overall system, the biosphere, helps control that climate as much as it can. And it sequesters away for a time as much of the sun’s energy as it is able – from parts of a second to thousands of years!
And CO2 is essential for that life as well as that sun’s energy. CO2 at 800 ppm ensures ALL life flourishes very well, including bacteria, plants, fish, crustaceans, everything, including humans. So why this academic circle-jerk competition to find out what is bad about CO2. There is no quantifiable downside!
“Oh it would make the seas acid” they yell.
NO, NO, NO.
Impossible! It’s a highly buffered solute, with more than enough processes to prevent it.
“Oh it would heat up the atmosphere!”,
NO, NO, NO!
Look at past records. Over the last few million years global temperatures have been higher and sometimes lower than now but NEVER has CO2 shown any control of it!
Get real! CO2 levels are, and always have been, just as natural processes dictates, humans input to that is piffle, a nonevent. So stop wasting everyone’s time and money and investigate real problems not made-up ones.
Come on you eggheads answer this —
In a two hundred years how much has this (so called) global temperature risen? 1°? 5°?
Is that a reasonable amount considering we are still coming out of the LIA? (IMO, no life prefers to be warmer) And in all that time how much has CO2 levels in the atmosphere risen? Or did you expect the CO2 levels to stay the same as the planet warms up? If you thought CO2 levels should stay the same during all that time, then climate science has achieved it’s goal of dumbing-down its adherents.
(IMO — A ridiculously small amount of CO2 rise, and it’s still rising at a way to slow a rate. It’s measured in part per million for jesesake! Get some perspective!)
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Ok now lets make it simple —
Consider we have 10,000 particles (molecules and atoms if you must) of normal air. Within this air there are 3 CO2 particles. Sun shines on them and everyone is happy. 🙂
We now change things slightly —
We still have 10,000 particles (molecules and atoms if you must) of normal air but now we have 4 particles of CO2 in there, the sun shines on them, and PAP!! suddenly for some weird and dumb reason people believe this amount of CO2 will now start to overheat the rest of the air! 🙁
Sensible? :-\
Of course not but that is the implication of the IPCC assertion that 280ppm to 300 ppm CO2 is OK but over 400ppm is not.
And if this nonflammable gas ever gets to 8 CO2 particles in 10,000 then the world will burn! (say the cAGW lunatics).
Reply
Rosco
| #
So your answer to this:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x73g9bcp8a167g/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0
is that it can’t be real ?
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Fine chart there.
Now can you redraw it to indicate and highlight, the massive difference that occurs when there is say 280ppm of atmospheric CO2 and when there is say 480ppm of atmospheric CO2.
PS.
Due to tiredness the comment should have been a stand alone and not a reply to you.
Reply
Rosco
| #
Tom0mason on March 21, 2018 at 7:48 pm wrote
“Fine chart there.”
I presume you must be referring to the charts I posted Dropbox links to.
What is the difference between
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x73g9bcp8a167g/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0
and
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jebj46o3rismidj/Emitted%20Radiance.jpg?dl=0
No one here appears to know but it is obvious and significant !
Rosco
| #
“But it gets worse.
We need to add to this farce the ‘Hansen howler’ – Dr James Hansen, NASA’s former golden boy who gave the game-changer 1988 ‘Global Warming has Begun‘ presentation to the U.S. Government, botched his famous 1981 calculations for the atmospheric CO2 ‘Window’.”
“In that travesty, Hansen wrongly claims carbon dioxide absorbs in an atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers – which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. But the scientific reality is that carbon dioxide only has an effect on the atmosphere from about 13 to 17 microns – a far smaller, more trivial ‘window’ than Hansen’s bogus claim for between 7 to 14 micrometers.”
These FALSE claims are utter nonsense !
I can only surmise that whoever wrote this has a complete lack of comprehension or is deliberately and falsely attempting to ridicule by misrepresentation of the facts.
Hansen was and is absolutely right when he wrote that there is an “atmospheric window” from 7 to 14 microns ! It is plainly obvious that it exists as one can easily see in the graph attributed to Perry !
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1x73g9bcp8a167g/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0
Hansen was and is absolutely right when he wrote that carbon dioxide absorbs thermal radiation within that window ! It does !
He NEVER claimed as you have FALSELY stated CO2 absorbs across that whole spectrum bandwidth !
He actually said that “Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close that window” which means that in the graph attributed to Petty the beginning of the “bite” commencing at ~13 micron will shift to the right.
Misrepresenting the facts is easily debunked as a simple search for Hansen’s 1981 paper and a few minutes read prove.
You cannot claim to be credible when you misrepresent the obvious truth !
Hansen did not write what you have falsely asserted !
Reply
Rosco
| #
As for submitting articles I have been disappointed in the way previous pieces I have written have been altered and given absurd unnecessary provocative titles which I find childish.
Besides that the people who assess some of them failed to comprehend them totally.
Not interested.
Reply