I don't think anyone is that saying stabilising population will fix climate change - far from it. It may have a century or two ago but it's way too late for that now.
But human population growth, of 2B to 7B in the lifetime of Sir David Attenborough, has been a/the huge factor in the rapid depletion/extraction of fossil fuels. #jointhedots

@Wade, Canada and Russia also look good!

@John, we are quite used to people attempting to stifle debate by injecting irrelevant distractions!

@John "NO benefit" According to whom...

population growth is only effective if pollution and resource use per person is also curbed.

For Australia, as you have pointed out, the actual pollution curbed will be pretty small. The payoffs will come when other more populous countries start following our example. For them, seeing some 'pilot schemes' actually work without economic anarchy is going to be key to them adopting similar schemes.

For 36 years, Australia's baby booms have been lower than replacement level, that is, fewer than two children per woman. It is not necessary to limit local reproduction any further, because the death rate will catch up. Restricting the baby bonus to the first and second children is still a good idea.

Immigration is the problem in the south west of WA. Our water now comes from desalination plants running on fossil fuel energy. Every extra person coming to Perth increases Australia's carbon footprint because everyone needs to drink and wash.

Desalination is an expensive water supply. Our water bills are due to rise next year because of the influx of t'othersiders and foreigners.

To oppose Islamic immigration is not racist because Islam is not a race. The word "xenophobia" is a derogatory term implying that it is irrational to fear the foreign. Read the Qur'an from the point of view of a woman, before you decide that it is irrational to want to minimise the number of Muslim voters in Australia.

The Qur'an decrees that the legal testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. How can any woman in Australia have confidence in the protection of our laws if there can be even one Muslim on a jury?

Eric Ireland, Now that we are surpassing Great Britain in many fields of performance, perhaps we can redress an old evil. We can round up the dissidents and activists now living in Australia and transport them back to England, to stay on old ship hulks in the Thames, Portsmouth, etc..
The damage done by these people is much more than the theft of a loaf of bread.
In the first place, I speak of those who seek to disrupt a reasonably good economy by messing around with our systems of electricity generation. We should have had nuclear from the 1960s, but that was messed up. The list goes back a long way. The current idiocy of making windmills that do not work when there is no wind is another fertile field to root out potential deportees. This includes those who lack the economic literacy to distinguish between nameplate capacity and actual performance; the waste inherent in having to maintain a spinning reserve; and phony economics that fail to discern that in the raw, windmill power is about 5 times the expense of brown coal per unit of useful output.

To which I would add Ian Lowe's words from above (I mean above this paragraph)
"The 2010 election was dominated by personality politics, economic trivia and mud-slinging."

Ian, why then are you using similar tactics on this blog? Did you like those methods?

As the UN Vice Chair of Biodiversity once stated....."conservation initiatives ignore the real drivers of biodiversity loss and the resource demands of the rich world. Instead they criminalise local communities and often promote violence against them."

While many have good intentions....the process of environmental change all too often ends up in such situations as stated by the vice chair above.

Carefull what you wish for...

What an excellent article, thank you Ian!

Theo, I agree, the Liberal time line might stretch to that of many voters' about 1,200 days, beyond that, "we'll make money out something another way after that" what does pay is the Environment, look at the shut down of green tech' in NSW with the O'Farrell Government on Wind Energy, lead by Victoria.

Many of us already do remove introduced species indivisually and through organised events. Many of us are involved in habitat regeneration programs along our local river banks etc. Many of us would like to do more but too much money goes to ENGO's to fuel uninformed propoganda.

While overseas stupidity has generated the doom and gloom scenarios painted by ENGO's on fisheries matters, our fisheries are by and large sustainably managed. Where are the recreational fishers (who often are the first to call for regulation of their own sector or others) not concerned about the sustainability of their local environment?

Care to provide any real argument?

Well said Gerard,

Many tool makers conceed that there has been no money in the sector for 10 years now. Perhaps we should start the compensation starting back to 2003????

