I can confirm the 30% savings - with an evacuated tube system on a North-facing roof with no trees shading it (but mounted flat on the roof). I estimate we get 95% of our hot water from the Sun.

In summer we have hot water to spare, in winter not quite enough. Next system will be angled up so optimised for winter.

A few years back when I was living an even simpler life than the present I built myself a solar hot water heater ... 30 M of black polythene tubing (1/2" garden dripper hose) coiled flat and set on a sheet of black plywood and all encased under a sheet of glass and hooked up to an old (now insulated) tank ... total outlay $7 dollars ... total result piping hot water for free ... even steam on occasions. Just shows what one can get away with doesn't it?

You must be nearer the equator than me Peter! But yes, a little ingenuity goes a long way.

Lorna

Good points - to which I have also noted.

But, the most important energy savings attribute is not addressed by any computer modelling program - good building design.

There are no brownie points to be had if one selects a house design that relies on air flow as a means for summer cooling.

And, the courts pay no heedance to a property owner who seeks to stop an adjoining property owner from removing access to sun or wind (used as a means for energy savings). As one judge put it "solar hot water systems are not a property right".

Yes, we do have a long way to go to utilise alternate ways to minimise household electricity use.

Cheers

BASIX isn't "guidelines" on how to build an energy efficient house. It is a planning instrument. So you are right, you would not follow BASIX when trying to build a sustainable house. Instead, you have to =comply= with BASIX, to ensure you are meeting =minimum= requirements.

Since it is a planning instrument, we wouldn't want BASIX to be excessively bureaucratic, where I define excessive bureaucracy as adding difficulties for the users for little gain. For example, asking questions about the orientation etc of a solar panel is adding complexity, time and extra questions for the person trying to comply with BASIX. It is also adding extra stuff for assessors to have to look out for. Is it pragmatic to have to police the orientation of solar panels, in addition to all the other aspects covered in BASIX? And while BASIX doesn't ask about the exact type of solar hot water system you own or if you are using an evacuated tube system, it does ask a general question about performance in terms of RECs generated, and presumably higher performing systems generate more RECs.

A good planning tool has to balance usability and bureaucracy versus maximum environmental outcome. I don't think you've made the case that BASIX "fails".

Disclosure: I used to work on BASIX some years back.

PS. Hi Alan!

Hi Bruce,

Couldn't agree more - I know of two site-specific low-energy house designs which only just scraped through BASIX. Good design principles are really not hard to learn and once acquired, make BASIX look... well, "basic" is putting it politely. Conversely, off-the-shelf McMansion designs pass with flying colours - irrespective of how they're oriented!

Looks like he goal is for mediocrity...

the problem with not asking about the orientation of solar panels is that if you don't prod people, they will slap them flat on the most convenient (or hidden) bit of roof.

Then blokes will stand around barbeques telling each other how this solar stuff isn't all its cracked up to be "we have to have the booster on all the time". So expectations are lowered and the race to mediocrity continues.

Wouldn't be that hard to add "correct orientation" to the tick-box list - and, unlike "gas-boosted", it would MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE TO ENERGY USE!

Hi Bruce,

In fact, BASIX allows you to nominate "breeze paths" through your home, and recognises the summer cooling that these provide. So you do get "brownie points" for this, assuming you have well-defined breeze paths.

Lorna: on your point of 'well designed' houses scraping through, and mcmansions passing easily:

1. This is an exaggeration, that I don't believe is typically true, notwithstanding the odd quirky house that manages to defy the norm.

2. BASIX has separate thermal comfort targets and energy targets. It is possible to have a house that is well designed for thermal comfort, but is still high energy consumption per capita (e.g., if the house is very large, or not many people live in the house). BASIX most definitely penalises larger homes - other things being equal, a larger home will find it harder to pass than a smaller one. So a mcmansion might still have very good thermal comfort and pass that target more easily, but it will find it harder to pass the energy target. This also means that if developers slightly reduce the size of the homes they build, they will find it a bit easier to pass the energy target.

3. BASIX has separate heating and cooling thermal comfort requirements. Perhaps those "low energy" houses you noted were extremely good on one, but not so good on the other, which is reasonably common.

4. The BASIX energy target is a GHG per person target. It uses ABS statistical data on occupancy to estimate the number of people that are likely to live in the house over the life of the house. Occupancy data is dependent on the number of bedrooms. So, other things being equal (including size of house), a house with more bedrooms will pass the energy target more easily than a house with fewer bedrooms, because it is expected to house more people. Perhaps the "low energy" designs were large-ish but only had two bedrooms, in which case, they would find it more difficult to pass than a slightly larger house that had four bedrooms.

5. Energy Consumption is dependent on how well the house performs on thermal comfort to some extent, though there are other energy uses in a house besides heating a cooling. In turn, thermal comfort depends on many factors, of which orientation is only one. It is therefore possible to pass BASIX with poor orientation, if you are good on other factors. BASIX was designed in this way to allow flexibility, because orienting your house correctly isn't always possible.

5. BASIX is actually a very detailed modelling tool. I think there is definitely an argument for increasing the targets incrementally over time, maybe it is time to for the govt to look at that (wouldn't hold your breath with the current NSW govt) but I don't think it true that it is a "basic" tool or that it is mediocre.

I understand your point but, two things:

1. Where is the data to suggest people need to be prodded? There was no data back in 2004-6 when BASIX was built to suggest that people or developers were going to mis-position solar panels in large numbers. Does such data exist now, that you can point to? A few anecdotes isn't enough of a data source around which to design a planning instrument. I would think that most people have the common sense to know that solar panels need to face the sun.
2. A tick box wouldn't suffice. You would need to define correct orientation. There would need to be some tolerance (e.g. if you were 10 degrees off perfect orientation, that might still be ok). You would need to make assumptions about how poorly the solar panel was performing if its orientation fell outside the "correct" range. There is a much more significant difference between a perfectly horizontal panel and a panel facing south at an elevation angle of 70 degrees than there is between that horizontal panel and a perfectly oriented north facing panel. You would need to go through a lot of argy bargy with both the solar hot water industry and property developers to decide these things, because any decision you make has the potential to make or break businesses.

I would think that if you were going to ask about orientation at all, then you might need to actually ask for angle of elevation and direction (two questions), to avoid any problems and ensure fairness. You would need to define these, and deal with the likely hundreds of BASIX certificates were people misunderstood the definitions and submitted incorrect information. Worth doing, given that you need to substantially deviate from perfect orientation before you see a sizeable reduction in performance? Worth doing given that there might be no data that there is a widespread problem in the first place? Worth doing if it means less solar hot water systems are sold? Worth doing given that causing a clash between solar hot water and visual amenity considerations might negatively impact the general view of solar hot water?

ps. What's your issue with 'gas boosted'? Agreed it doesn't make a difference to energy use, but it does to GHG.

Stephen

I wish.

Your 'breeze paths' are constrained by a percentage of window opening. That some may use an awning window with minimal flow capacity, and others a louver with great flow capacity appears to get no recognition. My last house design was 'downgraded' on 'breeze path' capacity because the window opening on one side was deemed 'restrictive'. That the household can't leave the louver fully open on a breezy day because it generates more than sufficient cross flow ventilation speaks volumes against variable constrained computer modelling.

Similarly, large windows were deemed poor energy transmitters purely because the fact of energy transfer minimising curtains couldn't be factored in.

Sadly, the model appears designed upon the typical norm - the slab, brick veneer, tiled roof industry made home - and tweaked to encourage enhancements, but not 'outliers'.

Cheers

Hi Stephen,

BASIX calculates energy use per square metre, so it actually penalises SMALLER houses. The houses I'm referring to are designed to need no cooling other than fans and no heating other than occasional use of a high-efficiency wood-burning stove.

My interest in passivhaus and low energy design in general goes back 20 years and several climates. I wonder if the same amount of thought went into BASIX?

Stephen,

People definitely need to be prodded. I've seen a lot of solar panels mounted on South and West-facing roofs. West is a problem in Australia because the afternoons tend to be hotter and PV performs less well in high temps. How many householders and installers know that?

My research are involves conceptual understanding in science, so I have a fair idea of what "the general public" do and don't understand concerning these issues. It's not encouraging in terms of assuming people can work these things out for themselves.

As for gas, it's inevitably a non-renewable fossil fuel and results in CO2 release. Not the case with renewably-generated electricity.

Clothes on a line are sterilised by UV, clothes-dryers are a fire-hazard - and we've moved on from compact flouro to LEDs already.

I feel a bit sorry for you.

Hi Peter,

There are probably 3 sides to this story, isn't there always, the problem for me is that I only know one of them so I read everyone's comments with great interest but still don't know who is making the most sense. Some of your points appeal to my sense of logic, however, I think this is another example of an article (if not an entire issue) that in certain company or on certain forums 'anyone not taking some kind of moral high ground' will be persecuted for their views with an ever increasing number of red marks against their name from people who don't have the intestinal fortitude to state and justify their own. Sadly, I've seen this happen to some of your comments to other articles on this issue and hoped for better from the contributors here.

The Headline That We Should Come To Terms With Is This: agreeing that any issue exists does 'not' mean that we should agree with any solution proposed !! The article that we've read above says; Carbon Tax Won't Cost You If You Just Reduce Your Lifestyle; well, perhaps we do need to reduce our lifestyle to either halt or overcome the problem, I'd like to see the 'experts' supporting this tax, and the government imposing it, stand up and just say that then.

I'm glad that someone here is 'questioning' and whilst I may or may not always agree with you're particular view, I am always going to consider it.

Cheers Peter.

Hello again Peter

Would you be able to post some links? I would like to check those figures and how they were arrived at.

Thanks

Gary,

Thank you for the question. Happy to oblige. I'll post the basis of the net cost first, and follow up with the rest in a separate comment. I'd appreciate comments and corrections.

Here are Treasury’s estimates of the net cost of the CO2 tax and ETS from 2012 to 2050. At the end I provide the total net cost, undiscounted, and discounted at 4.35% (the default discount rate, in the Nordhaus RICE model 2012 update, for the USA for 2005 to 2050). The figures are based on the assumptions listed in my previous comment.

Source:
Treasury, “Strong Growth, Low Pollution future”, Chart 5:13
http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/chart_table_data/chapter5.asp

Gross domestic product - Level (2010 $ billion)
'Medium global action' minus 'SGLP core'
year Net Cost
2010 0
2011 0
2012 0
2013 2
2014 2
2015 4
2016 4
2017 4
2018 5
2019 5
2020 5
2021 7
2022 8
2023 8
2024 10
2025 12
2026 13
2027 16
2028 16
2029 19
2030 21
2031 24
2032 27
2033 29
2034 33
2035 36
2036 40
2037 43
2038 47
2039 51
2040 55
2041 59
2042 63
2043 68
2044 72
2045 76
2046 82
2047 87
2048 93
2049 97
2050 102
Discount rate
0% $1,345.00 undiscounted
1.35% $896.82 Garnaut
2.65% $617.21 Garnaut
4.34% $389.45 Nordhaus

Benefit to cost ratio of the Australian CO2 pricing scheme to 2050:

In an interesting exchange between Roger W. Cohen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen, and reply by William D. Nordhaus on “The New York Review of Books” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/26/climate-casino-exchange/ Professor William Nordhaus said:

“The final part of the response of CHL comes back to the economics of climate change and public policy. They make two major points: that the difference between acting now and doing nothing for fifty years is “insignificant economically or climatologically,” and that the policy questions are dominated by major uncertainties.

Is the difference between acting now and waiting fifty years indeed “insignificant economically”? Given the importance attached to this question, I recalculated this figure using the latest published model. When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, and the spreadsheet is available on the Web for those who would like to check the calculations themselves. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.”

Particularly note this bit:

“When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, …. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now. “

I am surprised Nordhaus says the $3.5 trillion is a significant number, given that it is cumulative to 2050 and is for the whole world. I am also surprised he says skeptics “should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” I consider the Australian situation and calculate the costs to achieve the Australian share of the $3.5 trillion reduction in climate damages would be around nine times greater than Australia’s share of the estimated $3.5 trillion saving. Here is how I did my calculations.

I converted the estimated $3.5 trillion world damages avoided to the Australian proportion on the basis of Australia’s share of world GDP, i.e. 1.17%. So Australia’s share of damages avoided is 1.17% x $3.5 trillion = $41 billion. That is the cumulative damages avoided by Australia to 2050. It assumes an optimal CO2 price, the whole world implements the CO2 price in unison, and an economically efficient system is implemented across the whole world. It also assumes Australia’s share of world GDP remains constant.

The Australian Treasury estimated the loss of GDP that our legislated CO2 tax and ETS will cause. [However, it seems they may have underestimated because they, apparently, have not estimated the compliance cost http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578&page=0 . The cumulative loss of GDP to 2050 (i.e. the net cost) is $1,345 billion (undiscounted) http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/chart_table_data/chapter5.asp (Chart 5:13), or $390 billion discounted at 4.34%, which I believe is the discount rate that is the default in Nordhaus RICE model 2012 update http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/RICEmodels.htm and gives the value of $3.5 trillion quoted by Nordhaus.

If my calculations are correct, the benefit, to Australia, of the optimum CO2 tax rate (if the world implements an economically efficient CO2 pricing scheme in unison) would be $41 billion and the cost (reduced GDP) would be $390 billion. Therefore, the benefit to cost ratio is 0.11. [Benefit/cost should be greater than 1 to justify the policy].

Therefore, I do not understand Nordhaus’s statement that “[sceptics] should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” My calculations suggest we would spend nine times greater sums, not smaller sums, to achieve the benefits estimated by Nordhaus.

Additional comments

I realise I have simplified in many ways, but that was to keep the message simple. What I am really asking is whether there is a major error. I recognise I simplified by taking the ‘net costs’ as the ‘costs’, but changing that would make the costs even higher. I also realise I’ve cumulated to 2050, not to 2590. This is a major issue; however, I and others do not accept that policies made now will last even a decade, let alone to 2590. We can point to the life span of the Kyoto Protocol and many other examples to show that most policies made at a point in time do not have a long life.

The following is for the benefit of non specialist readers (i.e. others like me). The assumptions that underpin the Nordhaus analysis are (in my words):

• Negligible leakage (of emissions between countries)

• All emission sources are included (all countries and all emissions in each country)

• Negligible compliance cost

• Negligible fraud

• An optimal carbon price

• The whole world implements the optimal carbon price in unison

• The whole world acts in unison to increase the optimal carbon price periodically

• The whole world continues to maintain the carbon price at the optimal level for all of this century (and thereafter)

If these assumptions are not met, the net benefits estimated by Nordhaus cannot be achieved. As Nordhaus says, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf p198:
“Moreover, the results here incorporate an estimate of the importance of participation for economic efficiency. Complete participation is important because the cost function for abatement appears to be highly convex. We preliminarily estimate that a participation rate of 50 percent instead of 100 percent will impose a cost penalty on abatement of 250 percent.”

In other words, if only 50% of emissions are captured in the carbon pricing scheme, the cost penalty for the participants is 250%. The 50% participation could be achieved by, for example, 100% of countries participating in the scheme but only 50% of the emissions in total from within the countries are caught, or 50% of countries participate and 100% of the emissions within those countries are caught in the scheme (i.e. taxed or traded).

Given the above, we can see that the assumptions are theoretical and totally impracticable. To recognize this, try to imagine how we could capture 100% of emissions from 100% of emitters in Australia (every cow, sheep, goat) in the CO2 pricing scheme, let alone expecting it to be done in Eretria, Mogadishu and Somalia.

Is there a significant error in my analysis? If so, what is it?

Peter,

I've been asking your fellow skeptic Tim Curtin for his assessment of your work as an economist but he won't respond.

I'll' ask him again for you.

We've been through that nonsense and your silly game playing, on another thread. You claimed you were an economist. So, I asked you if you would mind checking my calculations and provide feedback. Instead, you obfuscated, made a stream of derogatory comments and referred the question to others. But never answered it yourself. Then called others "Chicken" for not answering. What hipocracy!

It's quite clear what your agenda is - and it's not about trying to get to the truth.

If there are serious errors, why don't you point them out - since you claim you are an economist?

Peter,

There are several reasons why I have so far refrain ed from commenting on your economic treatment of abatement of global warming:

(1) I am retired essentially. I run an orchard - or rather it runs me.
(2) As a result I tend to value my time.
(3) You would not accept any criticism or comment from me if I had made some (nor from anyone whose views, intelligence and education you regard as deeply inferior).
(4) I thought that, if you were serious, you might welcome some comments - even support - from an ideological ally and "equal" like Tim Curtin. I hoped Tim would want to see an ally like yourself putting an argument he endorsed. He didn't. He didn't answer, didn't comment, didn't endorse. No why do you think? So I was wrong on all counts.
(5) I am not in the habit of looking critically at the economics of retired geologists, Nor as a rule am I critically interested in the orchard care tips offered by anthropologist or a philosopher. Unless they know a bit about it.
(6) I really would not know where to start. Not so much from a lack of expertise or capacity, but simply that the fundamental errors and omissions are set in stone before you even begin your calculations - at which I have not looked, other than to note what you had listed as "costs". The fundamental conceptual error: ... you think the biosphere is a factory, a dam or a power plant. Geologist economics - or engineering more like.
(7) So, here's a few items to add to your costs of inaction and adaptation side:

Put a dollar value on A flooded and unusable Nile Delta;
on Bangladesh (don't forget refugee processing costs etc);
have a look at history and see what people do to each other when there is a crisis or rationing of resources - so, factor in a few wars - OK just a regional one... Pakistan and India say. That'll be costly.

Now of course you will accept none of these as legitimate comments - what with the imminent Ice Age and all... none of these things will; happen.

As you posted previously, the earth has been hotter in the past and life thrived. Just not with us in it, not with Cairo, nor Karachi, not Bangladesh...not with nukes and RPGs razor wire, refugees and mass starvation. Let's hope your approach is not just hopeful pollyannaism.

See Peter when you start considering adaptation - not just the price of doing nothing ... these are the sorts of adaptations that must be considered realistic.

But I'd reckon you will accept none of that... because from where you see things there is no cost of inaction, not really, that you consider realistic or significant.

So don't think it was in any way fear or reticence on my part - unlike Tim Curtin. But it's winter, the fireplace beckons and I don't want to waste my time - not till I have a proper attempt at the cost options - a sensitivity analysis or two - upper and lower ranges - best-case/ worse case/likely case options set out and costed. Same goes for the dollar values and discount rates - uppers and lowers - trend-line projections. Any invstor wants to see the impact of possible currency and interest fluctuations and how they affect the investment and its commercial viability - long, short and medium run.

And heck wouldn't you just know it, these variables all interact - a possible war or two changes the numbers everywhere. So gosh, the whole thing starts looking awfully like a climate model.

And anyone can sort that climate stuff out on the back of an envelope in the Old Boys Room at the club over a few rums wot?

Now Pete, you retired geologists might be so clever - so exceptionally brilliant you can cut through the all this bullshit and sort this economics business out on the back of an envelope. Better than Nordhaus. Easier than Tim Curtin? Just a couple of quick numbers through the machine - see! it's so bloody obvious isn't it? Why can't they see?

A doddle for a man of your ability and omniscience (quite literally). Makes one wonder what economists do for a living doesn't it? Economics should just be a TAFE course or a semester of a science degree.

The extraordinary arrogance of a retired geologist to think he can do a serious analysis and assessment of a global problem sitting at home with a calculator and the internet. It is sadly laughable, and rather insulting to serious economists Peter, even those who might agree with you. Ask Tim Curtin - or don't you care what he thinks? Gee I do.

Never know if it's raining tomorrow I might pop up with a few more constructive comments - meanwhile get busy with that calculator and your categories.

This is a quote from Nordhaus' critics:

"This relatively small difference, indeed whether it is positive or negative, depends critically on factors such as the five listed above, in particular the value of the climate sensitivity. Professor Nordhaus chooses 3.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2, a value that empirical evidence suggests is greatly exaggerated. To illustrate the point, for a climate sensitivity of 1.0 degree, a value suggested by a number of empirical studies, Professor
Nordhaus’s “DICE” model calculates that the optimum policy’s net benefits drop from about $3 trillion to a net cost of about $1 trillion, and the benefit-to-cost ratio plunges from 2.4 to 0.5. The fifty-year-delay policy is then greatly preferred."

Note that the $3 trillion is net benefit (ie inclusive of costs) so that the benefit-to-cost ratio varies from 2.4 to 0.5 depending on climate sensitivity.

So - if we are lucky and climate sensitivity is that low - and if we don't hit any sudden positive feedback loops - the policy will cost the entire world $1 trillion dollars over the next 40 years.

But if Nordhaus is right about the climate sensitivity (but still ignoring the possibility of unexpected positive feedback loops) - the policy will save the world $3 trillion dollars.

In 2011 - global GDP was $79 trillion (Wikipedia) - so 1/40th of $1 trillion is about $25 billion per year - or about 1/3000th of global GDP. That is what it will cost us if Nordhaus is wrong about the climate sensitivity (and we don't hit any positive feedback loops).

And that is just the economic costs - what price do you put on the damage done to the natural world?

The $3.5 trillion figure you use has already accounted for the costs of emission reductions. Your analysis seems to count them again.

Are you still working on it?

