"Settled Science"??

[dogtowner]

You are criticizing experiments when you don't even know what the experiments are! The experiments were designed to eliminate all other "manner of phenomena". Perhaps you didn't understand dogtowner's question. He was only asking about the experimental veracity of thermal backscattering causing heat retention, not what effect it may have in the atmosphere.

Maybe Im missing something but "causing heat retention" would be an "effect in the atmosphere" to me. Taking it a bit farther I would think that isolating components in the environment (CO2 and no CO2) matters. Not quite sure how one goes about eliminating "external work" which is to say duplicate a free atmosphere but Im sure thats why CERN isnt bugging me to come to Switzerland.

 

[Lagboltz]

Maybe Im missing something but "causing heat retention" would be an "effect in the atmosphere" to me. Taking it a bit farther I would think that isolating components in the environment (CO2 and no CO2) matters. Not quite sure how one goes about eliminating "external work" which is to say duplicate a free atmosphere but Im sure thats why CERN isnt bugging me to come to Switzerland.

I agree that heat retention is an effect in the atmosphere, but I was emphasizing that the experiments didn't attempt to simulate the full complexity of climate, such as duplicating a free atmosphere etc, which would be almost impossible, as you said.
The experiments only show that backscatter has a real and measurable effect on heat retention.

 

[GBFan]

Apparently ... ain't so settled after all ....

A group of 15 scientists and meteorologists have put forward a scathing rebuttal to the Obama administration’s recent climate report which said the U.S. is already being harmed by global warming.

Scientists skeptical that mankind is causing the Earth’s climate to change say that such claims are based on false theories and flawed models. The White House report is a “masterpiece of marketing” that is trying to scare people into action, scientists said.

“As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of ‘Climate Change,’ however scary, is not proof of anything,” wrote the 15 scientists and meteorologists,including Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University and Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they continued.

The White House’s “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), released last week, claimed that the U.S. was already being affected by global warming though warmer temperatures and increasing extreme weather events.

But the 15 skeptical scientists said the White House is trying to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of the fossil fuels industry when there is little evidence to back up that claim. The Earth’s climate is very cyclical and has gone through many changes in the past, the scientists said, without humans emitting carbon dioxide.

“This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,” the skeptics wrote. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”

“We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels,” they added. “The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.”

The NCA says the U.S. average temperature has risen between 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895, which is causing more extreme weather, like hurricanes and droughts, and harming fragile ecosystems around the country.

The NCA also warns that the U.S. average temperature could rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming decades if nothing is done to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The report suggests a slew of regulatory solutions from cap-and-trade to green energy subsidies to mitigate global warming.

“’Global Warming’ has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred,” the skeptical scientists rebutted. “For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend and the Antarctic cooled slightly.”

 

[GBFan]

Some are calling it the new "Climategate."

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com, which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.

The president repeatedly has rejected naysayers in the climate debate -- most recently, when he spoke May 9 in Mountainview, Calif. "We've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate,” he said.

The administration recently released a comprehensive climate report that critics worry will be used to justify additional environmental regulations.

Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. For that, Morano said, Bengtssonpaid a steep price.

"They've threatened him. They've bullied him. They've pulled his papers. They're now going through everything they can to smear his reputation. And the ‘they’ I'm referring to is the global warming establishment," Morano said.

The Times of London reported that Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of a think tank after being subjected to “McCarthy-style pressure” from other academics. Pressure even reportedly came from one U.S. government scientist.

Bengsston told the Times of London this week: "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with computer models."

He added, "If people are proposing to do major changes to the world's economic system we must have much more solid information."

His view helps to illustrate the cavernous divide in this debate. Climate scientists who question the consensus often say they're demonized -- unable to publish, unable to find research funding. The scientific establishment presses on -- frustrated with anyone who, in their view,would impede saving the planet.

The debate raises a question about whether consensus in science is even relevant. As the novelist and global warming skeptic Michael Crichton argued,"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus."

The Bengtsson allegations recall a similar controversy in 2009, dubbed “Climategate,” when hundreds of emails were leaked, several of which raised questions about whether scientists were overstating the climate change case.

 

[GBFan]

The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used.

“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,’’ Cook and his fellow authors wrote in their study which was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters last year.

The university has told climate skeptic blogger Brandon Schollenberger that the data on the study he possesses was illegally obtained and they would take legal action against him if he published it.

“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” said Queensland’s acting pro-vice-chancellor Alastair McEwan.

“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the research on condition of anonymity,” McEwan added. “Such conditions are not uncommon in academic research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”

McEwan said that all the data Cook used to come up with his “97 percent” consensus was published on his blog SkepticalScience.com. The school says it wants to protect the privacy of those surveyed in Cook’s research.

“That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter,” Schollenberger wrote on his blog Thursday. “Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands.”

 

[GBFan]

Getting stranger and stranger ....

 

[Texas_tea]

Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

Some are calling it the new "Climategate."

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

How could anyone believe this hoax and all the BS and lies surrounding it?

 

[palerider]

I would have preferred to see a commentary on why you disagree rather than just an insult One of the major misunderstandings that you have is that you didn't know that all the atmospheric gases can store energy via their heat capacity, and not just water as latent heat. That should have cleared up the meaning of the diagram you posted.