This isamong the most brazen calls I have ever heard for a one-world Government. It's your choice to go for it, but it's not my preference. Try reading it in conjunction with the nefarious "New Growth Path for Europe" by a Ministry of the German Government.

http://www.european-climate-forum.net/fileadmin/ecf-documents/Press/A_New_Growth_Path_for_Europe__Synthesis_Report.pdf

Communism is alive and well, eh Ian?

Imagine an economy in which today’s goods are tomorrow’s resources, forming a virtuous cycle that fosters prosperity in a world of finite resources.

As part of a strategy for Europe 2020, the European Commission has chosen to respond to these challenges by moving to a more restorative economic system that drives substantial and lasting improvements of our resource productivity.

The Green Economy is for renewable clean energy and a sustainable ecological life.

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/language/en-US/Default.aspx

The Circular Economy is for improvements in material selection and product design and extending a products life... household appliances and business machinery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy

Gerard, I hope you have a sense of humour, since your repeated "Kerosene" (Jet A1) argument has earned you a nick(last)name at my place :)

Indeed Chris, it seems a lot of this is about setting a good example as well as proving to the rest of the world it can work. We can wail that it makes bugger all difference and sit on our hands claiming it is all useless but that is a complete copout.

The payoff for us may well be we become the moral, as well as the technological leader in carbon reduction.
The problem we face is that reducing coal reliance isn't feasible without offering a way to do that - whether that is via new power sources such as nuclear/renewables or efficiencies. If we can be the leader in these fields the payoff for Australia could be massive and will give us something to rely on other than digging holes in the ground.

John, I agree, sometime I feel my taxes are a pointless exercise. But then I think - I'm part of a society, best do my bit.

Some resources can be found here:
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf

Why should I? I am not making the assertion.

Jeez, Brent, as an active Greenie, I thought you'd have that sort of stuff at your fingertips.

If the "two major parties" endorsed any of this, the NP would divorce from the L, go national, and win a landslide.

The fact is, the Australian population has for years had the option of taking a responsible approach, and roundly rejects it.

The population's the problem, not the proffered policies. There's an astonishing air of unreality about discussions like this which ignore the most basic logic of our situation: in a democracy you have to persuade the voters; Australian voters are not going to be persuaded in any reasonable timeframe: so our system is simply not capable of coping with global warming.

What next? A subset of educated middle-class will entertain itself discussing policy, the mass of the voters will ignore it all, the fossil fuel mafia will continue to enrich themselves from investing in future suffering of millions.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that we cannot simply give up, because as you say, that's not an option. The possible futures are on a sliding scale, from absolutely catastrophic if we keep on the way we have; all the way down to something stable that will enable us to live and even prosper in a changed world... well, whatever we humans do from now on will decide where we land on that scale. If only more of the rich and powerful would actually listen to and act on the science. We certainly need a paradigm shift among those with true influence (not just scientists and not just politicians).

Agree, agree, agree C.P, as in current CSG protests. With people from all political demographics, and, shared green concerns. ( It does concern me when grumpy old men confuse the term and see it as A green, or greenie. ) One I know, recently told me about his fear of Anarchists. I think lots of normal people can become way more of a threat, if fed-up enough than a paltry anarchist. But when will it start, can't wait.

I hear you Crispin - I did like both Peter Haff's and Brad Werner's talks - but I do hope they're wrong .. and yeah hope is all I've got .. and then I hope resistance kicks in, on equality and environment.

My techno optimism hinges on such things as Moore's Law as applied to Solar power - at current rates it should be cheaper than coal, even subsidized coal (in both dollar sense and in negative externalities terms), by 2017-8. The coal power contribution to pollution I expect to collapse very rapidly after that. I hoping other techs will soon be cheaper than other polluting sources.

Failing that, yes resistance is the only other option. But I suspect that won't emerge until many more millions are suffering and westerners are suffering and western governments run out of resources to adapt adequately.

Sounds good to me (a grumpy old woman). .AVAAZ has had some affect in forcing change as have the combined forces that called a halt to the ghastly super trawler...if similar pressure could be brought to bear on coal/CSG etc we might get somewhere. Lock The Gate is tracking quite well and some poles are doing their bit...mind you Tony Windsor won't have traction any more once old lizard tongue and his merry band get in...hard to grow trees for the "direct action plan" when it's too hot/dry/flooded/burning etc.