Not excuses Peter reasons - reasons why I would not waste my time teaching a retired geologist how to do a proper cost-benefit analysis... some bloke who is arrogant enough to think he can do the big picture with a calculator and the back of an envelope. No challenge too great is it Peter?

If you want help with your petty doodling ask someone you'd believe - like Tim Curtin or even Nordhaus. Actually, as a favour I'll send your posted arithmetic on to him for a comment. He'll appreciate your incisive brilliance I'm sure - who would have thought it was all so simple?

Now you asked for comments - I gave you some - so if you would care to address the few salient points I offered regarding your complete misconception of risk and costs, have a crack at it, rock boy.

Then we can move on to the more serious issues with your simplistic and laughably arrogant calculations.

It's like having one of those cocky students turn up at a seminar having read the prescribed reading ... but undeterred proceeds to pontificate and demonstrate his "intuitive brilliance" .

But I will be nice to you Peter.... I will give you a second chance. It is raining and I am forced inside.

Now get your massive mind around these following pieces and we can have what is called in the parlance and "informed discussion":

Here's some examples of a half decent effort at a cost benefits analysis:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301421595901584

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0466411k34v0032/

That one is actually a decent review of the issues surrounding stochastic cost benefit analysis of cataclysmic events... why even trying is silly.

Here's one about equity based analysis that you might find interesting:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800900002044

And another:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3011n5564g13360/

Here's an interesting piece on the correct discount rate applied to human life:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1123481?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47699107039467

And here's the one that might give you trouble... how to do a cost benefit analysis where the benefits are unquanitifiable and the costs approach infinity.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rw640173v426572j/

And here's one from your fallen idol Nordhaus ... a "panel discussion" in a book... the coments on the limitations pof Cost Benefit analysis are particularly helpful.

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dbXBKI1geiMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=nordhaus+Cost+benefit+analysis&ots=tr_eRcEY3R&sig=N11oARgEbTIgLw7ElAz3M-6Rr9w#v=onepage&q=nordhaus%20Cost%20benefit%20analysis&f=false

Now get back to me when you have the slightest notion of what a proper cost benefit analysis should consider.

Another lesson:

RC Lind "When public policies with impacts far into the future are being debated, the question inevitably is raised whether cost-benefit analysis which discounts future costs and benefits is not biased against future generations and whether, if such discounting is appropriate at all, a lower rate should be used to avoid such bias. The debate on global climate change is no exception. This paper sketches and analyses the welfare foundations of cost-benefit analysis and from this perspective analyses the role of cost-benefit analysis in the climate policy debate, particularly with reference to intergenerational effects. The paper concludes that the cost-benefit criterion cannot provide a definitive basis for deciding whether we should commit to a longer-term programme to moderate climate change; the issues of intergenerational equity are not that global climate change will significantly lower the GNP of future generations, but relate to the possibility of science fiction-like changes in the planet that will produce catastrophic effects in the future; and the typical way in which the cost-benefit problem is posed obscures the basic choices that we should be evaluating.

From: Intergenerational equity, discounting, and the role of cost-benefit analysis in evaluating global climate policy Robert C Lind 1995

Peter Ormonde: I did reply twice, but maybe they got lost in The C's labyrinthine comments system.

Peter Lang gives his sources, Treasury here and Nordhaus at Yale. Who am I to challenge them?

But I will, if only to point out that both sources make grand assumptions on the costs of climate change which have little if any empirical basis. For example, even a 3.5oC climate sensitivity for doubling the level of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could only be beneficial for all in the NH who live at and north of the latitude of London.*

Nordhaus and Mendelsohn showed this to be true for North America (AER 1994). For example, those high latitudes could comfortably feed the world if they could manage to grow food throughout the year. I worked in Egypt 1980-83, its tiny arable land area with access to the Nile then fed over 40 million people, thanks to its at least two crops p.a. agriculture.

Peter Ormonde, as a farmer, I assume you are aware that for all practical purposes Scotland's agriculture produces nothing between October and May. Extra warmth of even 5oC would make a huge difference - and remember we are told the distribution of AGW of 3.5-5oC would be predominantly in the high latitudes, not the tropiocs.

But even there, having worked on financing a sugar scheme in the Sudan, I know its crop season is around a third less than in sub-tropical latitudes (e.g Natal), despite, or rather because even its winter mean temperatures exceed those in Scotland's best summers - and Natal's (where I went to school).

Now all damage costs to be found in Stern, Garnaut, and the Treasury here are based on nothing more than thumbsucks, as also in Nordhaus 2009 (he's given up on using empirical data), betraying total ignorance of the facts of agricultural NPP, which are that rising atmospheric CO2 (aka [CO2]) along with rising temperatures will RAISE NPP, provided there is adequate availability of water. And as many have shown, rising [CO2] enables many crops to make do with less water.

But then the climate scientists of the IPCC rely for their climate sensitivity of 3.5 from doubling of [CO2] on the positive feedback from alleged increases in atmospheric water vapour allegedly due to rising temperature, which must mean increased rainfall.

I have noted on a previous thread here that despite Garnaut’s largely evidence-absent work (2008), he did commission a study from CSIRO on the effects of [CO2] at levels of 450 ppm and 550 ppm in 2050 and 2100, and printed the outcome in his Table 6.5, showing that across Australia’s wheat belts, almost all showed an INCREASE in yield at 550 ppm over BAU despite, or because, of the associate warmer temperatures.

All models are no better than their in-built assumptions, and those of Stern, Garnaut, the Treasury, and Nordhaus are mostly false (except Garnaut’s Table 6.5, which is mostly ignored in the rest of that book).

* BTW, Peter Lang has compiled and posted data on the distribution of the world's population by latitude and temperature. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repost it here.

Thanks for the reply Tim ... yep we economists love those averages ... lose a bit here, pick it up there and everything averages out. So I'm assuming there'll be a conga-line of Sudanese cane farmers heading towards Scotland sometime soon?

Actually a bit of a yarn about Nordhaus would be interesting. I came across this interesting rebuttal he made regarding the interpretation made by some 16 physicists in the WSJ that he was advocating a 50 year delay in taking action on CO2.

Have a read. I'd appreciate your comments:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-warming-real-has-consequences-part-i

Here it is on a podcast: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu//multimedia_list/podcasts

This is his conclusion:

"The 16 scientists urge avoiding alarm about climate change. I’m equally concerned by those who allege that we’ll incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and respect for sound logic and good science."

PS I note that you have deftly managed to dodge commenting directly on Peter Lang's post - "checking his calculations" as he puts it. I can understand why you wouldn't - but I think for the sanctity of the dismal science - you should. I know he'll never take any notice of me, or anyone else who he disagrees with.

Hi Peter Ormonde: I'll reply to you latest post separately. Meanwhile here I'll just note that Lind like Stern and Garnaut and virtually all other economists in this area, apart from Richard Tol, make the fundamental error of forgetting that CB analysis is first and foremost about opportunity cost, and then only secondly, the time value of money.

For example, the carbon tax and the like extract money from us now on the grounds that by 2100 but not before, at a close to zero discount rate, there will be significant benefits in the form of avoided costs of climate damage.

But the $1000 p.a. (for illustration) that the carbon tax may well cost me would if invested in our DIY Super fund earn 4.4% p.a. today, and probably more in future years, whereas at Garnaut's 1.35-2.65%, it would yield much less for my grandson by 2050 than the nest egg he should inherit from our Fund by then - and that is assuming there will be any avoided climate costs by 2050, which Peter Lang as well as Nordhaus show to be unlikely. That nest egg if also invested at say 5% p.a.would by 2100 put my grandson (aged 94 by then DV) in a position to buy a villa on the beach in Greenland, whereas the yield on all RET so far is negative, which is why they are being wound up in many places, and the carbon tax will have reduced national income far below what it would otherwise be in 2100.

Peter Ormonde: I love your congaline of Sudanese sugarcane farmers heading for Scotland, probably starting next year if the Australian Academy of Science is right.

I have only just read Peter Lang's post here below, as I only became aware of this thread today. I think he makes very valid points about Nordhaus, who really lost the plot in his NYRB piece (as I have told him by mail). Anybody who believes like Bill N that CO2 is a pollutant because the EPA says it is belongs in Alice's Wonderland.

Peter Lang also makes valid points about Nordhaus' false accounting with his NPVs, as in the NYRB he compares cumulative discounted costs of CC damages by 2050 and even (in his models) by 2500 with a single year's cost of mitigation right now. In my opinion Lang has done well in his post immediately below mine (as is) and I see nothing needing correction.

Not sure where you reside Bruce but in NSW one of the "clever" things the bureaucrats who run this state did was to impose a separate charge for supply as a fixed cost. This was because the previous government didn't flog off the lot but kept the distribution network in public hands.

Last time I checked my bill this came to 86 cents or so a day. Before I'd flicked my first switch.

The end result is that when one tries to play the game and cut consumption, financially one is only playing on half the field. Power consumption makes up only some 50% of the eventual bill. In my case significantly less.

Now somewhere, buried in the NSW Government's balance sheet will be a number showing the contribution to revenue from the wires and poles. Like the Telstra copper system, those poles and wires have been paid for many many times over.

But now - having provided a guaranteed minimum income stream to an eventual investor, the poles and wires will be sold.

The economist in me leaps to the notion of price signals... one cure is to significantly increase the proportion of the bill that is responsive to use and reductions in particular.

The extent to which IPART - which oversees pricing levels in NSW - passes on lockstepped "contributions" for upkeep of the supply system, (effectively a rent hike) this undermines and erodes the value of people reducing their usage, it mutes the signal and makes some sort of considered not to say austere use of power less than significant.

It's not just the overall size of our power bills we need to be concerned about - but what's being billed for.

Hi Bruce,

BASIX asks if you have a clothes line. If you don't, it assumes you use a clothes dryer and penalises you accordingly. So it does take into account clothes dryers.

The NABERS Energy Explorer also takes into account clothes dryers. The NABERS Energy Rating tool doesn't ask about details at all - it asks about your actual energy consumption (which would include dryer usage) and rates you based on that.

Regarding standby power usage: the figure of 10% of total energy use is standby power consumption that people often quote comes from a report (available somewhere on energyrating.gov.au). If you read this report, then the bulk of that figure comes from leaving a computer turned on when not in use (e.g, overnight). That might be 100 Watts left on 24/7. So unless you leave a computer on when not in use, the standby power savings can be hard to find. I reckon - apart from the computer - that set top boxes like Foxtel, Tivo etc that are left turned on 24/7 are another good culprit. They are not low power (ie, they are > 10 Watts) and they are on all the time. But then again, they aren't the kind of appliance that you are going to turn off, if you are using it to record programs.

BASIX doesn't ask where you site the clothes line. With the fashion for building as big as the site and regs will allow, the clothes line is often relegated to a shady minimum-size backyard (I've seen them, and so has a house-cleaner I know. She cleans a lot of new big houses and reports that they're all very short of outdoor space). So it doesn't do the job of drying the clothes (no sun and no moving air in that confined space) so the dryer gets used instead.

Again, the problem is BASIX prompting people to make gestures, rather than installing things which actually deliver optiumum energy efficiency.

I dry clothes outside on a line just fine on the south side of the building with no sun (we are in a south-facing townhouse).

I think you are focussing too much on the detail and ignoring some of the practical issues I've raised, such as how reasonable it is for the govt to create bureacracy and ask a zillion questions to get minor improvements in sustainability outcomes.

Urban off-grid is the new black. Is there a message you'd like to send your electricity retailer?

You must live somewhere very sunny Ms J ... or have enough storage to run a small town.

I'm all in favour of going off-grid but the outlay on storage is pretty hefty.

New black indeed... love it!

Seems even suite101 couldn't stand osullivan anymore and fired him.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=8588
Bizarre attacks on Spencer and Lindzen, who are skeptics anyway.

Preamble to this web page that proves that the Climate 101 a circus side show is fraudulent.
Any experiment that places thermometers in a jar then shines heat lamps on them and expects to get intellect data is created by someone that escaped from the funny farm.
A high school science student can formulate a more convincing experiment but they cannot prove that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists.
There are at least 4 aspects of the-basic-facts of physics that are misinterpreted by Bill Nye that show this “circus sideshow video” does not Prove the “greenhouse gas effect”. I'll leave it to the academicians to find the flaws.
Just a clue The experiment created “confined space heating”

The full content of this is available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised

Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.

First. as a refresher, here’s the Climate 101 video again:

I direct your attention to the 1 minute mark, lasting through 1:30, where the experiment is presented.

And here’s my critique of it: Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”

The most egregious faked presentation in that video was the scene with the split screen thermometers, edited to appear as if the temperature in the jar of elevated CO2 level was rising faster than the jar without elevated CO2 level.

It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.

This was proven beyond a doubt by the photoshop differencing technique used to compare each side of the split screen. With the exception of the moving thermometer fluid, both sides were identical.

difference process run at full resolution – click to enlarge
Exposing this lie to the viewers didn’t set well with some people, include the supposed “fairness” watchdogs over at Media Matters, who called the analysis a “waste of time”. Of course it’s only a “waste of time” when you prove their man Gore was faking the whole thing, otherwise they wouldn’t care. Personally I consider it a badge of honor for them to take notice because they usually reserve such vitriol for high profile news they don’t like, so apparently I have “arrived”.

The reason why I took so much time then to show this chicanery was Mr. Gore’s pronouncement in an interview the day the video aired.

His specific claim was:

“The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,” he said. “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics.” - Al Gore in an interview with MNN 9/14/2011

So easy a high school kid can do it. Right?

Bill Nye, in his narration at 0:48 in the video says:

You can replicate this effect yourself in a simple lab experiment, here’s how.

…and at 1:10 in the video Nye says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

So, I decided to find out if that was true and if anyone could really replicate that claim, or if this was just more stagecraft chicanery. I was betting that nobody on Gore’s production team actually did this experiment, or if they did do it, it wasn’t successful, because otherwise, why would they have to fake the results in post production?

The split screen video at 1:17, a screencap of which is a few paragraphs above shows a temperature difference of 2°F. Since Mr. Gore provided no other data, I’ll use that as the standard to meet for a successful experiment.

The first task is to get all the exact same equipment. Again, since Mr. Gore doesn’t provide anything other than the video, finding all of that took some significant effort and time. There’s no bill of materials to work with so I had to rely on finding each item from the visuals. While I found the cookie jars and oral thermometers early on, finding the lamp fixtures, the heat lamps for them, the CO2 tank and the CO2 tank valve proved to be more elusive. Surprisingly, the valve turned out to be the hardest of all items to locate, taking about two weeks from the time I started searching to the time I had located it, ordered it and it arrived. The reason? It isn’t called a valve, but rather a “In-Line On/Off Air Adapter”. Finding the terminology was half the battle. Another surprise was finding that the heat lamps and fixtures were for lizards and terrariums and not some general purpose use. Fortunately the fixtures and lamps were sold together by the same company. While the fixtures supported up to 150 watts, Mr. Gore made no specification on bulb type or wattage, so I chose the middle of the road 100 watt bulbs from the 50, 100, and 150 watt choices available.

I believe that I have done due diligence (as much as possible given no instructions from Gore) and located all the original equipment to accurately replicate the experiment as it was presented. Here’s the bill of materials and links to suppliers needed to replicate Al Gore’s experiment as it is shown in the Climate 101 video:

====================================================

BILL OF MATERIALS

QTY 2 Anchor Hocking Cookie Jar with Lid

http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=187543

QTY2 Geratherm Oral Thermometer Non-Mercury http://www.pocketnurse.com/Geratherm-Oral-Thermometer-Non-Mercury/productinfo/06-74-5826/

QTY 2 Globe Coin Bank
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150661053386

QTY 2 Fluker`s Repta Clamp-Lamp with Ceramic Sockets for Terrariums (max 150 watts, 8 1/2 Inch Bulb) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fluker-s-Repta-Clamp-Lamp-150-watts-8-1-2-Inch-Bulb-/200663082632

QTY2 Zoo Med Red Infrared Heat Lamp 100W
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200594870618

QTY1 Empire – Pure Energy – Aluminum Co2 Tank – 20 oz
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190563856367

QTY 1 RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter
http://www.rap4.com/store/paintball/rap4-in-line-on-off-air-adapter

QTY 1 flexible clear plastic hose, 48″ in length, from local Lowes hardware to fit RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter above.

====================================================

Additionally, since Mr. Gore never actually proved that CO2 had been released from the CO2 paintball tank into one of the jars, I ordered a portable CO2 meter for just that purpose:

It has a CO2 metering accuracy of: ± 50ppm ±5% reading value. While not laboratory grade, it works well enough to prove the existence of elevated CO2 concentrations in one of the jars. It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.

Data Sheet

===================================================

Once I got all of the equipment in, the job was to do some testing to make sure it all worked. I also wanted to be sure the two oral thermometers were calibrated such they read identically. For that, I prepared a water bath to conduct that experiment.

CAVEAT: For those that value form over substance, yes these are not slick professionally edited videos like Mr. Gore presented. They aren’t intended to be. They ARE intended to be a complete, accurate, and most importantly unedited record of the experimental work I performed. Bear in mind that while Mr. Gore has million$ to hire professional studios and editors, all I have is a consumer grade video camera, my office and my wits. If I were still working in broadcast television, you can bet I would have done this in the TV studio.

==============================================================

STEP 1 Calibrate the Oral Thermometers

Here’s my first video showing how I calibrated the oral thermometers, which is very important if you want to have an accurate experimental result.

Note that the two thermometers read 98.1°F at the conclusion of the test, as shown in this screencap from my video @ about 5:35:

STEP 2 Calibrate the Infrared Thermometer

Since I plan to make use of an electronic Infrared thermometer in these experiments, I decided to calibrate it against the water bath also. Some folks may see this as unnecessary, since it is pre-calibrated, but I decided to do it anyway. It makes for interesting viewing

==============================================================

STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using the Infrared Thermometer

The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.

Image from: greenhousesonline.com.au
Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.

By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid, but not only will I show the problem of the experimental setup being flawed, I’ll go to full on replication.

Using the warm water bath and the infrared thermometer, it becomes easy to demonstrate this effect.

Since Mr. Gore’s experiment used infrared heat lamps illuminating two glass jars, I decided to test that as well:

==============================================================

STEP 4 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 10 minutes

At 1:10 in the Climate 101 video narrator Bill Nye the science guy says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

Since this is “simple high school physics” according to Mr. Gore, this should be a cinch to replicate. I took a “within minutes” from the narration to be just that, so I tried an experiment with 10 minutes of duration. I also explain the experimental setup and using the CO2 meter prove that CO2 is in fact injected into Jar “B”. My apologies for the rambling dialog, which wasn’t scripted, but explained as I went along. And, the camera work is one-handed while I’m speaking and setting up the experiment, so what it lacks in production quality it makes up in reality.

You’ll note that after 10 minutes, it appears there was no change in either thermometer. Also, remember these are ORAL thermometers, which hold the reading (so you can take it out of your mouth and hand it to mom and ask “can I stay home from school today”?). So for anyone concerned about the length of time after I turned off the lamps, don’t be. In order to reset the thermometers you have to shake them to force the liquid back down into the bulb.

Here’s the screencaps of the two thermometer readings from Jar A and B:

Clearly, 10 minutes isn’t enough time for the experiment to work. So let’s scratch off the idea from narration of “a few minutes” and go for a longer period:

RESULT: No change, no difference in temperature. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video. Inconclusive.

==============================================================

STEP 5 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 30 minutes

Ok, identical setup as before, the only difference is time, the experiment runs 30 minutes long. I’ve added a digital timer you can watch as the experiment progresses.

And here are the screencaps from the video above of the results:

RESULT: slight rise and difference in temperature 97.4°F for Jar “A” Air, and 97.2°F for Jar “B” CO2. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video.

==============================================================

STEP 6 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment, using digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment, I’m substituting the liquid in glass oral thermometers with some small self contained battery powered digital logging thermometers with LCD displays.

This model:

Details here

Specification Sheet / Manual
USB-2-LCD+ Temperature Datalogger

I used two identical units in the experiment replication:

And here are the results graphed by the application that comes with the datalogger. Red is Temperature, Blue is Humidity, Green is dewpoint

The graphs are automatically different vertical scales and thus can be a bit confusing, so I’ve take the raw data for each and graphed temperature only:

After watching my own video, I was concerned that maybe I was getting a bit of a direct line of the visible portion of the heat lamp into the sensor housing onto the thermistor, since they were turned on their side. So I ran the experiment again with the dataloggers mounted vertically in paper cups to ensure the thermistors were shielded from any direct radiation at any wavelength. See this video:

Both runs of the USB datalogger are graphed together below:

RESULTS:

Run 1 slight rise and difference in temperature 43.5°C for Jar “A” Air with Brief pulse to 44°C , and 43.0°C for Jar “B” CO2.

Run 2 had an ended with a 1°C difference, with plain air in Jar A being warmer than Jar “B with CO2.