One gas in the atmosphere can retain energy in the open atmosphere...it is H2O vapor.

have answered that several times. Your diagram makes your question clear. It is so simple. It is the SUN that warms the earth. The earth stays warm because it retains the energy from the sun by emitting long wave radiation which is scattered back to earth.

The diagram that I posted, and the official description of the greenhouse effect states explicitly that back radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface of the earth and is warmed by that back radiation. So again, do you agree with the official position that more energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than it gets from the sun and that the surface of the earth is warmed by that absorbed back radiation...or are you off the reservation believing in some alternative hypothesis? So far, you have said that it is important to understand that the surface of the earth is not warmed by back radiation even though the official position is that it is.

 

[palerider]

You are criticizing experiments when you don't even know what the experiments are! The experiments were designed to eliminate all other "manner of phenomena". Perhaps you didn't understand dogtowner's question. He was only asking about the experimental veracity of thermal backscattering causing heat retention, not what effect it may have in the atmosphere.

Then by all means, lets see one that demonstrates that a 100ppm increase...hell lets say a 200ppm increase of CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Lets see it.

And we both know that back radiation at ambient temperature has never been observed or recorded. It is an artifact based on mathematical models and has never been observed in the actual world.

 

[palerider]

Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

Some are calling it the new "Climategate."

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.
How could anyone believe this hoax and all the BS and lies surrounding it?

Few warmer wackos actually believe it....they support the hoax because it moves forward with their political goals. They hate western success and want to see western economies crushed which is the logical end of the policy suggested by climate science. The hoax is a means to an end and all liberals believe that the ends justify the means whether the means are honest or not.

 

[dogtowner]

Interesting how its mainly the polititians who are opting to ignore the flaws that have been seeing the light of day in this whole thing. When scientists have walked back claims made why is it so hard for pols to do the same ? Ought to tell you something right there.

 

[Lagboltz]

One gas in the atmosphere can retain energy in the open atmosphere...it is H2O vapor.

All atoms of all gases in the open atmosphere or anywhere else have random kinetic energy, embodied by translational kinetic energy, rotational energy and vibratory energy. That is called thermal energy. That is classical physics. You are saying that atmospheric O2, N2, CO2, CH4, etc retain no energy. That is flat wrong. All gases can retain thermal energy which goes up or down as the gas gets hotter or colder.

The diagram that I posted, and the official description of the greenhouse effect states explicitly that back radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface of the earth and is warmed by that back radiation. So again, do you agree with the official position that more energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than it gets from the sun and that the surface of the earth is warmed by that absorbed back radiation...or are you off the reservation believing in some alternative hypothesis? So far, you have said that it is important to understand that the surface of the earth is not warmed by back radiation even though the official position is that it is.

The earth initially receives all its energy from the sun. Your characterization of the earth receiving more energy from the atmosphere than the sun is too simplistic and misleading because isolating two pieces of energy flow in a complex system loses the physics of the complete picture and becomes meaningless. It is more accurate to say that the earth is kept warm by it's own radiation being backscattered in part to itself. As you see in the IPCC diagram, the earth's own radiation is 396 W/mm. A radiation of 333 W/mm is scattered back to the earth. So the earth gains no energy from the interplay of reradiating the sun's energy as long wave energy and absorbing its own energy from the backscatter. It loses net energy by that means. Why is this so hard for you to understand that.

 

[Lagboltz]

Then by all means, lets see one that demonstrates that a 100ppm increase...hell lets say a 200ppm increase of CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Lets see it.

And we both know that back radiation at ambient temperature has never been observed or recorded. It is an artifact based on mathematical models and has never been observed in the actual world.

These are old experiments dating to the mid 1800's.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf.html
http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. ...

Yes I know that you don't believe in backscatter. The second law refers to heat not energy. That is easy to see by a simple example. Thermal energy in a solid metal is vibratory energy and it's atoms stay put. Thermal energy in a gas is largely free kinetic motion. If a hot solid is in a closed system with a colder gas, the gas spontaneously bombards the surface of the solid because of kinetic energy of it's free moving atoms.

That is a very clear and obvious example of energy from a colder substance spontaneously impinging on a hotter substance. Of course more energy from the hotter solid is transferred to the colder gas than the other way around. So the second law is preserved as a spontaneous one way flow of heat even though there is a two way flow of (kinetic) energy.

 

[Lagboltz]

Interesting how its mainly the polititians who are opting to ignore the flaws that have been seeing the light of day in this whole thing. When scientists have walked back claims made why is it so hard for pols to do the same ? Ought to tell you something right there.

The percentage of pols, especially teaparty pols, that deny AGW is already much much larger than the percentage of scientists that deny AGW. The pols have walked back long ago.

 

[dogtowner]

The percentage of pols, especially teaparty pols, that deny AGW is already much much larger than the percentage of scientists that deny AGW. The pols have walked back long ago.

Not Kerry, Obama etc. But reread as i dud mot say deny regarding scientists. They have backed off the silly predictions that have not cone close to happening. Mercifully they decided to try to regain credibility as scientists.