Ian Lowe is spot on as usual but getting enough people away from their usual entertainments to expend a brain cell on the future beyond next week is the problem.

Crispin,
Not so long ago people like Werner would be locked up for inciting violence and insurrection.
Now we just laugh at you and your cowboy cap guns.
That's more effective for reduction of recidivism, I suggest.

I really don't get your reasoning:
Why would dams not be there if silting or natural flow for that matter else caused major problems? Problems are often ignored.
Why would carbon pollution impact on decisions to build past nuclear plants? Carbon has only recently been identified as a global issue and it isn't included in most industries impact/cost calculations.
Why compare nuclear to fossil fuel? If we look for low carbon, other options are even better and more environmentally sound.
"There is no problem with nuclear waste..."? There are many documented issues and problems - unless you ignore those too.
You missed my last point too. If we spend as much effort and money on alternative and clean solutions, we are quite capable of coming up with better solutions including base load alternatives that work. But if you ask me, there are some underlying assumptions in western society that, if changed, would make such a big difference without any other change at all that the solutions could also change. The concept of baseload is affected by economics and constant production levels more than by actual demand. The model does not fit the requirements and a new model is required that can supply only on demand without or with much less waste. We cannot look only to the past to provide solutions, we have to rethink our aims and plan new individual and decentralised options for the future. Centralisation produces waste - in more than one sense, economics is not the only criteria.

Suzy, Thank you.
Nice to read some comment with thought behind it. What I write next is not personal but philosophical and it's an odd mixture of a number of concepts raised above. Where to start.

You have a baseload power supply like a normal nuke. You have to add capacity because of peak. You decide to add windmills. The windmills are dispersed and they require more transmission lines. With multiple inputs into these lines, and sudden changes in output, you have a challenging time managing load, because only some types of fast-reacting generators will do the job in the time required. Generally these are one form of gas fired and even then they have to be kept running at close to max output so that the switching can be fast enough. GHG are produced aplenty.

So you started off with a GHG-free (almost) nuke and now you have a complex of windmills to manage and a backup that just about offsets the GHG gain you sought from the windmills. The vulnerability of the system is increased a great deal and its effect, like a blackout over a large region, can take days of recovery and be enormously expensive. Like what powers the local petrol bowser to fill your car?

In this scenario, the base cause of the problem was the choice of going to windmills. In the philosophical sense, I liken this to your comment about "We" and "I" where you say "Everything I do makes a difference". Sure it does, just like adding another windmill adds to management complexity and makes a difference - but one that could be negative, not positive.

This is why some blogs like this one get into a real bind. People, some with good intentions, express their individual thoughts, rather like adding more windmills. Out of this diversity of input, there is occasionally a positive output that helps us all.

The problem is compounded when people with enough knowledge to do a little harm (not counting you in here) start to build up a group think idea that in reality is not useful. In its worst examples, the group takes to derision instead of analysis and promotes solutions that are harmful. There is example after example of this.

The problem is amplified when the group thinkers have a position of privilege to express their thoughts. This is why it is so deplorable to read of certain associations like the AAS making policy statements that are a shallow load of drivel. I liken these authors, who might know very little about the topic, to more windmills added into the grid. They mean well, some have done well in fields of their expertise, but they are wrong to stray into politico/social areas where they are so naïve.

This blog seeks privilege by attempting to exclude authors whom it might call sceptics or worse. Unfortunately, it is funded by the public and the law does not really allow (in this case) some university cliques to engage in censorship, so that will stop. It is slowly dawning on the self-elected elite that there are others in the community, whatever you label them, quite capable of making significant contributions.

By all means feel that whatever you do does count. Most of us feel that way. But you should also evaluate whether what you do can be shown to be beneficial.