Jar “A” Air temperature led Jar “B” CO2 during the entire experiment on both runs

The datalogger output files are available here:

JarA Air only run1.txt JarB CO2 run1.txt

JarA Air only run2.txt JarB CO2 run2.txt

==============================================================

STEP 7 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using a high resolution NIST calibrated digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment I use a high resolution (0.1F resolution) and NIST calibrated data logger with calibrated probes. Data was collected over my LAN to special software. This is the datalogger model:

Data sheet: Model E Series And the software used to log data is described here

Here’s the experiment:

I had to spend a lot of time waiting for the Jar “B” probe to come to parity with Jar “A” due to the cooling effect of the CO2 I introduced. As we all know, when a gas expands it cools, and that’s exactly what happens to CO2 released under pressure. You can see the effect early in the flat area of the graph below.

Here’s the end result screencap real-time graphing software used in the experiment, click the image to expand the graph full size.

RESULTS:

Peak value Jar A with air was at 18:04 117.3°F

Peak value Jar B with CO2 was at 18:04 116.7°F

Once again, air led CO2 through the entire experiment.

Note that I allowed this experiment to go through a cool down after I turned off the Infrared heat lamps, which is the slope after the peak. Interestingly, while Jar “A” (probe1 in green) with Air, led Jar “B” (Probe 2 in red) with CO2, the positions reversed shortly after the lamps turned off.

The CO2 filled jar was now losing heat slower than the plain air jar, even though plain air Jar “A” had warmed slightly faster than the CO2 Jar “B”.

Here’s the datalogger output files for each probe:

Climate101-replication-Probe01-(JarA – Air).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe02-(JarB – CO2).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe03-(Ambient Air).csv

What could explain this reversal after the lamps were turned off? The answer is here at the Engineer’s Edge in the form of this table:

Heat Transfer Table of Content

This chart gives the thermal conductivity of gases as a function of temperature.

Unless otherwise noted, the values refer to a pressure of 100 kPa (1 bar) or to the saturation vapor pressure if that is less than 100 kPa.

The notation P = 0 indicates the low pressure limiting value is given. In general, the P = 0 and P = 100 kPa values differ by less than 1%.

Units are milliwatts per meter kelvin.

Note the values for Air and for CO2 that I highlighted in the 300K column. 300K is 80.3°F.

Air is a better conductor of heat than CO2.

==============================================================

So, here is what I think is going on with Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment.
1.As we know, the Climate101 video used infrared heat lamps
2.The glass cookie jars chosen don’t allow the full measure of infrared from the lamps to enter the center of the jar and affect the gas. I showed this two different ways with the infrared camera in videos above.
3.During the experiments, I showed the glass jars heating up using the infrared camera. Clearly they were absorbing the infrared energy from the lamps.
4.The gases inside the jars, air and pure CO2 thus had to be heated by secondary heat emission from the glass as it was being heated. They were not absorbing infrared from the lamps, but rather heat from contact with the glass.
5.Per the engineering table, air is a better conductor of heat than pure CO2, so it warms faster, and when the lamps are turned off, it cools faster.
6.The difference value of 2°F shown in the Climate 101 video split screen was never met in any of the experiments I performed.
7.The condition stated in the Climate 101 video of “Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.” was not met in any of the experiments I performed. In fact it was exactly the opposite. Air consistently warmed faster than CO2.
8.Thus, the experiment as designed by Mr. Gore does not show the greenhouse effect as we know it in our atmosphere, it does show how heat transfer works and differences in heat transfer rates with different substances, but nothing else.

Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment is falsified, and could not work given the equipment he specified. If they actually tried to perform the experiment themselves, perhaps this is why they had to resort to stagecraft in the studio to fake the temperature rise on the split screen thermometers.

The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. The video as presented, is not only faked in post production, the premise is also false and could never work with the equipment they demonstrated. Even with superior measurement equipment it doesn’t work, but more importantly, it couldn’t work as advertised.

The design failure was the glass cookie jar combined with infrared heat lamps.

Gore FAIL.

=============================================================

UPDATE: 4PM PST Some commenters are taking away far more than intended from this essay. Therefore I am repeating this caveat I posted in my first essay where I concentrated on the video editing and stagecraft issues:

I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.

No broader take away (other than the experiment was faked and fails) was intended, expressed or implied – Anthony

Advertisement

Rate this:

12 Votes

Share this:

Twitter8
Facebook47
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Email

Like this:

Like

Be the first to like this.

26 Responses to Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

DrJazz says:

January 4, 2012 at 7:52 am

The experiment was perfomred live on BBC Newsnight over a year ago.

Keating Willcox says:

January 4, 2012 at 3:50 pm

from their web site a reply – did you notice this already? Who is right?
“Response to Watt’s Up

By Bill Nye | Published: November 14, 2011 – 9:31 pm

O my friends, I have received numerous messages asking about the voice-over I did for the Climate Reality Project. My voice describes an experiment or demonstration that I’ve performed several times over the last 15 years. You can put pure carbon dioxide in a vessel, illuminate it with a bright hot lamp, and its temperature will be a few degrees warmer than an identical vessel filled with air. (I once did it with pure methane; the temperature rose in that vessel as well.)

The Climate Project people created their own version, but apparently they didn’t test it very well. One of our strident climate change deniers seized on their corner cutting and showed their demonstration didn’t demonstrate anything. I considered this part of healthy discourse: people cut corners; they got called on it and taken to task. Since it was my voice, I was considered to be a co-conspirator in the plot to fool the world into believing that our climate is changing. That’s reasonable in its way.

The Climate Project people used jars with lids that were too thick, the thermometers were not well placed, and the volume of gas in each vessel was greatly diminished by the presence of handsome, but voluminous globes and pedestals. When I’ve done this in the past, my apparatus did not have any of these shortcomings, so I got different results.

As the famous Boeing test pilot Tex Johnston remarked, “One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.” Try it; try your own version, and see if you measure a temperature difference.

One thing to note though, the guy who called us out on this drew an incorrect conclusion, or he made an erroneous claim. He says any change would have been caused by “… a completely different physical mechanism than actually occurs in our atmosphere…” That’s wrong. It is this mechanism. The model has to be set up properly. Keep in mind that our troposphere is several dozen kilometers thick, and it doesn’t comprise pure carbon dioxide. This is a model, a demonstration. Real atmospheric models are astonishingly complex.

Regardless of any shortcomings or shortcuts in the model shown by the Climate Reality Project advocacy group, the world is getting warmer, and we had all better do something about it.

Cleopatra says:

January 25, 2012 at 10:22 pm

Applause!

Keep up the good work. How can 3% (=man-made) of 0,039% (=total amount of CO2 in air) warm the earth? Its impossible. Co2 is about banking and total control. In fact about selling air to stupid ppl and phoney governments.
I am more worried about the loss of Oxygen by burning all those fuels.
Less oxygen makes ppl more sick, tired/lazy/drugged and dumb. Oxygen generates 97% of all the energy of animal creatures like us. You can live days without water and weeks without food.
You can’t live 5 minutes without oxygen. Some say that in the ancient times there was 35% oxygen in the air. Now its ~20%. If its true or not, why do we never hear or see this kind of data?

Animals are MUCH smaller these days than 65 million years ago. Is that because the lack of oxygen? Or because there was much more CO2 in the air? Or both?

But.. you mention the AG video 101. There is something with that number: ’101′.

I forgot what. Kind of (secret) code? No time at the moment to look it up but it’s somewhere in the next video. Sorry, its a bit long… and bit over the top …but also interesting in a way.

dotonbut says:

February 3, 2012 at 8:17 am

I wonder if Mr. Nye has considered what he may be seeing in his results is attributable to the gas’ Specific Heat?
The relevant formula is
Q=Cp*m*dT
Where Q = the amount of heat required to change the temperature of a gas delta T or dT. “m” is the mass. The specific heat of the atmosphere (Cp) is approximately 1.01 KJ/KgK and that of CO2 is 0.84 KJ/KgK. Therefore if the energies, Q, going into the systems are the same (remember identical heat lamps?), and the mass of the system is the same (identical jars, etc.) then the lower the specific heat of the gas involved the greater the temperature change or dT.

Jeremy Das says:

February 9, 2012 at 10:41 am

“The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”

Ummm… Doesn’t a greenhouse works mainly by preventing convection rather than by the “greenhouse effect”?

Jeremy Das says:

February 10, 2012 at 8:43 am

Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. I shouldn’t have called it the “greenhouse effect”. I first thought of saying “the greenhouse analogue of the greenhouse effect”, but realised that would be a bit confusing.

What I meant to ask was “doesn’t a greenhouse work mainly by preventing convection rather than by trapping infrared radiation?”

Jeremy Das says:

February 10, 2012 at 8:52 am

Oops! “work” rather than “works”, obviously. Sorry, I’m really not with it, at the moment, but I thought I ought to mention the convection vs trapping infra-red issue.

Bonta Phillip says:

February 12, 2012 at 8:34 pm

So Bill Nye says “Regardless of any shortcomings or shortcuts in the model shown by the Climate Reality Project advocacy group, the world is getting warmer, and we had all better do something about it.”
How does this reconcile with the US met data which says there has been no global warming since 1997 and the models look like being fundamentally flawed?: Refer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Dustin says:

February 13, 2012 at 11:30 pm

Al Gore never learned that correlation doesn’t equal causation. I love his famous hockey stick graph which supposedly shows that CO2 rises and then temps. and then when you research the study they got their data from you learn that it was in fact the opposite, that temps rose first and then CO2 levels rose. I don’t debate climate change, we know for a fact that the earths climate naturally shifts from time to time…what I do debate is anthropogenic climate change that states it’s only happening because of us parasitic humans. Same people that believe in Darwin and natural selection but won’t let endangered species die off…uhhh, isn’t that part of natural selection?
Its comical…

David Cage says:

February 14, 2012 at 1:03 am

Regardless of any shortcomings or shortcuts in the model shown by the Climate Reality Project advocacy group, the world is getting warmer, and we had all better do something about it.

That in itself is questionable when the probable inaccuracy in the measurements is an order of magnitude greater than the differences measured. What is more important is that no one seems to be interested in looking at the detail. When you look at the temperature anomaly maps on the NASA site, particularly the sea ones it shows clearly that the temperature of the earth is on average reducing if it was not for highly localised hot spots that appear in the near polar regions.
If the warming is caused by CO2 how is this localised transfer of 5 degrees above the ambient achieved? This is especially strange when once it arrives at the surface it manages to disperse to lower temperature wider areas as one would expect and no longer constrain itself in the same way.

John Doe says:

February 19, 2012 at 11:59 am

In response to Bonta Phillip – did you read the paper the article was referring to? Apparently not as if you had you would be aware that the MET office (UK not US) did and took the unusual step of issuing a statement highlighting their concern at the Mail’s misrepresentation of the paper. For your consideration here is a link to the paper;

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD017013.shtml

and also the MET office Statement:

https://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

regards

HowardG says:

February 20, 2012 at 7:04 pm

I suspect that Bill Nye’s experiments did show the reading in the CO2 vessel as higher. Bill tells us that he did not clutter his containers with little extras so we can assume he simply popped a thermometer in each vessel. I suspect the long wave IR was filtered by the glass in the bulb and the vessel. Thus the atmosphere in each vessel did very little absorbing of the light energy. BUT the thermometers likely did absorb the energy and likely would have shown a similar increase in temperature had the vessels contained a vacuum. But since the air has nearly twice the thermal conductivity as the CO2 it simply removed the heat from the thermometer faster in the Air vessel. This explanation allows both Bill Nye and Anthony to be correct in their observations. But it would appear the CO2 acted as an insulator of the thermometer rather than absorbing the infrared energy and it is primarily the thermometer doing the energy absorbing rather than the CO2 gas.

To test this explanation you can add a vessel of H2 or He gas. The He is safer and available at many Scuba shops. The thermometer in the He or H2 should not heat as fast as the CO2 or Air thermometers and the ratios should follow the thermal conductivity shown in the chart. Now there is a science project. If using H2 I suggest being aware of ignition sources, keep the vessels small and use safety goggles. A quick look in a ChemPhysHandbook should underscore the wide range of H2 to O2 mixtures that are ignitable.

warpeddude says:

February 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Wow, very nicely done. Could Al Gore truly make a mistake? (insert sarcastic laugh)

Mike Blackadder says:

March 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm

I don’t know, I think that a vessel with higher CO2 actually should warm up faster under IR. I don’t know why it didn’t warm up faster in Anthony’s experiments. Perhaps the IR source was not high enough intensity or warming of objects other than the air dominated the effect of air content.

The interesting thing about this experiment is that over the long term the two jars should reach the same equilibrium temperature even though they have different CO2 concentration. The additional IR should warm the gas in each chamber, because each chamber has ability to absorb IR, but the chamber containing more CO2 should reach equilibrium temperature faster, which is why the transient effect would be jar B leading jar A as the temperature rises.

Like I said, the two jars should eventually reach the same equilibrium temperature. Then when you turn off the lamp jar B should also cool down faster. The take away is that the co2 should cause greater responsiveness of the gas temperature to changes in IR flux.

I agree with Anthony that this experiment does not demonstrate the mechanism whereby greenhouse gases warm the earth. You can just as easily demonstrate that CO2 will increase the rate of cooling with this experiment.

Anteaus says:

April 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm

This is essentially an indoor version of Wood’s Experiment of 1909, which was said to prove that greenhouses trap solar heat principally through lack of convection, not through IR blocking.

Wood’s Experiment has been repeated by at least two modern experimenters, and interestingly, they disagree about the outcome. Vaughan Pratt of Stanford reckons that Wood was wrong and that the box with a far-infrared blocking window material gets significantly hotter. Meanwhile, Nasif Nahle finds the opposite, that IR-blocking material actually prevents some of the Sun’s rays from entering the box, causing marginally slower warming than in the box with the IR-transparent window.

Nahle’s experimental method seems to be by far the more meticulous, and on that basis I’m inclined to accept his findings in preference to Pratt’s. Though, I do find it perplexing that that no agreement can be reached within the scientific community over the results of so simple, so easily repeated a test. If no agreement can be reached even on this, what trust can be placed in more complex forms of climate science?

http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

Michael Tremblay says:

April 7, 2012 at 11:22 pm

There are some very substantial problems with this experiment. First, they are using an infrared lamp; second the amount of CO2 in the ‘atmosphere’ in the bottle is substantially greater than the amount in the earth’s atmosphere; and finally, the gases are not acting as the atmosphere, the glass of the bottle is.
The gases in the atmosphere absorb the radiant energy from the sun based on the wavelength of the radiant energy and convert that to heat energy. Carbon Dioxide is most effective at absorbing infrared wavelength light and converting it to heat energy. By using an infrared lamp and a CO2 atmosphere they have magnified the amount of heat produced compared to Earth’s atmosphere by a huge margin. Finally, the heat energy produced from the absorption by the gases in the atmosphere is radiated out from the atmosphere in all directions, with more than half of that heat energy being directed out to space. The glass of the bottle prevents that heat from being radiated out and traps it in the bottle thus causing an extra temperature rise.
These so-called scientists should be ashamed of how they conduct experiments – this particular experiment only shows that a CO2 saturated atmosphere is more effective at absorbing infrared radiation and converting it to heat energy than the regular atmosphere, it does not demonstrate that AGW is a threat or even if it is occurring.

Dwight Oglesby says:

May 6, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Good work. Thanks from a non-scientist for making the effort.

Suggest that your challenge Bill Nye to get in the same room with you and conduct his experiment to prove his result with complete transparency and advance agreement about how the experiment is set up.

In fact, why not agree with each other as to the setup and then conduct it with both of you together and an agreement that the results will speak for themselves.

I doubt, however, that Bill Nye will rise to such a challenge.

Dwight Oglesby

bitskeptic says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm

So after all this do you think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases the temperature of the atmosphere?

bitskeptic says:

May 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Sorry – didn’t read your update. So you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Then the next question is do you think that CO2 introduced by humans is contributing to the warming of the planet and therefore global climate change?

Rosco says:

May 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm

But glass (or other material ) greenhouses or your car parked in the sun for that matter “heat up” by trapping the heated air that would otherwise convect away into the free atmosphere and be replaced by cooler air. Professor Wood’s 1909 experiment, replicated by Professor Nahle, clearly demonstrated a few things

- the solar radiation contains significant IR which glass blocks; and,
- the increase in temperature by “trapping” of IR in a heated glasshouse cannot be measured whilst there is a clear effect by preventing convection to the free atmosphere.

Note that these say nothing about absorbing or emission of IR by gases which I do not dispute BUT it is a fact that all things radiatedependent on their temperature and therefore the vast bulk of the atmosphere must radiate IR yet this 99% of the atmosphere is ignored where the “backradiation” of greenhouse gases is considered – it just doesn’t make sense to me that less than, at the most, a few percent of the atmosphere can be responsible for all the IR – the vast bulk of the atmosphere is not at absolute zero after all.

Myrrh says:

May 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm

The atmosphere around the real Earth is not glass … The direct heat from the Sun is what reaches us and heats us up, land and oceans and us. This has been taken out of the AGWScienceFiction energy budget. You’ve left out the direct heat from the Sun which can actually physically really heat matter and substituted shortwave visible light from the Sun, which can’t.

This is so totally ludicrous it’s beyond a joke.

Olaf Koenders says:

May 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm

As noted before Bitskeptic, human emissions are just 3% of 0.039% of total atmospheric CO2. That’s just 0.00117%. No wonder they can’t find the anthropogenic signal amongst the natural noise.

Any actual warming would be arising from the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI), where roads and building retain heat for longer, but that escapes into space on a clear night. Notice how cities always have a higher overnight temp forecast? But that’s only localised. Out in the city fringes and the prairies, temps aren’t really affected at all.

Note that the Earth having a total area of 510,072,000 km2 and (from what I could gather – somebody correct me because I couldn’t find the exact figure), around 300,000 km2 of global city area that’s capable of measurable UHI, I doubt there’s a problem.

Rosco says:

May 26, 2012 at 11:29 pm

Meant to say earlier that I am pleased Anthony approached this as a clear, concise and repeatable experiment.

He has clearly summed up the situation correctly – the IR lamps primarily heat the glass jars which conduct heat to the gases therein – the gases did not heat substantially by absorption of IR which the glass blocks effectively.

Why didn’t Gore and his “expert” forsee this basic criticism and use a different heating method ?

Wood’s 1909 experiment showed almost no temperature effect by the glass box “trapping” IR compared to the rock salt box which passes IR at ~100% at the temperatures reached – the consequence of this is that the surface heats the atmosphere primarily by conduction and convection – radiation effects were not measurable.

It seems inconceivable to me that the Earth’s surface, heated by the Solar radiation, predominantly heats the atmosphere by radiating to greenhouse gases which then spread the heat around (which must be kinetic energy as the bulk of the atmosphere doesn’t appreciably absorb IR) – I simply do not believe this and Professor Wood demonstrated this.

Obviously radiation to space is the only method of removing energy from the atmosphere.

Eugene says:

May 30, 2012 at 8:45 am

I’m surprised the temperature profiles in the two jars were so close, given the potential manufacturing differences in the bulbs and the jars (the glass is not going to be uniform in thickness, among other things). There are so many ways the experiment could have been faked, but it’s pretty clear the thermometers were not in the jars when the video was running. Using a 50W bulb for one jar and a 150W bulb for the other would be an easy way to fake it in a “live” test. Realistically, the conditions for both jars were not the same: both should have had tubing running into them, so that both were open to “the atmosphere” and both should have had identical temperature gas running into them. A better solution is to have proper laboratory jars that allow hoses to be attached so that there could be no uncontrolled leakage.

Nye’s response is interesting, if you can put up with/get past the rhetoric. He provides some interesting bits of information:
1) He acknowledges that Team Gore made up their own experiment, and lists numerous failings of it.
2) He notes that in his own experiments he used a “bright hot lamp” though he doesn’t indicate if it’s an IR or visible light lamp. A hot bulb radiating heat is likely to cause the jars to heat to some degree, which will complicate the issue.
3) Nye also acknowledges that such experiments are grand simplifications of the real atmosphere, models of which “are astonishingly complex.”
4) Nye encourages people to make up their own model and see what happens. That’s all fine and dandy, but that’s where Team Gore went wrong in the first place: they made up their own experiment and botched it, but then said their results were valid…

In many ways, Nye provides good evidence that he is above the fray, but it’s hard to get to that point after he shows his apparent true colors as he refers at the very top to “one of our strident climate change deniers.” And to think I actually let my children watch his show when they were young…

jdouglashuahin says:

June 19, 2012 at 4:54 am

Actually, this whole concept of a green house like effect surrounding the earth like a pane of glass is a ludicrous attempt to present a vision in children’s heads and I well imagine many adults also believe this. The question is, when was the last time anyone was able to “capture” anything with a gas? That this ubiquitous, odorless, colorless, and benign trace gas essential for life on earth, CO2, that is one and one-half times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere (maybe there is intelligent design after all because everything that utilizes CO2 is on the surface of the earth) and be reminded that it constitutes only .037% of the total atmosphere of our planet can have basically anything to do with the earth’s climate can not and never will be shown by ANY experiment to do so.

That H2O is what causes the green house effect should be realized by anyone that has ever noticed that the coldest nights of the winter occur when there is no cloud cover and this is why the deserts can get to 130*F during the day and freezing at night, no cloud cover.

Carbon dioxide is one and one half times heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake. “Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to “hug” the ground and descend down the valleys where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (164 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres (12–31 mi) per hour. For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos,Kam,Cha,andSubum.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…

This coincides with the above fact about CO2:
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada’s site)

There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help them to sleep better at nights.
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 metres high (1063ft). If the hight of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimetres of that hight (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimetres (1.5 inches)

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

Stan Rose says:

June 21, 2012 at 9:27 am

I don’t know why folks like Jdouglashuahin are hung up on the “minute” quantities of CO2. Forcing mechanisms are often absolutely small but can have huge effects when their relative size changes dramatically; and a doubling in quantity is huge. I ask him: If you were forced at gunpoint to either drink a glass of water “A” that has one drop of arsenic in it, or “B” that has two drops — which would you chose?
Sine the author here acknowledges the radiative forcing effects of CO2 (and all the naysayers who responded should reread his acknowledgement before posting their congratulations), who cares what happens in a glass jar? It might be entertaining to see Bill Nye try to demonstrate his experiment, but the bottom line (once again, acknowledged by the author) is that they’re just straw men in this debate.

Wow, Berthold, "Established laws of physics" are on the deniers sides now? Now that's really reaching for the brass ring.

So you interestingly stay away from the work of Arrhenius, the Nobel chemist, and the many, many measurements of dynamic modes of absorption of radiant energy by CO2 & the various other molecules in our air, eh?

Could it be an inconvenient truth that you either don't understand molecular dynamics and electromagnetic interactions?

Indeed, as with Monckton, we see statements here that are meant to confuse with chaff of names, etc. But very much devoid of fact.

There are thousands of other molecules around each CO2 molecule in our air, despite our grand additions to their number. So, wince we know CO2 has dominant infrared (IR) absorption bands around 1 and 10 microns (in the tera-Hertz range), we might expect that coupling of that CO2 vibrational energy, from solar or earth-radiated IR, would occur and quickly transfer such energy away from each CO2 molecule.

Same for water molecules, which are far more abundant in most air and which have far more IR absorption frequency bands. Then there are fertilizer-derived Nitrogen oxides, especially N2O, with far stronger absorptions in the IR bands radiating from sun & earth.

So, the reality, unfortunate though it may be, is that the more GHG molecules in the air, the more radiant heating from sun or earth is coupled into all air molecules, which makes the air hotter, which makes anything touched by air both hotter and subject to receiving IR radiation that further adds to heating.

That space is above our atmosphere means that some of the IR radiated goes away, thus we don't boil. But with more GHG molecules coupling energy from solar radiation to the more populous nitrogen, Oxygen... molecules around them, it all gets hotter, thus we don't freeze.

The question is, how far should we allow our unnatural CO2, N3O, CH4... emissions move the earth's temperature.

Someone from the combustion industry may not care. Someone paid by the combustion industry and just in it for the $ (because he/she knows others will eventually prevail and sense will return) won't care.

But, no matter, because warming, again, is the 'safe room' for those looking for ways to discredit the thousands of honest, modestly-paid scientists around the world who actually care about more than themselves. Folks like you, try tio hide in the natural variability of low energy-density, low specific-heat measures, like air temps. That's gutless. Much as Monckton gave up in a fit of pique when I demonstrated the absurdity of his unscientific statements on atmospheric CO2.

The real, unrefutable data you know you yourself can measure, or if too lazy, find -- sea rise and acidification.

The isotopic content of unnatural, anthropogenic CO2 in air & sea is indisputable. A 'good' thing for a denier to avoid discussing, eh? And, deniers always do. Just as they avoid the thermal expansion of seawater contributing ~60% of observed 8" of sea rise since 1880.

The other thing deniers studiously avoid, thus deflating their own credibility, is establishment of a bet or a bond, so their descendents will at least have something to fall back on to cover any damages due to the denier's denials just happening to be, just on the very off chance, wrong.

Yes, you'll have place in line for rescue should the time come. But, the other folks in the boat or chopper might toss you out if they realize who you are and what chaff you've written here.

Alex. Arrhenius did some good work, but his main finding wase whollly mathematically a priori like today's GCM computer models. He NEVER attempted to replicate let alone rebut Tyndall's totally opposite results from his physical experiments.

Arrhenius was truly a forerunner of today's climate "science" modelers, totally divorced from observations. For example, he predicted more than 3oC global warming from a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2, but so far we have had only around 0.75oC from the about 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since his 1896 paper.

But for climate scientists like all of Gore's Nobel prize winners, above all Trenberth, facts count for nothing, and grants for everything.

Alex how much physics did you have at Stanford for your degree? Your resume on The Conversation does not indicate your academic background.
Just so other reader will know a little more about me My bachelors degree is in civil engineering with freshmen and sophomore classes in physics, advanced physics including quantum and nuclear; chemistry including basic and analytical , I audited microbiology. This is in addition to all the requirements of civil and structural engineering. My master's degree is in Sanitary Engineering called Environmental engineering today. This education was at a college that has been rated Third in the country among technical schools, Along with MIT and Cal Tech. That is Case Institute of Technology.
To the 50 + years of environmental engineering there is 5 years of self education studiously examining the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect”. I developed “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillion-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”. This experiment and technical report has been reviewed and re-reviewed by not less that four(4) Ph.D physicists and multiple other Ph.D' s in related technical fields. I have no fear is stating "Established laws of physics" are on the deniers sides and always have been!”
To this I would add that the “Petition Project” gathered the names of more than 30,000 individuals with advanced degrees including 9000 with advanced degrees in physics that all say that the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist”
A list of just a few references are at the end of this response.

[[[Alex Cannara

(logged in via Facebook)
.insightful unconstructive Wow, Berthold, "Established laws of physics" are on the deniers sides now? Now that's really reaching for the brass ring. So you interestingly stay away from the work of Arrhenius, the Nobel chemist, and the many, many measurements of dynamic modes of absorption of radiant energy by CO2 & the various other molecules in our air, eh?Could it be an inconvenient truth that you either don't understand molecular dynamics and electromagnetic interactions?]]]
Triple {{{ }}} have been added to emphasis certain words or phrases .

The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and {{{suggested}}} that slight changes in the atmospheric composition {{{could}}} bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first {{{speculated}}} that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

It should also be noted that in 1903 Dr. Angstrom physicist (son of the Angstrom of light measurement fame) showed that the Hypotheses of Arrhenius was in significant error and caused Arrhenius to print a correction.
Shortly after this Arrhenius retired from the scientific world. One wonders why? .

After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day. Especially the current pretends president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

While Arrhenius received The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1903 was awarded to Svante Arrhenius "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered to the advancement of chemistry by his electrolytic theory of dissociation". Did he really know about the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere or was he guessing?

[[[Wow, Berthold, "Established laws of physics" are on the deniers sides now? Now that's really reaching for the brass ring. So you interestingly stay away from the work of Arrhenius, the Nobel chemist, and the many, many measurements of dynamic modes of absorption of radiant energy by CO2 & the various other molecules in our air, eh?Could it be an inconvenient truth that you either don't understand molecular dynamics and electromagnetic interactions?Indeed, as with Monckton, we see statements here that are meant to confuse with chaff of names, etc. But very much devoid of fact. There are thousands of other molecules around each CO2 molecule in our air, despite our grand additions to their number. So, wince we know CO2 has dominant infrared (IR) absorption bands around 1 and 10 microns (in the tera-Hertz range), {{{ Correction CO2 only absorbs IR at three very narrow bands
The Absorption Peaks Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM).
When we examine the Bohr model and some of the modifications of it , we find that the following principles still apply:
1. When a gas absorbs electromagnetic energy the photons' energy is converted to internal Kinetic energy in the molecule either of vibrational, rotational or electron orbital velocity.
2. The energy will be released again to the atmosphere as electromagnetic energy
3. The Bohr model states that the gas does not 'heat “ This is demonstrated million if not billions of times a day by the performance of the “simple low temperature IR heaters and by low temperature industrial IR building heating systems. The principle is that the IR passes through the atmosphere (air with 400ppm of CO2) does not heat the atmosphere but heats objects as humans , floors ,walls, machines etc. then heat is transferred to the atmosphere by conduction and then distributed by convection. }}}

The portion of your presentation should be able to be demonstrated by experiment. Where is your experiment?
The way I set up my experiment was to demonstrate what you claim. The results of “The experiment that failed******” shows that you are wrong.
Your hypotheses is bracketed by[[[ ]]]
[[[“we might expect that coupling of that CO2 vibrational energy, from solar or earth-radiated IR, would occur and quickly transfer such energy away from each CO2 molecule. Same for water molecules, which are far more abundant in most air and which have far more IR absorption frequency bands. Then there are fertilizer-derived Nitrogen oxides, especially N2O, with far stronger absorptions in the IR bands radiating from sun & earth. So, the reality, unfortunate though it may be, is that the more GHG molecules in the air, the more radiant heating from sun or earth is coupled into all air molecules, which makes the air hotter, which makes anything touched by air both hotter and subject to receiving IR radiation that further adds to heating. That space is above our atmosphere means that some of the IR radiated goes away, thus we don't boil. But with more GHG molecules coupling energy from solar radiation to the more populous nitrogen, Oxygen... molecules around them, it all gets hotter, thus we don't freeze. The question is, how far should we allow our unnatural CO2, N3O, CH4... emissions move the earth's temperature. Someone from the combustion industry may not care. Someone paid by the combustion industry and just in it for the $ (because he/she knows others will eventually prevail and sense will return) won't care. But, no matter, because warming, again, is the 'safe room' for those looking for ways to discredit the thousands of honest, modestly-paid scientists around the world who actually care about more than themselves. Folks like you, try to hide in the natural variability of low energy-density, low specific-heat measures, like air temps. That's gutless. Much as Monckton gave up in a fit of pique when I demonstrated the absurdity of his unscientific statements on atmospheric CO2.The real, unrefutable data you know you yourself can measure, or if too lazy, find -- sea rise and acidification. The isotopic content of unnatural, anthropogenic CO2 in air & sea is indisputable. A 'good' thing for a denier to avoid discussing, eh? And, deniers always do. Just as they avoid the thermal expansion of seawater contributing ~60% of observed 8" of sea rise since 1880.The other thing deniers studiously avoid, thus deflating their own credibility, is establishment of a bet or a bond, so their descendents will at least have something to fall back on to cover any damages due to the denier's denials just happening to be, just on the very off chance, wrong. Yes, you'll have place in line for rescue should the time come. But, the other folks in the boat or chopper might toss you out if they realize who you are and what chaff you've written here.]]]
The fact that ocean levels by most reliable gauges show that the ocean levels have decreased over the passed 10 years does not back up your claims.

List of references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth  examination of the subject.  Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA  March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
 
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
 from the  London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By  Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
 
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
 
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
 
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: 'There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming' link to this paper on climate depot.
Web- site references:
www.americanthinker.com                                            Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted - they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
Benjamin Franklin
 

Wow again, Berthold -- only a CE degree from Case, eh? It's fun sucking folks like you in, after you've postured and puffed yourself up, while showing disdain for fellow readers here, and the facts they shouldn't be deprived of.

So do you know what spies & security folks call a "honey pot"? That's one aspect of my Facebook page, so I can detect who the self puffers are. So, for you, I'll admit to all my 5 degrees, in engineering, physics, math, statistics, etc. From now on, since you're so label prone, you can call me Dr. Alex -- just you, Berthold. No one else here is so slavishly devoted to certificates.

Your myth about Arrhenius, who was the father of the very industrial chemistry that has made possible the vast capabilities of organic chemistry, petroleum processing, etc. You might have skipped the days in Chem 101 when the "Arrhenius Rate Equations" were explained. That was one reason he got the Nobel. And, you apparently missed his 1905 paper, on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You seem unaware that one mark of failed argumentation is a long list of your imagined superiorities over others, plus link upon link to those whose blogs/publications are easily exposed for their manipulativeness, fibs, or just ignorance.

So, bottom line -- your statements so far here indicate you've no concept of radiative physics, quantum mechanical behaviors of gas molecules, or spectral conversion and coupling of radiant energy across different populations of molecules, etc.

Rather than waste your time & ours here, as well as oodles of server and network Watts, how about just getting some good study in? People here can point you toward many facts.

Remember too, handlers of deniers don't appreciate their easy exposure.

Timothy, you show the same weakness most all deniers do -- attacking the models rather than the data.

Arrhenius is not being held up as Chief Modeller. Even steam engineers before him were very concerned with all the coal being dug up & burned across England & Europe. The fact that you hide behind imperfections in the obviously difficult task of modelling an entire planetary climate system belies that your cause is not science.

Sea rise and acidification remain clear, unambiguous and non-refutable symptoms of excessive man-induced CO2 (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere.

Those are the inconvenient facts for any denier, so deniers, just try to mislead regular folks by whacking at models. Even with the fastest computing, the most extensive land/sea/air/satellite monitoring data, models will produce plenty of variations for you to mislead others with.

But, solar activity, volcanism, polar melts and other basic data, show th e lie behind your attempts to obfuscate. And, obfuscate is the only weapon you have, apart from irresponsibility to even your own offspring's futures.

So, keep playing in atmospheric variability, Timothy. Or, take the bet Monckton wisely refused a couple of years ago. That could be fun!

Hi Alex,

Just as it took you, from memory, about 3 weeks to convince me that time doesn't exist (excuse the oxymoron) it will likely take somewhat longer (sorry, oxymoron again) for anyone to convince me that the effects of mankind aren't, well, effecting the environment in an adverse manner.

You also told me words to the effect of ; scientists make conclusions based on the facts at hand and will change their position when new facts present themselves ... a practice which one may hope applied to us all about anything.

Now, not being a scientist of any nature (a seemingly horrible admission to make on this site) it is really only the strength of my environmental views that sees me more accepting of climate change than not, the best argument being the billions of humans on the planet with their materialistic nature living in ever increasingly disposable societies able to justify anything which offers economic return or personal gain without the slightest consideration of consequence.

It would likely take more than the 3 weeks that you and I spent considering the existence of 'time' to convince me that there are no significant effects (or won't be) on the planet we call our own, yet, routinely disregard.

As a non-scientist, however, I 'can not possibly know' if the most significant effects of our growing existence are CO2 related or not. I have attempted to keep up with this current exchange of apparent scientific fact (from both points of view expressed here) but it appears to be a case of 'whoever is the most qualified' ... or ... 'whoever has the largest support by %' ... or ... 'whoever can best personally discredit the other' is more likely to be correct.

'For' the non-scientist, this debate has most likely resulted in them having more questions, not less ... being less convinced, not more ... and wondering how it is that scientists come up with 'new facts' as it appears that no-one accepts anything unless it's peer reviewed. Just a thought, but, 'if others accept it then you will too ??' ... or ... 'aren't you each others peers ... can't you review each others work and find its strengths and weaknesses yourselves ??' If the answer is that these peers are more informed because they're climate scientists, isn't it true then that any other scientist can do little more than tip which team will win the game and argue on their behalf ... just like the rest of the fans do ??

Why do I care ?? Because I care what the answer 'actually is', not which theory wins the day, not which scientist has the highest back on their chair, the biggest filing cabinet, or for that matter, vocabulary. That said, anyone that can properly follow the science that several of you (obviously yourself included) are posting here 'probably' deserves to have their opinion considered. What I can't work out is why one of you hasn't changed your mind ... given these new facts and / or disputed facts and / or evidence that you're presenting to each other.

We have some pretty serious environmental situations on our planet right before our eyes ... no theory, no guesswork, no dispute. My objection to the bigger picture is that we aren't addressing those situations, not only first, but in the case of some, not at all. Imagine if last week one of us was rushed to hospital
with kidney failure and the doctors concentrated on giving us preventative treatment for heart disease. Even though they are effectively scientists, would we take issue with them about it ?? The point here is that one of us here may not have survived long enough to have this conversation, but, at least it won't be because of heart disease. That's a bonus. (??) Any of that make sense ??

Nice to chat with you again Alex.

Alex, you say "Sea rise and acidification remain clear, unambiguous and non-refutable symptoms of excessive man-induced CO2 (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere." But there is no global database for either of the asserted but undemonstrated phenomena.

On the contrary, the unamobiguous claim by CSIRO (Church et al 2004)“to date there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea-level rise over that period 1950-2000” has since been confirmed for Australia and New Zealand by Watson (2011) and by Boretti 2011:

Boretti concludes that “long term tide gauges, recording sea levels worldwide, as well as along the coastline of Australia, and within the bay of Sydney, do not show any sign of accelerating sea level rises at [the] present time”.

The later database in Church & White for CSIRO 2011 on annual changes in global mean sea-level since 1880 reveals no accelerating trend at any time, least of all since 2000: in fact the database used in their 2011 paper shows a totally statistically insignificant increase in changes in sea-levels from 2000 to 2009 (adj R2= MINUS 0.038, t= 0.55, p = 0.59). A quadratic fit of the data has a better fit than the linear - but shows a negative trend.

There's no global data on pH, it is quite variable up or down in various places
and increasing oceanic carbonisation via phytoplankton is reported as being beneficial for all marine life.

Timothy, for someone lacking science, you do serve your goals to misinform with gusto!

"no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea-level rise over that period 1950-2000”

So read that again, Timothy -- here, I'll help: "increase in the rate". -- do you know what "rate" means? Do you know what "increases in the rate" means?

So what your reference confirms is that sea level is indeed rising, not slowing down, and the record since 1890 has been continual increases, now matched via satellite altimetry from the 1990s on. That's why we have seen 8" of sea rise since 1880.

Your crutch of a statement: "do not show any sign of accelerating sea level rises" says the same thing -- seas are rising and the rate is not today seen to be increasing.

Of course, the rate was increasing by the end of the Steam Age, and will be increasing again, as further feedback from warming polar seas increases grounded ice loss, uncovering of tundra, methane & CO2 emissions from such tundra as well as from continental shelf methane-ice deposits (already occurring in Nordic waters) and thus further warming and seawater expansion.

You do understand how naively desperate your argument (and that of whom you quote) is, don't you? If you don't, then don't waste time here, go study some science & reality.

Since you rely on the one reference that suits your misinformation, let;'s look at:

"database used in their 2011 paper shows a totally statistically insignificant increase in changes in sea-levels from 2000 to 2009"

The authors may be ignorant of why sea levels vary around the world over years, but let's see if you can do them better -- the earth's oceans cycle water masses back & forth in multi-year cycles. The ENSO, or El Nino & La Nina are good examples, where local sea levels can change by inches for the long periods that these fluid oscillation enjoy. So any statement, like the one you depend on above, is either ignorant of reality or a lie. Pick what you want, Timothy.

Then to pH, you apparently have no way to get the information that's long been available about ocean pH surveys around the world. I suggest you join some scientific association that publishes (peer-reviewed, of course) papers on all scientific subjects. It might be an enlightening experience for you.

In any case, pH has been repeatedly surveyed in the Atlantic & Pacific by research-ship transects. It's an easy & firm data set. You seem to like data sets. The pH in the N. Atlantic has moved, in the last several decades, more than half way to the point at which crucial sea-life forms cannot form their shells or skeletons because carbonate ions will stay in the seawater solution at pH values below 8.1. This is basic carbonate chemistry, which again, you appear virginous in.

So, feel free to study up on that -- it's easy to find the references on the web.

But for your ease, here's our recent USGS update on the whole raneg of climate & ocean problems our CO2 emissions have created...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

And remember, isotopic analyses of air & seawater carbon uniquely identify its source -- about 40% of all our historic combustion emissions are in the seas.

It might be hard for you to begin to accept such realities, but remember, I don't care to convince you of anything. My purpose is simply to confront denier manipulations with facts, so that others aren't misled.

Mark, glad to hear you again, with a good, questioning mind!

On your last point -- my father indeed was allowed to pass away in his sleep in 2006, in the hospital, because the medication for his heart issues would have worsened his failing kidneys, and vice versa.

The facts were harsh reality, but they had been established by scientific observation of realities, which ethical medicine must be directed by.

You ask about peers and "What I can't work out is why one of you hasn't changed your mind".

The old farmer said "People do what they want to do". That's instinct. Humans only have large brains by genetic accident, and our rational frontal lobe thinking is chemically contr5olled, even shut off, by our lower, more primitive, instinctual sub-organs, like the cerebellum & amygdala.

We are, in many ways, a dangerous, tragic species.

Science attempts to find a way around instinctual bias. There are many roadblocks, not the least of which are political & financial self interests. We see the latter in the trudging work of climate-change deniers. We see the former in institutional "publish or perish" pressures on otherwise honest researchers. We also see our ubiquitous laziness, throughout populations -- they complain about politics but don't get involved. As Pogo Possum said to his swamp buddies: "I've seen the enemy and he is us"

I can only suggest that science & engineering share an implicit oath with medicine: Do no harm. Of course, science & engineering support our basic instincts for wars, but they also support the fight against our selfish instincts in seeking natural facts.

Like time, x, y, z, r, theta, phi... science is a human invention. But, its purpose is to expose Nature to our thoughts. That's why the goals of some, such as the climate deniers, are both natural and antithetical to knowledge. Facts take work & self control to discover.
.
Glad you took the time to write. But wait, time is just an accounting tool.
;]

Reading your latest comments reminded me of a SciFi type novel written in the 30's by Olaf Stapleton called 'Last and First Man' (and a later book called Star Maker). Its a book many authors have plagerised for ideas because of the extent of this fellow's imagination. Its basically a description of Humankind from its early development through 18 species of humanity to a point two billion years on.