Ed, I will use your reply to Berthold Klein to ask a few questions to those who believe that man made carbon emissions are causing climate change, the results of which are likely to lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet and human life in particular. Most of you who promote fear of climate change are university educated which may mean you have been indoctrinated.There is too much of a group mind set, too much passion reminiscent of a religious crusade.too little commonsense to policies that are promoted to 'tackle' climate change. Ian Lowe's essay is the exemplar!
1) Nuclear power is a carbon free base load power source proven over 60 years. Why do you guys oppose it with such crusading passion?
2) Hydroelectric power is a base load carbon free. The three gorges dam in China is the great example generating 20%-25% of power. Why do you guys oppose hydro?
3) Millions are going to die because of crop failure you say. Then why do you guys oppose genetically modified food research? When there will be a massive demand for different varieties of rice maize wheat etc
4) Why are you guys such passionate advocates of clean and green energy such as wind,solar,tidal, wave,hot rocks energy. What are the geographical locations where these work.What is the power in MW, the cost per Kwh, the period of energy storage, the need for 100% back up. and the suface area in order to replace a single 1,000MW coal fired power station?

After all there has been 40 years to develope the technologies. The uranium and plutonium bombs of the Manhatten project took 2.50 years to develope and saved at least a million lives.

Prove to the rest of us by your answers that you are not peddling the politics of fear and ignorance. Not wasting our tax money by funding Universities and that there is no need for Tony Abbott to become Hercules in cleansing the Augean stables that some departments of our Universities have become.

Ed Brackenberg,

I have just read your link to the NOAA Reoport 2012/2013. In none of it does it claim convincingly that the earth is still warming since 1997. Their only claim is a spurious one as shown at
http://www.jonnic.net/claims-of-highest-temperatures-do-not-illustrate-continued-global-warming/
where they attempt to use the most recent "spin" to frighten the children, quoting "highest temperatures" in the last ten years, which is not a demonstration of continued global warming as shown at the link.

The shameless quotation below, attempts to use unequivocal but totally normal facts to promote the continuation of the fear of Global Warming, aka Climate Change meaning AGW!!

"The year 2012 was the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 36th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2012."

John Nicol

@Alice: Ian Lowe should respond in the same way that astrophysicists do to flat earthers.

Research just doesn't bear that out.

Speaking of the experience in the State of NSW grid support is present and the massive foreign investment would NOT have the confidence to build the Wind Energy projection in this State without that mix of energy production, when on the odd occasion, renewables are offline.

Which by the way for NSW does track demand as in this AEMO research: http://bit.ly/VODUl5

"New South Wales on the other hand shows the opposite trend over the same period – a favourable wind characteristic with demand/temperature."

Please see the Graphing on PP 31 and as NSW is the largest demand it is good news for Renewables.

Neville, I think my questions were quite specific. You are clearly not able to give examples anywhere in the world where renewable energy other than hydro was providing base load power 24/7, either individually or in combination .
In your 'diversity' of energy sources you have included Hydro & coal & gas. Well of course you will get base load!!
Your reference to battery storage is meaningless. In Australia we need to generate approx 65GW of electricity.
Renewables are a tiny fraction, and you must add the cost of back up power because the wind drops and the sun goes down, etc
The MRRT failed because prices for iron ore dropped. Which is a timely reminder that we must diversify our export industries.

Another question from my earlier reply, Geoffrey.

What is an " observationally based metric"? Do you think it would be a measurement perhaps?
John

Ed,
So you make decisions when flying on behalf of your co-pilot, do, you,by assuming that you know what is going on inside his brain? That's what you are trying on with me, putting words in my mouth that I did not utter, as well you know.
An airline pilot, of all people, making a comment like that above! I thought care and attention to detail and logical problem solving were attributes sought of pilots. After all, I did go to RAAF Academy Point Cook after high school, so I'm not entirely ignorant of pilot properties.
Ed, all I did was pass on some collected climate data, note that there had been a change, possibly to small or too old to remember, note that there were other similar sources of data and suggest that figures trump memories.
And you want to make an argument out of this? What is you motive?

Yes it is true, Robert and Ed understand the Science and its source on Climate Change.

As a volunteer Fire Fighter our tutors' always refer to Climate Change and particularly 'the drying of the environment' as a major risk in fire behaviour - they are absolutely correct.

Our records and natural history in this place began in 1880 and it is drying, as a child I remember after rain the land would be wet and soggy for days, now; let me tell you, two days after rain you can't follow a dog across a grassy paddock without a dust trail !