What makes the book so interesting is the descriptions of the plus and minuses of each race of humanity including our own. Much of what you say of 'present' humanity is similar to his description of us, and the reasons for our eventual down fall as he sees it. Quite remarkable for a man writing of ideas and concepts not appearing as realisty until decades in his future.

Just a divergence if you have time to give it a peak.

Alex,

"First do no harm" - not just engineering and medicine should share this binder I suspect - but all we as this flawed tragic species do to each other and everything else. What a nice idea. And timely.

Hi Alex,

Clearly, I have unknowingly used an extremely unfortunate analogy to make a point which may now be lost, but, more importantly, I'm sorry to have chosen it for obvious reasons. I think we (eventually) get over the loss of our farther, I'm just not sure that we ever quite get past it.

Mark.

So Alex thinks that "no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea-level rise over that period 1950-2000” (Church et al 2004) means there IS an increase in the rate (which is itself trivial).

I note you fail to refer to Watson and Borettis (both 2011), suppressio veri?

As for pH, for every study you cite, I can cite another showing the opposite to what you claim,

"The pH in the N. Atlantic has moved, in the last several decades, more than half way to the point at which crucial sea-life forms cannot form their shells or skeletons because carbonate ions will stay in the seawater solution at pH values below 8.1."

namely that declining pH is usually beneficial to organisms needing carbonate ions.

Alex Cannara: I want to give credit where credit is do. Your mention of the paper by Arrhenius-OnCO2 in the atmosphere lead me to the following,(below)
Yes Arrhenius has to be acknowledged for his work in chemistry which lead to the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1903.
Based on this material he did not have it it right when it came to CO2 in the atmosphere. I tried to find a 1905 paper on CO2 but the best I found was a 1906 book that was translated in 1908. If you have a better lead to the paper you are referencing please post it.
It seems very strange to me that all believes in AGW will go back to works in physics that are at least 100 years old but will not check if more recent discoveries in physics have shown that they are no longer applicable.
When “deniers “ -weather realist refer to such work as Robert W. Wood we have the work of Dr. Nasif Nahle (2011) that has confirmed that “the greenhouse effect is confined space heat” and not back-forcing of IR. When the AGW have to refer to data that has been proven to be falsified to support their claims are we to believe them?
“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-20th 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.

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 19th 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 19th 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 (11th 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.

2.0 How the "Greenhouse Effect" Is Built upon Arrhenius' Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation
Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.

2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air's optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius' claims about Fourier's ideas:

"In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth."

A statement to the same effect can be found in Fourier (1827, p. 586). This demonstrates the sheer dissonance between these statements and what proponents of the "Greenhouse Effect" claim that Fourier says in their support. Moreover, I am not the first author to have discovered this fact by reading Fourier for myself (e.g. Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). Furthermore, in his conclusion, the optical effect of air on heat is dropped by Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 17-18) and Fourier (1827, pp. 597-598) which both state:

"The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth."

Fourier's fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:

"Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences."

As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between radiative and, for example, "kinetic" heat transfer, because the means to tell the difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow. What this tells us is that Fourier's Law, and only Fourier's Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier's Law. However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.

2.2 Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer
Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius' adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow - effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. However, Arrhenius' contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.

During the life of Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect", the scientific community understood that radiation was electromagnetic (Maxwell, 1864; Heaviside, 1881; Hertz, 1888), and by the time Arrhenius first published on the subject of the "Greenhouse Effect", Thompson (1896) had extended his idea of electrons to photoelectric effects on gases due to ionizing radiation, known then as röntgen rays. The photoelectric effect, by which a current or charge could be generated in certain materials by their exposure to electromagnetic radiation, was a matter of inquiry at the time. The emission of radiation in discrete quanta, though first suggested by Boltzmann in 1877, was mathematically formalised by Planck (1901). Einstein (1905) experimentally confirmed Planck's Equation after adapting it to the photoelectric effect, which was the subject of his study. However, ideas concerning the internal structure of the atom and it's relationship to ionisation, magnetism, photoelectric interactions, and discrete quanta of electromagnetic radiation were under intense development at the time (Thomson, 1902; Thomson, 1903; Thomson, 1904). By the time Bohr (1913) corrected the problems in Thomson's atomic model, the relationship between changes in electron shell (i.e. orbit) potential and photoelectric emission of radiation were a foregone conclusion. The relevance of these discoveries to the question of heat transfer is that unlike the notion of aethereal heat transfer, emission of electromagnetic energy quanta by atoms and molecules in materials confirmed that the radiative mode of heat transfer was as much a part of thermal conduction as any other mode of heat transfer.

In order to understand how heat moves through materials, we must first examine the structure and behaviour of the material media at a sub-atomic level. An atom comprises a nucleus within a shell. The shell is due to "Thomson's corpuscles", later known as electrons, which are negatively charged particles that orbit a nucleus with a positive charge corresponding to the number of these electrons. These orbital paths are also known as electron shells and, when shared by more than one atom, electron shells form the chemical bond between those atoms. When a "photon", or rather an electromagnetic wave pulse, passes through the electron shell -which is the region defined by the corresponding mathematical function called an orbital- one of a number of things may occur. It may pass through the "shell", it may be deflected by the "shell", or it may be absorbed by an electron in the "shell". When an electromagnetic wave pulse or 'photon' of light or heat is absorbed by an electron, the energy imparted to the electron is converted to kinetic energy, which moves the electron out to an orbital level commensurate with the energy gained. If we consider, from the mass of both electron and nucleus, that the centre of mass is somewhere between the electron and the nucleus, then this centre of mass does not coincide with the centre of positive charge, about which the electron orbits. Imagine a circumstance in which this centre of mass remains static, while the nucleus revolves around it. As the electron shell is centred on the nucleus, then in this case the shell and the entire atom or molecule is thus seen to wobble or vibrate about a particular point. The higher the electron shell, the more intense this wobble or vibration becomes. As a consequence, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by a material manifests itself as what appears to be a corresponding net increase in the kinetic energy of constituent molecules.

If we take the processes we have just examined and apply them to more than one molecule, we may then perceive as Waterson (1843, 1846, 1892) did, that through collisions between molecules, the material must either expand or its internal pressure will increase. By this we may infer the kinetic propagation of heat through a medium by the collision of its molecules, as the momentum of one molecule is transferred to another in the collision. This is not the only consequence of molecular collision. Such a collision may transfer the kinetic energy from an electron of the inbound molecule to an electron of the outbound molecule. It is also possible that the collision may destabilise one or both electron shells resulting in the corresponding drops to lower electron potentials. When an electron falls to a lower orbit or electron shell of lesser potential, a "photon" or pulse of electromagnetic radiation is emitted. That electromagnetic wave pulse then propagates through the material until it is either absorbed by another molecule or escapes from the material. However short-lived, such radiation quanta carry a proportion of heat flow in all materials. Whether we are talking about air, glass, or steel, a component of internal heat transfer is via internal radiation, however short the path of that radiation may be. Ergo, thermal conduction is not solely the kinetic transfer of heat, but also the transmission and reception of radiation within a material or materials in thermal contact. This is confirmed by the fact that conductive heat transfer, as defined by Fourier (1822), is only concerned with total heat flow and therefore describes the sum of both radiative and kinetic transfer without addressing either specifically. This differs markedly from the separation of radiative and kinetic transfer implicit in the ethereal model of heat transfer proposed by Tyndall and favoured by Arrhenius. This divergence of Arrhenius' idea of heat transfer from the facts of contemporary science forecasts a major error in Arrhenius' thermodynamics.” *******
The complete article is available at http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

... and if I remember correctly; invented by man to measure change ?? :)

Now, about this Oath ?? 'first do no harm' ?? Seriously ?? A bit of a trick. How do a few generations of scientists get around this pesky little misnomer when it comes to things like nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, (chemical anything), animal testing, and so it goes on and on. Are you sure that 'first do no harm' is an oath ?? I like it more as a slogan. We could try 'innocence by disassociation' ?? Hmmm ... not that either. Maybe, as I have conceded to the theory that 'time does not exist', that you might reciprocate by conceding that 'first do no harm' is, really, an admirable theory that in practice very often does not exist ??

Theory aside, I think the crux of my last post was this; Does it seem logical to you that we are putting so much into preventing what may well be a future problem and so little (comparatively) into cleaning up or overcoming todays problems ?? There is much to do 'right before our eyes' ... surely, that is where the greatest urgency is, and, where the bulk of our attention and funding should be directed ??

Cheers Alex.

G'day Mark ....

Aaah here we are conceptually colliding with the "greater good" ... that notion that harm is OK if the outcomes provide sufficient benefit. It's a form or moral Cost Benefit Analysis. Although it also generally flavoured by the fact that the costs are borne elsewhere by others and the benefits are felt here by us. A slippery enough slope to spawn a Mengele.

As to your latter point, I don't think the two options - this heading off a future problem at the expense of today's. I think the most sensible option is to try and do both simultaneously.

See we look at carbon and we see ourselves, how we live, what we burn and why and we do something about it here. We can also be doing things elsewhere - providing new options for economic growth in poorer places where the options are hard rationed. Education is a biggie, training of engineers to think outside the furnace for example. Developing better technology that is more adaptable and efficient in developing countries in another.

I reckon we must build the new into the present....that our solutions to today's problems are in large part also solutions to tomorrow's - and tomorrow's today's. If we approach this right there is not in that sense a tension or clash of priorities, but rather inadequate options being considered.

There is also a quid in developing medium and long term solutions that solve today's problems - like malnutrition, starvation, disease, ecological collapse and build a more stable future for us all simultaneously.

I must be feeling particularly optimistic today.

Hey Peter ...

Glad that you're having a 'glass half full' kind of day. I'm told that the way an engineer analyses that situation is; 'the glass is twice as big as it needs to be'.
Following a smirk, there's probably a rather long but productive conversation which could be had about that, and perhaps in many ways quite relevant.

I agree with you. The most sensible option would be to do both simultaneously.
My point really is 'why isn't that option available to us, being pushed, being publicised, being questioned, and most of all ... being proposed ???? I can see several reasons without putting too much thought into it, so, there are probably a few dozen. The most obvious; (not trying to tell you how to suck eggs here)

Economics. We either can't afford to fix it, can't afford to lose what's creating it, or, as you say, 'there's a quid' in taking action. Where there's a quid to be made there's a cost to be borne, with cost comes burden, with burden comes justification, with justification comes inequity ... should I go on ??

Politics. It comes in more shapes and sizes than unfortunately many take the time to learn, appreciate or consider and as you know, public opinion is just as political as a politician's policy speech. Truth be told, we don't want to accept responsibility for the sins of the father, we certainly don't want to have to pay for those sins, we'd rather be better father's so the concept of being righteous enough not to repeat mistakes is far more palatable, far more easily sold, and simply so by saying 'what legacy do we want to leave our children ??' Back to 'government' type politics, which action will give them the greatest return ?? Also a nice way to trivialise neglect. What better answer than 'we've been off saving the world ... your world, the world you live in, the world that your children will inherit ... from you.

Consequence. On one hand we can take part in a series of things that don't necessarily have a big impact individually. A hundred of them looks like 100 small projects and if just one can be proven ineffective then the entire philosophy is brought into question. On the other hand, saving the future from a fate worse than summer is something intangible in that we can't see if or when our actions are effective, and regardless of whether they are or aren't, most of us won't be around to find out. Most also don't understand climate science enough to know if it's right or wrong anyway, or even enough to properly question the process of addressing it, so, about 90 days from now, it won't be an issue anyway.

Do you want the next one to be 'acceptance' ... or are we ready to go full circle every 20 centuries or so and say 'faith' ?? (Alex will love that one) Anyway, can you see our simultaneous theory of 'apples for apples' being as likely as 'apples and oranges' ??

I'm thinking that my glass isn't quite as full as yours just at the minute ... I won't speculate on what consequences that may have for engineers though :)

Cheers Peter, and thanks for your reply.

Berthod Klein:

I have greatly appreciated your posts here, and especially your account of your physical experiments. Are you aware of John Tyndall’s physical experiments in the same vein in 1861, but considering the year, amazingly sophisticated?

In brief, Tyndall showed that a cylinder containing just N2 and O2, and heated at one end with a galvanometer at the other end, neither absorbed nor radiated in the LWIR, whilst if “aqueous vapour” (i.e. atmospheric water vapor) and/or “carbonic acid” (i.e. atmospheric CO2) were in the cylinder, the galvanometer showed both absorption and radiation, as much as 15 times more than the barely measurable amounts emerging with only N2 and O2 present.

These results lead me to the conclusion that if the English language is employed, it is the O2 and N2 that are the real GHGs, because they basically do not absorb or radiate heat emanating from the earth’s surface, while it is the H2O and CO2 that first absorb and then allow the earth’s radiant heat to escape through the LWIR to space. Thus Tyndall provides the experimental and physical explanation for your own experiment, and confirms your own findings.

That is no doubt why although he gets hat tips, no climate scientist has ever read – or understood, let alone rebutted – Tyndall. He is cited in AR4 WG1, Chapter 1, but not discussed in depth, as that Chapter’s brief mentions of Tyndall’s findings are in effect brushed under the carpet:

“In 1859, John Tyndall (1861) identified through laboratory experiments the absorption of thermal radiation by complex molecules (as opposed to the primary bimolecular atmospheric constituents O2 and molecular nitrogen). He noted that changes in the amount of any of the radiatively active constituents of the atmosphere such as water (H2O) or CO2 could have produced ‘all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal’.

That cherry picked quote first of all ignores Tyndall’s results showing that all the heat the H2O and CO2 absorb is then RADIATED out, ultimately to space, and secondly fails to mention the inert role of N2 and O2 (more than 99% of the earth’s atmosphere) in the LWIR. Thus as usual AR4 is tendentious and avoids inconvenient truths.

Here is the full quote:

“DE SAUSSURE, FOURIER, M. POUILLET, and Mr. HOPEINS regard this interception of the
terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the
above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every
variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate..”

That is what my own LSR results in my articles in TSWJ and ACE2011 (available at my website www.timcurtin.com) also demonstrate, namely that changes in Tyndall’s aqueous vapour are far more important and statistically significant than changes in atmospheric CO2 in explaining changes in GMT (or GISS anomalies).

So that is why AR4 WG1 goes to great pains to tipex the role of aqueous vapour because it is [according to IPCC’s Trenberth] a short-lived condensing gas”.

AR4 WG1 Chapter 1’s second and last quote from Tyndall is;

In the 1950s, the greenhouse gases of concern remained CO2 and H2O, the same two identified by Tyndall a century earlier.

But here AR4 fails to distinguish between ABSORPTION and RADIATION. Tyndall showed physically that what is absorbed gets radiated, that is why the atmospheric CO2 and H2O are NOT GHGs, while the N2 and O2, as they neither absorb nor radiate heat in the LWIR (the O2 is just observable in the IR spectrum, the N2 not at all), are the true GHGs.

Were it not for the atmospheric H2O and CO2, the N2 and O2 would act like a pressure cooker and boil us to death!

{Timothy I find your comments very interesting but there are many inconsistencies that are not backed up by modern physics. Yes the work of Tyndall is very important in the development of physics but there is 150 years more of physics that is not being accounted for in your presentation.
First I have repeatedly stated that there is no “creditable experiment that proves the “greenhouse gas effect” so to use this terminology is very misleading. It is more accurate to use Infrared absorbing gases (IRag) when referring to CO2, H2O, CH4 and many other tri-moleculare or more gases.
Yes I have studied the work of Tyndall and many other early physicists and also the work of more modern physicists as R.W.Wood, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstein, Dr. Pierre Latour, Dr. Naifs Nahle,Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner ,Alan Siddons and many others. For some reason people do not want to accept the work by the modern experts on physics but are willing to accept as gospel the politicians, and suto-scientist that are not willing to show their data and back-up there point.
You have got some points I agree with but lets illustrate where there may be errors or questions. }
Timothy Curtin commented:

" Berthold Klein: I have greatly appreciated your posts here, and especially your account of your physical experiments. Are you aware of John Tyndall’s physical experiments in the same vein in 1861, but considering the year, amazingly sophisticated? In brief, Tyndall showed that a cylinder containing just N2 and O2, and heated at one end with a galvanometer at the other end, neither absorbed nor radiated in the LWIR, whilst if “aqueous vapour” (i.e. atmospheric water vapor) and/or “carbonic acid” (i.e. atmospheric CO2) were in the cylinder, the galvanometer showed both absorption and radiation, as much as 15 times more than the barely measurable amounts emerging with only N2 and O2 present.
{ As this is experimental result are there other possible conclusion that can explain what is happening.
As I recall Tyndall had to cool his apparatus to minimize interference from the water/water vapor in the test. If the experiment were done today with better cooling or air drying procedures would the results be the same?
An experiment done by Dr. Nasif Nahle shows that a mixture of Water vapor and CO2 results in a cooling effect on the atmosphere.}
These results lead me to the conclusion that if the English language is employed, it is the O2 and N2 that are the real GHGs, because they basically do not absorb or radiate heat emanating from the earth’s surface, while it is the H2O and CO2 that first absorb and then allow the earth’s radiant heat to escape through the LWIR to space. Thus Tyndall provides the experimental and physical explanation for your own experiment, and confirms your own findings. That is no doubt why although he gets hat tips, no climate scientist has ever read – or understood, let alone rebutted – Tyndall. He is cited in AR4 WG1, Chapter 1, but not discussed in depth, as that Chapter’s brief mentions of Tyndall’s findings are in effect brushed under the carpet: “In 1859, John Tyndall (1861) identified through laboratory experiments the absorption of thermal radiation by complex molecules (as opposed to the primary bimolecular atmospheric constituents O2 and molecular nitrogen). He noted that changes in the amount of any of the radiatively active constituents of the atmosphere such as water (H2O) or CO2 could have produced ‘all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal’. That cherry picked quote first of all ignores Tyndall’s results showing that all the heat the H2O and CO2 absorb is then RADIATED out, ultimately to space, and secondly fails to mention the inert role of N2 and O2 (more than 99% of the earth’s atmosphere) in the LWIR. Thus as usual AR4 is tendentious and avoids inconvenient truths. Here is the full quote: “DE SAUSSURE, FOURIER, M. POUILLET, and Mr. HOPEINS regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate..” That is what my own LSR results in my articles in TSWJ and ACE2011 (available at my website www.timcurtin.com ) also demonstrate, namely that changes in Tyndall’s aqueous vapour are far more important and statistically significant than changes in atmospheric CO2 in explaining changes in GMT (or GISS anomalies). So that is why AR4 WG1 goes to great pains to tipex the role of aqueous vapour because it is [according to IPCC’s Trenberth] a short-lived condensing gas”. AR4 WG1 Chapter 1’s second and last quote from Tyndall is; In the 1950s, the greenhouse gases of concern remained CO2 and H2O, the same two identified by Tyndall a century earlier. But here AR4 fails to distinguish between ABSORPTION and RADIATION. Tyndall showed physically that what is absorbed gets radiated, that is why the atmospheric CO2 and H2O are NOT GHGs, while the N2 and O2, as they neither absorb nor radiate heat in the LWIR (the O2 is just observable in the IR spectrum, the N2 not at all), are the true GHGs.
{This is where I disagree with your use of the term GHG- and would rather change to a more accurate engineering terminology- that is N2and O2 have “retained heat” ( see Alan Siddons The Hidden flaw in greenhouse theory” ) }
Were it not for the atmospheric H2O and CO2, the N2 and O2 would act like a pressure cooker and boil us to death! " {(I do not understand how N2 and O2 could cause a pressure cooker. This is a bad analogy)
While N2 and O2 may not radiate all their energy as IR they do radiate energy as microwaves and other electromagnetic energy. ( Satellites use a measurement of microwaves from O2 with proper conversions to determine atmospheric temperatures rather than IR because of problems of “cloud interference” See the work of DR. Roy Spencer. Unfortunately Dr. Spencer has trouble understanding the significance of his own work and believes that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists. }
{At this point I have to point at the total ignorance of every supposed “climate scientist” that does not understand the meaning of “climate” -
Definitions of Climate
What is Climate?
Definition:A few hundred thousand weather days end to end for a specific location. ( an average pattern)
How many climates are there in the world?
Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,the west coast of Australia, the central region of Australia, the southern region etc., thousands of different climates etc.
What is weather?
The atmospheric conditions where you are.
Can mankind control the weather?
We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.
Be careful of the Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism- remember Hamlin- except it is happening to ignorant supposed adults.
Climatologists”- are temperature historians. If they chose to project into the future they have gone from historians to Flat Screen fortune tellers. “computer generated Models” “garbage in is garbage out”

Another definition: "Climatologist" : A temperature and weather historian. If one projects to future events then they are "fortune teller" Weathermen do a somewhat better job of predicting the future- 30 to 60 % correct. }

Berthold: many thanks again for your invaluable comments.

I agree that the correct term for N2 and O2 is really not GHG, but using that is a forceful way of making the point that they do have more of the properties that climate warmists imagine they see in CO2 and H2O – and as Tyndall showed they are NOT good at absorbing and radiating the earth’s heat in the LWIR, if they radiated heat we would not even need real greenhouses!

And I also agree that N2 and O2 are not themselves really pressure cookers, whereas the earth is or would be, unless its daily heat build-up can escape to space; N2 and O2 do not allow that, but atmospheric CO2 and H2O by absorbing and then radiating that heat to space are what stabilise the earth’s temperature.

You said: "As I recall Tyndall had to cool his apparatus to minimize interference from the water/water vapor in the test. If the experiment were done today with better cooling or air drying procedures would the results be the same?"

Here is an extract from Tyndall's 1861 Lecture:

The tube being mounted horizontally, a LESLIE'S cube containing hot water was placed close to one of its ends, while an excellent thermo-electric pile, connected with its galvanometer, was presented to the o*er. The tube being exhausted, the calorific rays sent through it fell upon the pile, a permanent deflection of 30° being the consequence. The temperature of the water was in the first jnstance purposely so arranged as to produce this deflection.

Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galvanometer was observed with all possible care. Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position. Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to the same test, gave the same negative result..."

I think this is why climate scientists barely refer to Tyndall, as they do not like what he showed, which is that H2, O2, and H2 act AS IF they were trapping the earth's radiant heat, unlike CO2 and H2O, which his other experiments show both absorb and then radiate heat through the LWIR. Invetories of the spectrum show hardly any oxygen and no nitrogen, but plenty of H2O and CO2 all of which are on their way through its wavelengths to space.

All this physics and economics too Tim. All these self-taught polymaths on the denialist train.

You'll have seen a couple of detailed questions I asked of your fellow traveller Peter Lang regarding his little cost benefit analysis of mitigating climate change. He hasn't answered yet. So I'm hoping you might on his behalf... he is after all a geologist - you are the economist.

Simple stuff - like when once asserts that warming will benefit some, who does it not benefit - and how and for whom then is this cost benefit calculation applying. Say for example - the costs of Bangladesh deciding not to do anything would be a bit different from say Scotland where they'll have captured the world's banana trade.

So when Pete comes up with a number, sorry A Number... who is this number for - all the globe, the winners, the losers, those with the resilience and the capital, those with somewhere to go, low places, high places, or does this number work for Sudan, Scotland and New Orleans?

See the problem with doing a Cost Benefit Analysis of a global issue is that these rather awkward facts are hidden in our averages and our assumptions.

The other major assumption goes to what is a cost and what is a benefits of change. I would like you to discuss that at some point.

I get my physics from physicists myself.

Even for an advertising "economics advisor", this: "N2 and O2 is really not GHG, but using that is a forceful way of making the point that they do have more of the properties that climate warmists imagine they see in CO2 and H2O – and as Tyndall showed they are NOT good at absorbing and radiating the earth’s heat in the LWIR," is bunk.

Tyndall don't have the instrumentation or theroetical foundations to make such assertions.

The ignorance of these remarks is easily exposed by simply examining the absorption spectra of atmospheric components (molecules, dust...), which Tyndall could not do.

But apparently, Timothy, you don;'t care to study the scientific facts. Do you have some personal economic gain from misleading others with your lack of scientific command and integrity? Is our own dear Heartland Institute somehow behind your logical desperation in the label "climate warmists"?

Remember, the temp rise ain't the biggy, sea rise & acidification are and are verifiable, even by you. But then that's why you hide from their discussion, eh?
;]

Peter: you haven't got ANY physics, and even less economics if possible. Re Peter Lang, he's put up a more detailed post at Jennifer Marohasy's, check his data for Australia, his main focus, not the world, as you falsely claim.

Nordhaus's Dice and Rice models (both on the Web) do allow you to plug in your own regional preferences and data, so get down from that harmless apple tree and do some real work.

Re Bangladesh, it can well afford to build a sea wall along its quite short coastline should the sea actually rise there (but actually it's their land that is rising through the classic delta effect). Adaptation costs place by place as and when needed are much lower than global action to erase burning of hydrocarbons.

Enjoy the locally grow bananas next time you are in Scotland.

PS: here is a list of the regions from which Nordhaus builds up his "global" results;

US
EU
Japan
Russia
Eurasia
China
India
Middle East
Africa
Latin America
OHI (Other High Income, includes Australia)
Other non-OECD Asia

But you can easily use RICE with your own plugged in data for just Australia if you spend less time being rude here.

Talk about not have any "physicss", or "economics", Timothy, you're the champ there!

"Bangladesh, it can well afford to build a sea wall along its quite short coastline should the sea actually rise there (but actually it's their land that is rising through the classic delta effect). Adaptation costs place by place as and when needed are much lower than global action to erase burning of hydrocarbons"

Pop on over there and tell the folks desperately working to address their issues, which aree just a bit larger than your globness-at-a-distavce suggests.

See, if you were an honest broker of climate info, you'd have related that their issue isn't only sea rise but decreasing mountain runoff, which defeats your mythical savior "classic delta effect".

Instead, you write "classic" garbage. Be careful, handlers get upset when their indentured deniers make it too easy to pop their own hot air balloons.
;]

I'm not "claiming" Tim - I'm asking.... why do bad teachers react to questions like they are being attacked?

I find it difficult to take seriously any Cost Benefit Analysis in which the author sees only financial costs and can see no real benefits, that there is no risk and that all actions are costs. Just doesn't ring true if you get my drift. Seems the answer is already built in right at the start.

I'm sorry I can't get Jennifer Marohassy on my internet connection ... my computer just has this filter for the IPA's fringe group nonsense.... sort of retches and switches off. Same when I try Andrew Blot or Alan Jones. Just won't put up with it. But Peter can answer for himself here if he's done the numbers.... sorry, The Numbers.

But as you stated above "I see nothing that requires correction".

Like I said earlier I don't argue physics with economists Tim. Or economics with geologists for that matter. So let's just stick with the economics if you don't mind.

See from what you're suggesting Scotland is all plusses ... a tropical paradise awaits ... like Jamaica with haggis. They'd be mugs to do anything to stop any warming wouldn't they? Ever.

Same for all the other "winners"... all these warm islands of tropical prosperity you're suggesting will pop up. So for those countries you claim will actually benefit from a few extra degrees and some extra rainfall presumably they'd all be mugs to try and stop such a "godsend" - a climatic windfall.

And on the other side of the coin the losers will all be mugs for not trying to head it off at the pass ... or are there no losers? They can all head for the cane farms of Glasgow?

Now speaking of popping up - this classical delta effect you mention - bit off your chosen turf I know (more Peter Lang's actually - bit since you blokes seem to have omniscient interchangeability...) are you suggesting that this classical delta rising is from the accretion of alluvium - and this this overcomes any sea level rise... that deltas don't get flooded and don't ever sink? Answer carefully.

I await you response with enthusiasm. More abuse and insult please.

Hi Peter.

You and I frequently agree with each other, and typically approach issues with a reasonable amount of objectivity. I've been following this conversation since day 1 and neither side of the debate can claim to be innocent of 'pots & kettles'
so I've stayed out of it.

It also appears that anyone disagreeing with or questioning the carbon tax must automatically disagree with global warming. I have a question which no-one wants to come near ... 'if the economists and apprentice economists here were to design a carbon tax from scratch (for Australia) how closely would it resemble the one which our government has just implemented, and is a carbon tax the best way to address global warming ????' As you are the economist, I would appreciate your opinion.

Cheers Peter.

Depends on how optimistic one is both politically and climatically Mark. How much time we've got to do something and how much people will put up with in making the change.

A Carbon Tax slaps a charge on anything with carbon emissions in it, that is it tries to capture everything that involves the burning of fuel or the emission of CO2 from cement making to agriculture. It's a short sharp jolt to everything and everyone but is probably quicker. If it was me as a technocrat - I'd be going for a tax myself. But then I don't have to get elected. This is why one should NEVER accept political advice from economists.

Nevertheless it would be true to say that I'm skeptical about the current scheme injecting sufficient price signals into the economy to produce significant reductions in emissions. I look forward to being wrong.

What we have here now is very different. We have a system of permits to emit. They will cost the large emitters - a few big sources - and have an indirect flow on into the economy - estimated at 0.7% to the cost of living.

The funds generated by the carbon price over the first couple of years will be used to compensate consumers and to provide assistance to industries to clean up their act. It is not designed to generate revenue for the Federal Government. So anyone who calls it a carbon tax is misconstruing the policy and the issue.

In a couple of years this permit will be trade-able. Those with a surplus can sell them, those who are still major emitters will have to buy them at a market price. The government steps out of the picture. It becomes essentially a standard cap and trade system.

This is a very slow and gentle approach which targets big emitters rather than puts the brakes on the economy as a whole. It's cheap. It might work. If it doesn't we try something else. Let's hope it works. Otherwise it's a shorter sharper shock.

See it's pretty useless asking Tim to design a system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He would never do it - not ever, He thinks AGW is a conspiracy - the Bureau of Meteorology is a propaganda arm of a long deep socialist plot. He reckons that a carbon price or a carbon tax puts an unnecessary cost on industry. He also reckons that lots of places will actually better off if things get a bit hotter, winds get a bit stronger and the rain moves around. Others won't do so well. We don't talk about them. Well none of it will happen anyway, will it Tim?

That help any?

Ooops ... Tim's gone away.

For those who might have an interest in such trivia ... here's a few geomorphological facts about deltas:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5972/1444.summary (The Nile)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8266500.stm (Chao Phraya)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090920204459.htm

Now this last one is a beaut... it concludes that 24 out of 33 of the world's largest and most significant river deltas are sinking relative to sea level. Some 85% of these delta regions have experienced flooding in recent years.

Scientists! Hah - they're all in it together this warming, sinking business.

That's 500 million people for starters - just losers I guess.

When in doubt let's just make up something handy - and comforting.

Peter: I don't believe any of that crap, having lived in Egypt and seen its NIle Delta constantly expanding. Any one who believes in "climate science" papers is both deluded and demented, as without exception all have been corrupted by the grant process.

Peter Ormonde: you said "I find it difficult to take seriously any Cost Benefit Analysis in which the author sees only financial costs and can see no real benefits, that there is no risk and that all actions are costs. Just doesn't ring true if you get my drift. Seems the answer is already built in right at the start."

At last we are in TOTAL agreement! What you say applies to the whole of IPCC AR4 WG1 and no doubt also to AR5,as that has already predetermined its endorsement in totality of AR4 (I know as an accredited Expert Reviewer) .

Once again, let me say that adaptation costs as they appear necessary country by country will cost less than the global impoverishment demanded at Rio+20.

Now I'm doing the right thing here Tim, I'm reading up on your publications. Seeing if I've missed anything.

The first reference on your blog-page thing is to an article "applying econometrics to the carbon control knob" that appears in the Science World Journal. But it doesn't, the link provided returns a blank. So I searched their database ... again nothing. No record of anything from a Tim Curtin. Where did it go?

So I had a wander through all your publications regarding climate, carbon and the like ... not a skerrick ... nothing turns up anywhere in the academic peer reviewed literature. Nada - not a jot - nothing.

Now why not, I find myself asking - an economic adviser with an emeritus slot at ANU ... and nothing on the record. Not out where they can be questioned and reviewed by your peers. You've been throwing the cudgels in this warming business now for years Tim - and yet not a single piece published in the literature. How strange is this?

So I was actually surprised when I also noted that you have claimed to be a fellow of RMAP at the ANU ... that true? They say you are not.

Now Tim I also noted that you have not studied any science since 1955 when you were in year ten. Don't you think it's about time you hit the books before venturing vague 60 year old schoolboy recollections as solid fact?

The fawning applause and accolades offered up by the IPA,the Alan Blots and Alan Jones must be absolutely entrancing. Even captivating. Seems they've captured you.

Peter Ormonde: you have made a number of serious allegations against me, essentially accusing me of lies and fraud.

First you claim my paper was not published by TSWJ. I have just been to their url, and there it was, and for avoidance of doubt I reprint the title page below exactly as found by me 15 minutes ago. There may be a problem accessing the TSWJ url for my paper from my website, which I will attend to, but that does not constitute proof the paper was not published and is not in print.

Here is the url for my TSWJ paper, as I said it works for me:

http://www.tswj.com/2012/761473/

My paper on Climate Change and Food production is still in print at Energy & Environment 2009, and is directly accessible at my website.

My ACE2011 paper on Econometrics and the Science of Climate Change is on both the ACE2011 website and my own.

I have never claimed to be a Fellow of RMAP, but I was an Associate there for about 5 years, and I have documentary evidence from RMAP to confirm that. I was also previously an Associate of SSGM in RSPAS and a Visiting Fellow of NCDS (before it became the Crawford School). None of these were paid positions, but I gave seminars and published papers, e.g. in NCDS’ Pacific Economic Bulletin and SSGM’s Discussion Papers series.

I would be obliged if you would send me your address, to tcurtin<at>bigblue.net.au, so that I can send you hard copies of my papers and of my letters from ANU confirming my Visiting Fellowship and Associateships.

Here is the title page of my TSWJ paper as just this minute reaccessed from the url:

The Scientific World JournalVolume 2012 (2012), Article ID 761473, 12 pagesdoi:10.1100/2012/761473Research Article
Applying Econometrics to the Carbon Dioxide “Control Knob”
Timothy Curtin
Emeritus Faculty, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

Received 31 October 2011; Accepted 13 December 2011

Academic Editor: Donald H. Stedman

Copyright © 2012 Timothy Curtin. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction: Previous Econometric Modelling
The main technique used in this paper is econometric least squares regression analysis, which enables computation of the relative strength of proposed alternative and independent causal factors in determination of the dependent variable, temperature change. This procedure is not used in Solomon et al. [1] or by Schmidt et al. [2] and Lacis et al. [3]. Instead, they all rely on computer models of the climate system in which parameterized expressions for the main variables under consideration are first used to generate a simulation of the global climate, and when the average of an ensemble of such models generates some conformity with observations, the expressions for one or other of the noncondensing and condensing GHGs are removed in turn from their composite model, and thereby they estimate the relative strength of individual GHGs. However, the claims that only the noncondensing GHGs are the “forcing” agents, and that condensable water vapour has just a feedback role, are built into the models’ alternate simulations, and do not constitute confirmatory evidence validating their hypothesis that the only role of water vapour and clouds is to “amplify the initial [sic] warming provided by the noncondensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect” [3–9]. For that, in the absence of controlled physical experiments like those of Tyndall [10], which are not possible at the global or regional levels with or without computer models, econometrics is essential.

Tim,

Glad you have provided me with a link to the WSJ that works... strange though that their search engine by author had no record of you ... I did try to find you without success. But now I will get to read your economics which will hopefully be more interesting than your physics, chemistry and geomorphology. I am reasonably acquainted with regression analysis and its application in complex systems - but no expert - so we'll see how we go.

Meanwhile if anyone on the Conversation with more expertise than myself in such issues and applications would like to pass an eye over Tim's piece I'm sure he'd appreciate the feedback.

Now to quote exactly what I said: "The first reference on your blog-page thing is to an article "applying econometrics to the carbon control knob" that appears in the Science World Journal. But it doesn't, the link provided returns a blank. So I searched their database ... again nothing. No record of anything from a Tim Curtin. Where did it go?"

Now this is NOT "accusing you of lies and fraud" Tim ... this is saying I couldn't find it where you said it would be. I shall read your piece and get back to you.

Can you advise if your ACE presentation was peer-reviewed and likewise the piece from Energy and Environment 2009.

As for your claim to be a fellow of RMAP, those interested can have a read here of a rather unedifying slanging match in the Canberra Times of 2009:
http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/08/07/co2-muddleheadedness/

Now speaking of titles and associations, I am a bit confused. I always thought, believed if you like, that the title of emeritus professor was an honorific bestowed by a university for academic staff who had retired after making a significant and exceptional contribution to the university.

But I find that ANU's Emeritus Faculty is an open house - an old boys association if you like - in which any retired member of staff can simply join up. Is this the case - and thast you have no formal connection with ANU beyond this membership of the club - or have you indeed received the honorific title of Professor Emeritus from ANU for services rendered - again I can find no formal decision from the University Council.

In short, what is the status of your connection with ANU beyond being a retired member of staff?

Peter Ormode, thanks for more gratuitous abuse from you.:

I agree with Mark Chambers that the carbon dioxide "tax" is is in practice an income dsirtibition scheme, and will little if anything to achieve the switch from hydrocarbons to renewables.

Ormonde said "it's pretty useless asking Tim to design a system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He would never do it - not ever," Why would I, I think atmospheric CO2 and H2O are wholly beneficial to mankind. Ormonde goes on "He thinks AGW is a conspiracy..." No I don't, I think it is just a huge mistake just like flat earth theory and Y2K. Nor do I think and have NEVER said "the Bureau of Meteorology is a propaganda arm of a long deep socialist plot." I do believe its historical data are not to be trusted because as Ken Stewart has shown at length, BoM keeps on revising historic temperatures down to enhance apparent but non-existent warming this century.

However I do indeed reckon "that a carbon price or a carbon tax puts an unnecessary cost on industry. He also reckons that lots of places will actually better off if things get a bit hotter,..." True "winds get a bit stronger" perhaps but no evidence that is happening, " and the rain moves around", as it always has, but there will be more of it, see my ACE2011 paper.

More nonsense from Alex. Bangladesh's rivers still keep on flooding during the monsoons.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with Tim?

Peter Ormonde:
This correspondence will now cease, on my side at least, until you apologise for your false statements. My TSWJ paper was and is directly accessible from my website if you simply hit
Full Story (PDF File)
Which follows after each listed paper.

So you are mistaken when you say “this is saying I couldn't find it where you said it would be. I shall read your piece and get back to you.” Don’t bother, after my experience with you today I am not interested in your views on any subject.
And if you can manage to type in urls, here is the link to the Contents of TWSH21012, my name was there when I last looked.
http://www.tswj.com/contents/

Both my E&E 2009 and ACE2011 papers were peer reviewed, by two in the case of the former.

I was indeed an Associate of RMAP until terminated in July 2009, and have on file all relevant correspondence concerning that episode.

You are right about the Emeritus Faculty, but I had to apply and get approved by the Board to become a member, and I have given 2 public lectures there. I have never been a member of the staff of the ANU. I only came to Canberra after retiring from the Treasury in PNG in 1999, and my unpaid Fellowship at NCDS resulted from that association.

Over and out!

Strewth Tim, I've just read your paper and I can see why you wouldn't be wanting to continue this discussion. Talk about using a hammer to fix a broken pane of glass.

First up for some unexplained reason you massage the data - you don't regress temperature data directly but choose instead to explore "first differenced temperature data".... note to innocent bystanders: this means you only work on the difference between a temperature value and the previous one ... you subtract B from A and note the difference only, not the raw numbers.

Economists like straight lines. Even our curves are straight lines. I'll have to think about why you would do that and what it means for the overall analysis... it's not mentioned in your article. It should be.

But this climate stuff - or the stuff I'm used to - are anything but linear... the data looks like a blizzard.... lots of variables all interacting in complex ways all at once. You've tried to make it simple. But I suspect in doing so you are constructing a straw man.

You also make a number of assertions regarding what you regard as necessary preconditions for a valid regression analysis ... none of these are true or necessary in a non-linear context. Makes life easier if they are - nice straight lines and numbers all stacked up in neat rows - but with big complex dynamic systems like climate, with lots of variables interacting like rabbits on holiday, they are neither necessary nor indeed possible... unless one is selective about the data one lets on board, strips it down to a simple linear template.

This is why supercomputers come in handy Tim... far too much going on all at once for a calculator and the back of an envelope.

Rather than massaging the data one uses different techniques to compensate for these complexities. One does not set about trying to eliminate them as you have attempted to do.... to fit them into a line. I won't bore people with them but they exist and are used by serious stats wallahs with their flashy computers. (For the morbidly statistical this is handy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-linear_least_squares )

But the real problem - the fishbone in the throat - is your misinterpretation of the results from the Durbin-Watson test which identifies the extent of autocorrelation present in the data.

Now you don't really understand this bit Tim. You didn't interpret the outcome of the test properly and came to exactly the wrong conclusions - repeatedly... all suggesting that there is no correlation when there is and finding correlation where there is not. The correct application is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin%E2%80%93Watson_statistic. It is a range of value that is determinant not an absolute score over 2.

Not surprising you found all this out Tim. That everything and everyone was just all so wrong. It is what you went looking for. And you jumped on it. And you got it wrong.

Now I really cannot believe that this has been peer-reviewed Tim. This is trying to impose a crude blunt tool on a complex problem - brain surgery with a chainsaw.

So I am writing to this World Science Journal and ask them what sort of peer review process was applied to this paper Tim. Perhaps they just flicked it off to some educational economists like yourself who thought it looked OK - but I strongly suspect that no one with any statistical skills or knowledge of non-linear regression analysis looked at any of this critically.

I am however most gladdened that you have no connection as an emeritus or otherwise with ANU nor that you are a fellow at RMAP. I can see how your "third world" experience and expertise would be relevant to the National Centre for Development Studies. Education economics. Most important. Stick to that. Students in straight lines and rows.

I'm sorry you have found my questions hurtful - I just like getting to the truth of things, and for some of us that can be a hurtful process. Depends how much bullshit and hubris we pile up around us in our old age. How precious we try to make ourselves... how omniscient.

Alex: you are quite wrong about Tyndall and his equipment, he was brilliant at devising and building it, see the depictions of it in his 1861 Lecture and paper, and what he showed with it has NEVER been disputed or contradicted, unlike Arrhenius, who had to retract some of his 1896 "hothouse" paper in 1906a.

Just check out any map of the IR spectrum, which confirms Tyndall in spades, showing the total absence of N2 and minimal O2.

Peter: I suppose saying you are sorry for at least some of your many libels against me are a kid of apology, although people like you are not known for that. If you actually read my TSWJ paper yould see I acknowledge "[24] C. Granger and P. Newbold, “Spurious regressions in econometrics,”
Journal of Econometrics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 111–120, 1974."

They recommended uisng first differences, like many since, even down to Enders, when there is a problem with auto regression. Granger actually won a real Nobel unlike your gored mob. When are you going to be nominated for your Nobel?

It was only a quick read. What was the problem you had with autoregression Tim? Or with using a more appropriate analysis technique than this rather crude linear approach

Not interested in Nobels ... letting weapons manufacturers salve their consciences. More interested in nectarines than nobels. Been pruning much of a cold day and I am stiff as a plank. Should be some sort of global recognition for that.

Peter: I have had enough of your ingrained stupidity, quite apart from your libellous insults.

Actually I also nominated my dog Tam as an Expert Reviewer for AR5, duly acknowledged.

Seriously, so-called Expert Reviewers are routinely ignored by the IPCC, I've never received anything from them since they accepted my credentials and registered me asan Expert Reviewer. The whole enterprise is an obscene joke.

Totsiens, as we said in South Africa where I grew up.

Ormonde: Here is a statement today by the ANU's VC:

"The Emeritus faculty is an important part of ANU. Through the granting of an Emeritus title, former academic staff of the University can have an ongoing research and education involvement with the University. In fact, many of our eminent researchers continue to operate as world authorities as Emeritus members of the University.

Recently, a number of members of staff have indicated that they believed it was not possible for Emeritus members of the University to be involved in the supervision of Higher Degree by Research students. This is most certainly not the case, and many Emeritus members have active research programs and continue to be involved in supervision of PhD students. Appointment as a supervisor requires the approval of the Dean of the College and the Chair of the Supervisory Panel, as outlined in the Guideline: Candidature and Supervision of Higher Degree Research Students...."

I hope this clarifies this important issue.

Ian Young"

I am a member of the EF.

It is difficult for me to follow climate science and I don't pretend to understand it, however, I am interested in the human effect on planet Earth.

I would be interested to hear your point of view on 'air pollution' in general. It appears to me that factories pumping out smog must be damaging the planet in one way or another ... do you have an opinion on how or on what other effects 'air pollution' may be having or are you of the opinion that Earth can naturally overcome it ??

I look forward to your reply.

Thanks Tim.

Mark:

I am against air pollution in general, and it is amazing how much has been done to eliminate it since I lived through London smogs in the early 1960s. SO2 emissions have almost been totally eliminated everywhere except in China and India.

But CO2 is not pollution, if it was you need to immolate yourself NOW for emitting CO2 every time you exhale. I have attended dozens of ghastly lectures at ANU's Crawfpord School claiming that CO2 is pollution, and survived all of them despite the vast amounts of CO2 exhaled by the speakers and the audience (myself excepted, as I have a secret antodote!!!).

CO2 like H2O is essential to ALL life, so cannot be described as pollution, unless like ALL greens such as Peter Ormonde one thinks humans themselves are pollution (or Garnaut 2008 who claimed all livestock are pollution).

Five LIES in one post, well done!

Ooooh!

"Peter I have had enough of your ingrained stupidity, quite apart from your libellous insults"

For the longest time I'd thought all Aussies were just plain nice -- maybe nicer than Canadians, but with great knives.
;]

Berthold: that's a fine collection of parrots, all singing from the same song book. Not one explains why if the atmosphere is just like a greenhouse with CO2 and H2O acting as if they were glass panes, the amount of outgoing longwave radiation has been increasing at 0.1369 Watts/sq.metre p.a. since 1948, despite the increases in CO2 which are supposed to block it just like a greenhouse (NOAA-NCEP).

Tim,

Now according to you in your own words, "the last time you studied any science at all was in 1955 when I was in year ten". So where has this omniscient knowledge regarding physics - sufficient to second guess lightweights like NASA and the NOAA - come from?

Now I also notice Tim that on the piece - the one that was peer reviewed - in Energy and Environment - a self described "anti-environmentalist" publication - that you describe yourself as "Tim Curtin, member, emeritus faculty, ANU" .

Now given what you've acknowledged here the paying basis of your connection with ANU this is a bit like listing yourself as a member of a bowling club, but to the uniformed eye you are posturing as an emeritus member of the ANU staff.

Is this the same sort of self-serving posturing that inspires your science?

A letter of apology to ANU, Tim and a promise never ever to try that scam on again please.

Peter - I reckon that discovering denialist Emeritus Professors aren't is akin to discovering that Lord Monckton isn't. I think the term cranks needs reinvigorating.

Tim you are sure mixed up on my positron. There is a MS. Colin Kline that is a environmental fanatic that also posts on this subject.
What you present is an additional evidence that the "greenhouse gas effect" does not exist.
This is my whole case - there is no such effect as the "greenhouse gas effect" My experiment and many other experiments help prove that the GHGE does not exist- the Hypothese violates many laws of physics.

NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

"During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..."

Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is 'settled' based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?

In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.

As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."

Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence
Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.
How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.

Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan

I've at best a lay interest in this issue, but with all due respect what on Earth...and I do mean Earth...has regolith temperature variations on the Moon got to do with Green House Gas Emissions on Earth. I may be daft but except for trace gases, the Moon has no Green house gas problem because it has no atmosphere. Of course I may have been misinformed here. And might I add Earth has two atmospheres, one made up predominenanty of Nitrogen and Oxygen, the other of saline water.

Excuse my naivete, but I understand that any increase in the retention of energy from insolation in both atmospheres will result in greater energy activity in both systems. My further understandng is that CO2 and CH4 act like a cloud barrier in the O2/N2 atmosphere, similar to H2O in respect of heat energy trying to escape back into space. A greater percentage of the heat is absorbed into the atmosphere more readily and retained. Have I been misinformed here

As for the Moons regolith, the Earths surface is predominantly water. Those areas above water facing space are covered by mainly a mx of ice, vegetation, sedimentary rock and desert, with varying heat absorbing characteristics.

Earth has greater similarities to Venus than the Moon. Surely we should be looking at the greenhouse impact on that planet rather than the breathless Moon. And we know a lot about Greenhouse Venus and its predominenatly CO2 and H2SO4 atmosphere dont we.

You're quite right about the odd statements Berthold comes up with. The reason would be interesting to study, from the psychological view of how someone could either wish to self delude so completely, or if not doing that, why be so irresponsible as to try to delude others.

Your raising Venus' runaway greenhouse effect is one reason our scientists choose to study it. The other body of interest is Titan, the only moon with an atmosphere in our system. There, the measly low solar input conspires with Saturn's very strong tidal action on its interior ocean (just discovered) to create a methane/ethane atmosphere denser than our air. No fracking needed, but no oxygen either.

It rains those gasses as liquids, plus 'snows' of organic compounds fabricated from them by sunlight high in Titan's 'air'. The Cassini space probe has produced amazing data for us.

Hi Ron,

As an ex parole officer I'm guessing that you must have some stories to tell ... or stories which you're not allowed to tell anyway.

I agree with you. Our ecology is and has been suffering for far far FAR too long and we have done way way WAY too little about it. Fish are an excellent example and the fact that the major reasons for their decline in both size and number are anything but CO2 related is evidence that perhaps our actions are currently unbalanced.

Peter Ormonde and I have discussed earlier in this post that the ideal situation would be to address the ecological problems which surround us simultaneously with those we may seek to prevent in the future. I am disappointed that our government has concentrated its economic and political focus on prevention rather than cure. Peter is more optimistic than me in thinking that this situation will achieve balance, whereas I see the same two stumbling blocks which exist in many situations requiring urgent attention ... money, and politics.

Like you Ron, I am frightened, not only for the world that we will leave to our children, but for the world we are bringing them into, and for all that which we indiscriminately discard without thought of consequence.

Cheers Ron.

Very good points Mark. For fishing in particular, the peak yield was in 1994, and has been mostly downhill since, due to no corner of the seas escaping factory fishing & drag nettin.

But, implementation of the concept of "shares" in fishing stocks here has had good effect -- guaranteeing survival for both the fishermen & the target species. This has worked well up here for lobster.

Acidification is worst so far in the N. Atlantic, with deformations of some base species' larvae already seen by Nordic fishermen.

The solutions being toyed with are all about the same -- add baking soda or calcium oxide to the sea as fast as we're adding CO2. this could keep the carbonate cycle going. The rate of addition is stupendous, of course. Perhaps we can do as we do for mail -- commercial airlines must carry the mail -- so commercial ships can be required to carry & dispense a hold full of Arm & Hammer on each trip.
;]

I'm afraid, and I've said this before, that the problem is HUMAN POPULATION. There are too many of us and Earths bountiful resourses are being overly exploited.

With the rise of many third world countries, and their rightful expectation of an equal share of the goodies, and the exploding world population, our ecosystem has no chance in the long term. Oh we will probably find clever new ways of increasing food supply, fresh water, cleaner air etc for a while as we always do, but eventually, and I'm guesing at fifty or maybe a little more years, we'll come to impasse, a point of no return, the survival 'event horizon' if you will, where the resourse/population size balance line will be crossed and will begin to collapse and then do so exponentially, without hope by then of redressing the balance.

I strongly believe that either we, as a species, introduce population growth limits (1-2 child families) by law or nature will do it for us, and I suspect the latter option would not be pretty by a low shot.

There are I reckon too many people who want to live like us - the Great Guzzle - the Consumer Dream... like Desperate Housewives.

India is horrendous. I spent a few weeks staying with friends on what was then the edge of Mumbai for a few weeks - brand spanking new tower block, every room air-con, 3 plasma screens, four computers, no shops, armed guards on the car park, and identical - IDENTICAL - to maybe 20,000 neighbours. And 50 minutes drive into down, literally flying over the top of the slums beneath, beside and behind the lacework of expressways.

This was five years ago so I suspect that they are now surrounded by whole new suburbs - megaburbs - of gleaming towers. And each one of them - each of those apartments, probably consumer the entire power ration of a rural village. And it's now an 80 minute drive.

It is both numbers and aspirations that will sort it out I think Ron. There might - just might - be some time to be bought with renewables and the like but I suspect that while everyone who can wants to Live Big For Less ... yep.

And I agree - I don't know how it'll work out but history and progress to date doesn't encourage a Panglossian outcome.... we still see it all as "their problem" or secretly plan in our hearts for some sort of razor-wired gated santuary amid the chaos.

Yet strangely we have educated intelligent people who "see nothing that needs correction".

Realistically expecting those in the West to lower their aspirations, to accept to lower standard of living and to expect those in the third world not to continue to crave for such is unrelaistic. The average Mr Citizen in Oz for example will vote a governemtn out of power, just because of a carbon tax which will in reality have minimal impact on their lifestyle. I'm not saying wheher the carbon tax is the best solution or not, all I'm saying is that when you risk even minimally the standard of living of Mr and Ms Citizen in Oz you get outrage and rejection. This attitude will no doubt be felt by the increasng wealthier classes in the third world.

And the problem is that our economic system and political freedoms reinforce those aspirations. We are in a mind set of continual growth and wealth. And the further problem is that its quite natural to feel that way and furthers on a superficial level our survival instinct and need to prepare our offspring for as good a life as we can offer.

The obvious solution that no one person should be responsible for having more than one to two children and that we should learn to live on less is totally at odds with our political, economic, religious conditioning, no matter the economic, political or religious leaning. Even the Greens still cling to the rights of the individual despite the overall consequences.

China is the only country, during its despotic period and to a lesser extent but still workable in the present, to the concept of limited population growth by political direction. And yet realistically that to me seems part of the only solution we have if our civilisation is to survive. Renewables will help slow the collpase, but in the end I cant see even that solving this fundamental issue, one that none of us want to in reality face. Depopulate or die.

I really think the world community will in the next 20-30 years, when the crisis becomes trully obvious, that decisions will have to be made that act totally against the value system upon which the foundation of our civilisations rest. It will be a hard world to live in and at my age I guess I will be fortunate not to see it.

Maybe it is unrealistic to expect a reduction in "living standards" but I suspect we can do much better with what constitutes a happy and useful life.

I think a lot of people are increasingly alienated from the consumer dreaming... we are by nature a productive species I reckon ... and spending one's life alternating between a desk and the plasma.

The most effective way of reducing population growth is through improving the education of women in poor countries and establishing a degree of economic and legal power. Economic growth is also useful as a brake on population over time - but the downside of that is the Mumbai megaburbs ... arguably any reduction in the birth rate is probably well and truly overcompensated for by the increased individual consumption of the emerging middle class nuclear family.
Don't seem to be any easy answers Ron for me at least. And a lot of ugly historical precedents for sorting this sort of business out. War is perhaps the quickest way of reducing the population growth rate, and disease, and starvation... can't remember the fourth horseman but I'm sure he'd be in there too.
My concern with legalistic bureaucratic dictates on population control is that western individualism and cultural traditions in many many parts of the world are absolutely araldited to lots of kids. That might be a harder sell than consuming less or aspiring towards a less consumerist lifestyle. The one-child policy in China has been the source of great anger and suffering, not to mention corruption.
I also don't think that technocratic "necessities" that require the dramatic curtailment of democracy and individual control over their lives are both unpalatable and unacceptable... whether it's cutting carbon dioxide or having 3 kids.
Let is hope there is a better way.

Hi Alex, maybe you can chime in or answer something for me ...

I didn't take enough interest in science at school aside from in year 10 when I was lucky enough (for 6 months anyway) to have a science teacher who I'm sure that you would have enjoyed having a conversation with. Like me, he questioned everything, frequently saying "why is it so ??" Unlike me, he also knew the answers. It would be interesting to have his perspective on 'this' conversation. I'm guessing you'd remember Professor Julius Sumner Miller.
Anyone who was a student and close friend of Albert Einstein is bound to be worth listening to ... and he certainly was.

He copped a lot from some pretty senior 'colleagues' (physicists) for his approach (plus they seemed to think that TV in someway took the nobility out of science) but they all went away wishing they'd never spoken. His students (including me) all had to be 'dragged away' having learnt a lot ... and chances are, having never spoken. He was 'that' fascinating.

I can't find anything online which is conclusive enough to suggest what his opinion may be on climate change ... any idea. Whatever his position, it would be interesting to see how most people thought today ... he would have sold his opinion very well.

Cheers Alex.

I also didnt get excited by science during my six years of secondary education, though I always had an interest in meteorology and astronomy, but that had nothing to do with school. Science taught when I was an adolescent at school was dry and a big turn off, so Mark I can well identify with you. Unfortunately we never had a Professor Julius Sumner Miller at our school but I well remember his show on the teev and remember it always left me interested in what he had to say.

My interest in science, like in history, came after I left school. as for science I have since been a constant subscriber to Astronomy Magazine and other astronomy mags, but I'm also a very regular buyer of the monthly Scientific American and the weekly New Scientist at al. And of course this has led to an enormous collection of books on various subjects that now interest me.

I dont know how they teach these subjects at school these days but I do know that the teaching profession at that time tended to discourage curiosity and a desire to discover new things. Like you I now operate on the principle in all things to 'question everything'. Perhaps this is why so few people in the community have really looked into the question of ecological sustainability for example. They were never encouraged to do so.

Hey Peter,

I'm interested in a few of your points in this last post. It's a big ask to juggle a couple of those ideals, economically, socially and politically I would think.

War to control population ?? The way I see it, war was responsible for baby boomers, baby boomers responsible for our ageing population, the ageing population necessitating a sometimes difficult immigration policy, that immigration policy being motivation for increased home grown birth rate, this motivation requiring government financial incentives to increase population, increased population increasing productivity therefore taxation revenue ... to pay for ... our ageing population of baby boomers, which, resulted from war.

I also wonder if tomorrows war would be somewhat different from yesterdays war, and, if it's already begun. I would think that its aftermath would already be accounted for in the budgets of at least 22 countries before any of us even realised that a war was on this months agenda.

Last I checked, Australia's retail sector is worth $ 750 Billion odd so even if, theoretically, population was reduced ... wouldn't it spark a list of economic disasters which would domino throughout the economy leaving Australia in a necessarily socialist welfare state with immigration the most likely cure ????

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers Peter.

Depends a bit where you have your war Mark... see we've been lucky - we just send our young blokes off somewhere else.... a selective cull if you like and measured in number.

But if you really want to thin down the whole place you host a war on your home turf - so that the Russians lost some 28 million in WW2 ... mostly men, but women and kids too, and old people - they drop like flies.

China under the Japanese lost somewhere between 12 and 20 million - too hard to count apparently. Hungary lost a handy 6.5% of the population, Poland donated a thumping 16%.

On the other hand - Australia - 0.57%, the UK - 0.92 and the USA a paltry 0.32%. And this last lot were mostly young breeding aged men.

Now this really buggers up one's cohorts - gets the demographers all unbalanced.

No if we're serious about a quick technical and time-honoured solution to world population - we're talking India, China, Latin America, probably Russia again .... lots of Africa... maybe some of the rattier bits of Europe ... oh yes the Middle East, Pakistan... somewhere where the numbers will really make a difference.

We are probably not talking about New York, Minnesota, London, Midsummer, Peakhurst and the Dandenongs.

There's some useful numbers and a country by country score card for WW2 casualties here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties .... sort of a death olympics.

And you'll see the point immediately - that post war baby booms and hauling in displaced persons only happened in the countries where just young men were killed and the losses as a percentage of population were extremely low.

No Mark if we're going to leave this solution in the hands of the usual processes then we have to place these wars where they will do "the most good" ... crowded and poor - that'd be my suggestion.

Hi Ron,

I think you have probably described the way that science was taught in high schools perfectly ... dry and a turn off. I have no idea how our school managed to get Professor Julius Sumner Miller for 6 months, or how the least interested science class was given the opportunity to be his students. The latter was most likely 'his' choice, his passions were (aside from physics) the wonder and beauty of nature, making those who weren't interested in science ... interested, and, children. As much as anything, he brought science to life, and gave life to science classes. Ron, I read just recently that he once said in response to 'the academics' who criticised his way of teaching ; 'if I taught science the way that they want me to, science would be boring'.

He typically addressed students by their first name, or as with myself on occasion as, Mr Chambers, (clearly I was deserving of great respect :), yet the school principal and teachers by their last name, and NEVER allowed any adult to interrupt a student while they were asking or answering a question.

Can you imagine how much your interest in science would have peaked if half way through a class your teacher made this statement ; 'now, I'm going to show you an experiment that Albert Einstein and I used to try together, we could never make it work, and I think I know what we were doing wrong ... let's do it together now'. You'd think that I would remember which experiment it was but keep in mind that in 6 months he didn't once ask us to open a text book, and nor did we need to, everything was an experiment. Every time you walked into class there were either old petrol cans, boxes, balls, milk bottles, pipes and tubes, or whatever, ready to disprove the laws of nature. (although he did say to me; 'Mr Chambers, we can not disprove the laws of nature ... we can only prove that nature has laws which we didn't know about') (... and how could I argue with that ??)

I think if we could ask the late Professor now if he believes in climate change, he would likely say something like ; 'well, a lot of very clever people do', and then there's some who don't.' I doubt that he would have argued it the way that we have all been doing at every opportunity. For him it would have been a case of 'I know the answer'.

Thanks Ron for allowing me to relive a few memories, I hope that you didn't find them too disinteresting. BTW, there are some online 'youtube' video's of him demonstrating experiments if you were interested. (just google it)

Cheers Ron.

I appreciate the time you spent describing your experiences with the Prof. Sounds like you had a great 6 months with a master. All I can say is thank you Mr Chambers.

Having spent most of my life as a student of various sorts I sincerely believe there is only one things that can be taught - enthusiasm. Well two things if you count a lack of enthusiasm... which is perhaps even more contagious.

But Sumner-Miller had enthusiasm in trumps - for the simple miracles of the kitchen and everyday life. He inspired a generation of kitchenographic explorers.

Incidentally if you watch that Futurama show, shut your eyes when the demented professor Farnsworth is speaking - "Good news everybody!" ....IT'S HIM I tell you! "Why is it so????"

Mark, you might also have liked our freshman college chemistry prof. -- co-inventor of the printed circuit. For a lecture on pressure & volume, we filed into our seats in the large, tiered hall and looked down at the long lab table spanning its full width. On the left was a cathode ray tube (CRT), on the righthand end of the bench, a rifle.

The prof. began explaining Boyle's, Charles' & other gas laws, then walked over to the rifle, aimed at the CRT and blew the sucker up. Fortunately, there was a safety glass screen between students & CRT.

He took questions, then returned to his lecture, with shards of glass all over the lefthand corner of the hall,

For Organic Chem., we arrived in the hall to see an array of small glass vials on the long lab table. At the right point in the lecture, he began passing vials, one at a time, to students. The instruction was to read each label and say nothing to the next student after smelling the inside of a vial. From the upper rows, we could see the vials moving from student to student, with some heads suddenly jerked back after a whiff of a particular vial. Butanoic Acid always elicited a head jerk.
;]

Hi Alex,

How good is that !! So you were given a good shot at chemistry then :) There's just no substitute for learning from a mad professor is there !! Our school tended to frown upon firearms in the classroom ... talk about no sense of humour. Have you ever had the chance as an adult to have a conversation with your Prof. ?? I would have really enjoyed a chat with Prof. Julius Sumner Miller but it wasn't to be.

No Mark, never saw him after undergrad school, but had other good profs & bosses after him. One of my grad school profs was made a Knight by The Queen, for going back to England and cleaning up one of their large, but failing, universities. He fired quite a few Brit profs. I keep in touch with him -- Sir Fred.
;]

Hey Peter,

You're right, I was talking about Australia. Choosing where to host your war ?? I just love your descriptive elegance on occasion, I hope you don't mind if I steal that one from you !!

May as well choose the Eurozone then and deal with a few issues all at once. Perhaps Greece could strike a partnership with Portugal and then invite Italy to attend. France could play for either side and Germany could sponsor it and just sit back. The US may take the opportunity to return to a gold based economy (with the permission of their mother country, China) which would need to be negotiated with Japan. Australia could base our economy on carbon credits, may as well get people excited about which side of science can provide the best coaches and trainers for this event. Indonesia would need to host their own though (but do we want their likely competitor that close to our shores ??) as would India, but that would interfere with too many Australian 'call centre's' so trouble 'she's a brewing' ... Do you think that anyone will get the impression that a 'one world government' is coming into play here ?? !! ?? G ... that could Never happen :)

Cheers Peter.

Hi Alex,

You will know the answer to this, which I hope you'll share with me ... 'why hasn't the concept of utilising a Van de Graaff generator in factory smoke stacks been considered ??

Thanks Alex.

Mark, I think there are cheaper way of generating the electric fields needed to precipitate particulates out of the smoke. A Van de Graaff machine is relatively inefficient.

Gee Mark with some of the scenarios possible as these sorts of issues pile up I suspect any government at all might look attractive in time.

On another thread here on The Conversation someone posted up that wonderful Spanish proverb - "The distance between civilisation and anarchy is seven meals".

I suspect we might have little influence in deciding where our future wars will be sited. Who decides these things? Is there a committee?

Hi Peter,

I thought you'd nominated yourself to be the committee ?? Your idea after all, you should at least be entitled to a seat on the board. Crap, now I'm mixing up posts :) Speaking of, which story has everyone moved on to ?? Or have we just moved on ... period ??

Cheers Peter.

gee doc Alex I would have thought your Honeypot would show that you have at least a masters degree in electrostatic precipitation " along with your degrees in plasma physics and what ever.
Electrostatic precipitaters have been used in many industries to remove small partials from exhaust gas streams for more that 50 years. I designed one into a process in the 1980's and they were well proven for effective and economical application . I'm not sure how long they have been used in the coal power field but the "fly ash" collected in used in concrete as a plastersier to ad in moving concrete.

Ahaaaa, Berthold, remember my remark about "honeypots"? You sly old dog -- not so sly anymore. My PhD isn't in Stat. But you do love jumping to conclusions, don't you, even when you can't correctly read what's in the honeypot!?

You know what this little dance of tours around 'facts' about me says about your own recitals of 'facts', eh? Think about it for a change.

My work at Stanford has been in Plasma Physics, Electrical Engineering, Mathematical models, etc.

So, indeed, a fellow with a B average in getting a Bachelor's degree on geology wouldn't be expected to understand radiative physics, molecular energy coupling, etc. Do your quoting him simply reflects on your lac of quality control.

The "Nobel" link above is similar. You obviously haven't studied either historical tide gauge data or temp data, so, for example, study the USGS summary recently put out here...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

Remember, I gave it to you before, but you read the honeypot instead. Your 'Nobel' link's 1st speaker is apparently also ignorant of tide and temp readings around the world, because avg. temps have risen not 0.8C "in roughly 150 years", but >0.9C since 1880, and from the Vostok ice-core data & sedimentary fossil data, this is the fastest rise since the Permian
Extinction, ~230,000,000 years ago. The closest rise in temps & CO2 in those years is near 56,000,000 years ago, when the rate was only ~1/100 as fast as we're doing today.

I like how your video 'expert" #1 tries to mute the change by reporting it in Kelvin -- wonder how much he got paid for that?

So indeed, study up on reality, Berthold. The pH & sea-rise data are also summarized in the USGS link.

It is nice that despite dumping my honeypot of misinformation here (thanks to Sean too), you've excelled in cutting your own verbiage to human levels. See, if you can do that, you can study up on reality too!

Alex -He who laughs last laughts the longest and the loudest!

Remember the Bohr Model!

Venus!!!! That was the clue that began the scientific body to seriously begin to recognise the effects of rampant Greenhouse effects of CO2. And like I said, it's surmised that Earth has as much latent CO2 as Venus, but its trapped in our crust. But hey we're doing a pretty good job of extracting it into the atmosphere dont you think?

My understanding is that without CO2 in our atmosphere the average world temperatue would be like 'Snowball Earth' hundreds of millions of years ago at MINUS 15 degress celsius.

In the early parts of the 20th century it was undertood that the 280 parts per million molecules in our atmosphere assisted that global temperature to be 30 degrees celcius higher, or PLUS 15 degrees celsius average.

However the proportion by the beginning of the 21st century of CO2 in the atmosphere had risen by a third to 380 parts per million (check your science journals for confirmation).

I would suggest to you that 1/3 more CO2 in the atmosphere in less than a century is likely to have some small impact on our world ...dont you think?

This is absolute non-scents - anyone that believes that a lump of rock with a molten core, with many layers of rock filled with layers of carbon materials embedded, then the surface is covered with 75% water, or ice is a "black-body" is insane.
Then the rock has a layers of gases which are so turbulent that there are areas with no wind, then within a mile there can be a tornado with winds to 300 miles per hour or along the coast there can be a hurricane that covers thousands of square miles with winds to 100 to 130mph. Now what idiot thinks that a change of CO2 from 250ppm to 400 ppm causes an annual change of 0.8 degrees in an average temperature that varies from -100 F in the Arctic or Antarctic to a tropical temperature of +100 F Climatologists are the best snake oil salesman. They have succeeded in convincing large numbers of supposed scientist that a Hypotheses that has not and can not be demonstrated -The greenhouse gas effect- controls millions of cubic meters of the Earths atmosphere.
The AGW call "Mann-made climate change " deniers every name in the book but they can not demonstrate that their Hypotheses works.

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse eeffect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional
works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global
climatology essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere
acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but
radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of
thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost
all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for
granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a  scientific foundation. In
this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are
clarified . By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
phenomenon in glass houses and the atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there
are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the
frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to
zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsied.

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for
Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
under the Clean Air Act
By Alan Carlin
NCEE/OPEI
Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alan Carlin Report March,16,2009-EPA
These comments are based on the draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment
Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (hereafter draft TSD) issued
by the Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs on March 9, 2009.
Unfortunately, because I was only given a few days to review this lengthy document these
comments are of necessity much less comprehensive and polished than they would have been
if more time had been allowed. I am prepared, however, to provide added information, more
detailed comments on specific points raised, and any assistance in making changes if
requested by OAR.
The principal comments are as follows:
As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of
global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a
scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available
observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the
breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As
Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a
scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it (see Section 2.1 for the exact
quote). Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an
accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made. The failings are listed below in
decreasing order of importance in my view:
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a
detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the
IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave
sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical
period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see
Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the
GHG/CO2/AGW hypotheses
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important
ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO
(Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the
analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to
the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for
climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section
2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the
importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant
natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4).
This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic
sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global
temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat
island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming
that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers
almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.
The current Draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 report, which is at best three
years out of date in a rapidly changing field. There have been important developments in
areas that deserve careful attention in this draft. The list includes the following six which are
discussed in Section 1:
• Global temperatures have declined—extending the current downtrend to 11 years
with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8; in addition, the PDO went negative in
September, 2007 and the AMO in January, 2009, respectively. At the same time
atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have
accelerated.
• The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed.
Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and
will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more
neutral, arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those
of the past. Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions
under CAA • The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly
shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for
the operation of such processes.
• One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has greatly decreased
GHG emissions compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC. To the extent that
ambient GHG levels are relevant for future global temperatures, these emissions
reductions should greatly influence the adverse effects of these emissions on public
health and welfare. The current draft TSP does not reflect the changes that have
already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in the future as a result of the
recession. In fact, the topic is not even discussed to my knowledge.
• A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the
IPCC concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by
empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative.
• A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and Wilson suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar
data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Other
research by Scafetta and others suggests that solar variability could account for up to
68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.
These six developments alone should greatly influence any assessment of “vulnerability,
risk, and impacts” of climate change within the U.S., but are not discussed in the Draft TSD
to my knowledge. But these are just a few of the new developments since 2006. Therefore,
the extensive portions of the EPA’s Endangerment TSD which are based upon science from
the IPPC AR4 report are no longer appropriate and need to be revised before a TSD is issued
for comments.
Not only is some of the science of the TSD out-of-date but there needs to be an explicit,
in-depth analysis of the likely causes of global warming in my view. Despite the complexity
of the climate system the following conclusions in this regard appear to be well supported by
the available data (see Section 2 below):
A. By far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations appears to be
variations in the PDO/AMO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle.
PDO/AMO appear to operate in about a 60-year cycle. This is not really explained
in the draft TSD but needs to be, or, at the very least, there needs to be an
explanation as to why OAR believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why
they are so unimportant as not to receive in-depth analysis.
B. There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global
temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be
through indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is not really
explored in the Draft TSD but needs to be since otherwise the effects of solar
variations may be misattributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels.
C. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is
difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which
started in 1978.
D. The surface measurements (such as HADCRUT) are more ambiguous than the
satellite measurements in that the increasing temperatures shown since the mid-
1970s could either be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the heat island
effect or by the increase in GHG levels. However, since no such increase is shown
in the satellite record it appears more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect
and/or other measurement problems are the most likely cause. If so, the increases
may have little to do with GHGs and everything to do with the rapid urbanization
during the period. Given the discrepancy between surface temperature records in
the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG levels during these periods
it appears even more unlikely that GHGs have as much of an effect on measured
surface temperatures as claimed. These points need to be very carefully and fully
discussed in the draft TSD if it is be scientifically credible.
E. Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any
endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the satellite
record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to
natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by
the Clean Air Act. The surface record is more equivocal but
needs to be carefully discussed, which would require substantial
revision of the Draft TSD.
F. There is a significant possibility that there are some other natural causes of global
temperature fluctuations that we do not yet really understand and which may
account for the very noticeable 1998 temperature peak which appears on both the
satellite and surface temperature records. This possibility needs to be fully
explained and discussed in the Draft TSD. Until and unless these and many other
inconsistencies referenced in these comments are adequately explained it would
appear premature to attribute all or even most of what warming has occurred to
changes in GHG/CO2 atmospheric levels.
These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so
important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent
analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC
and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced
by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC
or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there
seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be
incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and
understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the
downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030
given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into
decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the
available data.
Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and
welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft
TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either
needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.

February 25, 2010
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons

Insulated by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door marked "Radiation." And therein lies a tale...

Recently, I chanced upon an Atmospheric Science Educator Guide [PDF] published by NASA. Aimed at students in grades 5 through 8, it helps teachers explain how so-called "greenhouse gases" warm our planet Earth.

These guides are interesting on a number of levels, so I recommend that you look them over. But what caught my eye was this:

Question: Do all of the gases in our atmosphere absorb heat?
Answer: (Allow students to discuss their ideas. Don't provide the answer at this time.)

Indeed, that's a good one to think over yourself. Almost all of what we're breathing is nitrogen and oxygen -- do these gases absorb heat? Lakes and rocks absorb heat, after all, and thereby reach a higher temperature. So can nitrogen and oxygen molecules do the same?

Well, I won't keep you hanging. After allowing students to discuss it, the instructor is instructed to give them the final verdict.

Answer: No. Only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat.

These are the infrared-absorbing "greenhouse gases," of course, substances like carbon dioxide and water vapor, and not nitrogen and oxygen.

Now, is something wrong here? Most definitely, for NASA has a finger on the scale. Let's review a few basics that NASA should have outlined.

Heat consists of vibrating and colliding molecules. The motion of these molecules jostles their electrons around, and this emits light. Heat and light are thus strongly related, but they aren't the same. For instance, heat can't actually be radiated; only the light that heat brings about can. By the same token, light itself has no temperature because temperature is an index of molecular motion, and a beam of light isn't composed of molecules. In short, "heat" can be regarded as molecular excitement and light as electromagnetic excitement.

Observe how NASA describes this relationship, however.

Question: What is the relationship between light and heat?
Answer: Things that are hot sometimes give off light. Things under a light source sometimes heat up.

Utterly false. Heated masses always emit light (infrared). Always. That's a direct consequence of molecules in motion. And while it's true that some substances may be transparent to infrared light, it doesn't follow that they can't be heated or, if heated, might not emit infrared. Yet NASA's misleading formulation implies precisely that.

There are three ways for heat (better to say thermal energy) to move from one zone to another: by conduction, convection, and radiation. Conductive heat transfer involves direct contact, wherein vibrations spread from molecule to molecule. Convective transfer involves a mass in motion: expanded by heat, a fluid is pushed up and away by the denser fluid that surrounds it. Radiative transfer arises when molecules intercept the light that warmer molecules are emitting, which brings about a resonant molecular vibration -- i.e., heating.

Heat is transferred and absorbed in several ways, then, and no substance is immune to being heated, which means that all gases absorb heat -- contrary to what NASA tells children.

So how does NASA go wrong? By consistently confusing light and heat, as you see in the illustration below, where infrared light is depicted as heat. Elsewhere, NASA expresses heat transfer in terms that pertain to radiant transfer alone:

The Earth first absorbs the visible radiation from the Sun, which is then converted to heat, and this heat radiates out to the atmosphere, where the greenhouse gases then absorb some of the heat.

Nowhere in its teacher's guide are conductive and convective heat transfer even mentioned. By selective context and vagueness, then, NASA paints an impression that only light-absorbing substances can be heated. Thus, since nitrogen and oxygen don't respond to infrared, NASA feels justified to say that "only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat."

Astonishing.

But a mixup like this raises a deeper question: Why does NASA go wrong? Because it has a flimsy yet lucrative theory to foist on the taxpaying public, that's why. As the space agency explains in the Main Lesson Concept, the core idea of greenhouse theory is that downward radiation from greenhouse gases raises the earth's surface temperature higher than solar heating can.

To make this idea seem plausible, therefore, it's crucial to fix people's attention on the 1% of the atmosphere that can be heated by radiant transfer instead of the 99% and more that is heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and then by convection. NASA is stacking the deck, you see. If they made it clear that every species of atmospheric gas gets heated mainly by conductive transfer, and that all heated bodies radiate light, then even a child could connect the dots: "Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas."

Crash, boom, there goes the theory. And there goes the abundant funding that this fear-promoting "science" attracts so well. For what CO2 and water vapor emit is miniscule compared to the buzzing multitude of heated nitrogen, oxygen, and even argon, all of it radiating infrared, too. Keep in mind that thermal radiation from this forgotten 99% has never been proposed or imagined to increase the earth's temperature, although by the theory's very tenets, it should. You simply take the NASA formulation:

Greenhouse gases absorb heat that radiates from Earth's surface and release some of it back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature ...

...and make allowance for conductive transfer, too...
All gases in the atmosphere absorb heat from the Earth's surface and radiate infrared back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature.
Consider too that since most air molecules are infrared-transparent, they can't be heated by the infrared that CO2 and water vapor emit. This means that downward radiation from "greenhouse gases" can only explain how the earth's surface might get warmer, not the rest of the atmosphere. This underscores, of course, how much the surface is heating this 99% by conduction and convection alone, since radiative transfer can't do the job.

To repeat: Irrespective of the manner of transfer, all gases absorb heat, and all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion to their temperature. Major gases like nitrogen and oxygen, then, do not just radiate heat to the earth below, but the total of this radiation vastly exceeds what minor players like carbon dioxide and water vapor contribute. Ironically, another NASA publication [PDF] reinforces this point.

In solids, the molecules and atoms are vibrating continuously. In a gas, the molecules are really zooming around, continuously bumping into each other. Whatever the amount of molecular motion occurring in matter, the speed is related to the temperature. The hotter the material, the faster its molecules are vibrating or moving.

Electromagnetic radiation is produced whenever electric charges accelerate - that is, when they change either the speed or direction of their movement. In a hot object, the molecules are continuously vibrating (if a solid) or bumping into each other (if a liquid or gas), sending each other off in different directions and at different speeds. Each of these collisions produces electromagnetic radiation at frequencies all across the electromagnetic spectrum.

... Any matter that is heated above absolute zero generates electromagnetic energy. The intensity of the emission and the distribution of frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum depend upon the temperature of the emitting matter.
Accordingly, any heated gas emits infrared. There's nothing unique about CO2. Otherwise, substances like nitrogen and oxygen would truly be miracles of physics: Heat 'em as much as you wish, but they'd never radiate in response. 

Yet this amounts to a double-whammy. For meteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off -- which makes them "greenhouse gases" by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also "greenhouse gases," which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth's temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we've been going by is wrong.

An idea has been drummed into our heads for decades: that roughly 1% of the atmosphere's content is responsible for shifting the earth's surface temperature from inimical to benign. This conjecture has mistakenly focused on specifically light-absorbing gases, however, ignoring heat-absorbing gases altogether. Any heated atmospheric gas radiates infrared energy back toward the earth, meaning that the dreadful power we've attributed to light-absorbing molecules up to now has been wildly exaggerated and must be radically adjusted -- indeed, pared down perhaps a hundred times. Because all gases radiate the heat they acquire, trace-gas heating theory is an untenable concept, a long-held illusion we'd be wise to abandon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at

Look I'm sorry for being such an apparently ill-informed dunce here B.K. and soiling your well maintained sheets. Said I was lay in my knowledge in this issue (and thanks Alex regarding the CO2 and the oceans...neglected to refer to that and of course its significant).

But I actually try to operate on the principle of challenging everything and it just seems to me in the wide range of subjects I like to read (not to re-inforce my argument though, but merely to get the facts as they are presented by the experts, palatable to my assumptions or not), that the argument that I presented and that Alex et al seems to be presenting is consistent with the dominant array of evidence that green house gas emissions are taking their toll on Earth's ecosystem.

Now I know that this does not fit in with your world view (and thanks for your references..I'll give them a look) but I can only base my assumptions, right or wrong, on the evidence supplied. I accept that we are only just beginning to understand what's happening to our globe, but I am certainly not going to make an assumption because it fits my desire to believe one way or the other.. I also dont believe in Creationism, because the evidence seems too weighted against it, even though there are many, reputedly knowledgable people espousing that belief, though I'm having second thoughts about the tooth fairy.

I'm sorry BK that most of the evidence being presented to we the ignorant masses by the scientific world seems to support the greenhouse hypothesis. Trouble is it seems to me that those claiming it doesnt exist seem to have vested interests in maintaining that belief. I dont. If the evidence suggests its all hokum then I'll be influenced by the alternative argument. So far that has happened even slighty.

That last comment was supposed to read 'So far that HASN'T happened even slightly' relating to the arguments against the greenhouse hypothesis. BK, now you've got me so, in that confusing mire of your arguments, that my mords are becoming wuddled...all too much for this simple lad....but then you do seem to like looking at things through a distorted looking glass of yours dont you BK...ooops mixing my metaphors again

Oh Berthold, if only quantity substituted for quality.
;]
Einstein you want?

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

- Albert Einstein

How do those microwave ovens work anyway, Berthold?

And who's paying you to waste your time and embarrass yourself here?

Alex! No one knows how microwaves work. That's just how it is. Some things are just beyond knowing. You know that.

I've been doing some reading on the psychology of Climate Change denialism ... trying to get a handle on what drives them to do it.

It's worth remembering that sometimes these are relatively educated people - almost invariably past- their-primers with a disproportionate number of geologists. There is a compulsion to stretch beyond one's training and knowledge ... to apply a geologist's or economist's toolkit to an problem of physics, climate modelling... or now astronomy. Economists - as a rule know very little about astronomy.

There is also the really deep end of the pond - those who have transferred the shadow of the Cold War onto the issue ... who see conspiracies, world guvvermints and heathen wealth redistribution underneath all this climate nonsense.

It is a spectrum ... a vortex into which some middle aged men with a particular worldview - and considerable personal confidence (let's call it that) seem irresistably drawn.

There are strong elements of disappointment in it... of having failed to win the recognition or leave the footprints in the trade that one could have/ should have/ would have if only ....also a "relevance deprivation syndrome"... a lot of it is classical attention-seeking behaviour...a desire to be taken seriously - as an equal... Are we looking at some sort of late middle aged teen tantrum? Your Bert bloke here seems to be a prime example of the theoretical model.

You can sense it in the way they present their case.... constant artillery bombardment. As if this is how one wins an argument.

Here's an interesting article from the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf

Part market research ... looking at growth areas for services, but also quite a bit of discussion about what seems to be at play.

I think it is important that we get a handle on who we are talking to and why they think and act like they do. One thing seems certain - facts and science won't beat this sort of disorder... it is not rational... it is deeply personal and subjective. A compulsion.