Oh god, your not one of those are you? The "Julia lied to me" crew, guess what, they all lie.

I am realistic enough to know that some mining is necessary, but I am certainly opposed to the rampant opportunism that characterizes that industry today.

I am also opposed to juggernaught mining legislation that overrides all other legislation, I am opposed to lightweight environmental assessments that rely on adaptive response rather than valid scientific assessment. I am opposed to companies and politicians who feel they can superimpose themselves over communities and other industries with impunity and no accountability.

I am also opposed to the resources being gained from mining being used to subvert democratic processes, I am also opposed to the majority of the proceeds from our non renewable resources going overseas. I am also opposed to the externalisation of costs onto the community while at the same time directly taking money from the taxpayer and oppose such a rampant de-stabilizing (restructuring) of the economy the scale of which is causing such difficulties for the non-mining sector which at the same time hollows out our economic diversity and has a marked negative impact on those sectors that are high employing and provide entry level opportunities for our youth.

Mining has truly mutated from a symbiotic relationship in balance with the rest of the society to one that could very much be described as cancerous.

If your only concern and life focus is economic, then yay, mining is fabulous, if your concern and focus is on the broader REALITY, then the current trajectory of our civilization is great cause for alarm.

I would like to see balance returned, where clean air, food and water are ranked above economic returns or faux claims about energy security, where the natural systems of Earth (of which we are an intergral part) are valued beyond how much money someone can make out of it.

Nature has shown time and time again that those species that survive are those that find equilibrium within the system, not those that destabilize the whole interconnected web.

It's not about any one individual.

If you can't understand my point of view, perhaps you've lost something along the way.

Bon appetit

I can't speak on behalf of climate scientists as to why they would oppose or approve of anything.

From my own perspective:

Re hydro, frequently it involves geo-engineering with a lot of variables and potential unintended consequences, from displacing native habitats through flooding, impacts on downstream water flows to the experience in Egypt where the Nile was dammed for hydro but resulted in massive silt backup behind the dam to dropping fertility in the delta as it needs the annual silt to maintain that fertility.

Depends on what type of nuclear you refer to. LFTR reactors are a really promising development but the main issues I see with uranium solid fuels is

a) the cost of building the reactor (which the companies don't make any money on, instead profiting from the fuels)

b) the amount of resources required to extract the uranium. You have to shovel a huge amount of dirt for very little uranium.

c) what to do with the radioactive waste which is still a huge problem we still don't use answers for after 60-70 years, also what do you do with the decommissioned structure?

d) the issue of low frequency but high severity events should something go wrong, do you really want these things amongst your population? I've had a conversation with Geoff where he thinks that
Ladders are more dangerous, which is fair, however, if someone falls off a ladder then yes, they may be injured or killed, but only that person sustains the injury, if a reactor goes wrong as in Fukushima, you have large areas of radioactive contamination, mass evacuations, massive economic and environmental implications that we really could do very little about.

e) I would want to be absolutely sure that whomever is building these kinds of structures are absolutely spot on and not cutting corners to save money. Sadly there are too many examples of companies doing this, I.e. gulf of Mexico.

When the US was initially researching reactor tech, there were two options Liquid Fluride Thorium Reactors (google it) and uranium solid fuel reactors. LFTR (molten salt reactor) is far less polluting, far safer, cannot meltdown the fuels are abundant, don't need enrichment, can use nuclear waste and decommissioned weaponry for fuel, 99% of the fuel is burnt, the 1% waste has a half life of hundreds instead of thousands of years and produces massive amounts of hydrogen gas (alternative transport fuels) and medical isotopes.

The US went with Uranium solid fuels as it had a useful (for them, at the time) biproduct, weapons grade plutonium.

China is currently developing the tech into transportable plug n play reactors.

It may seem to be valid solution in the short term, but the long term costs and risks associated where alternatives are rapidly becoming available is in my mind a bad idea.

Essentially this is one area in particular where the Precautionary Principle should apply in its fullest sense.

Bridget,

Someone beat you to it with "the most urgent issue of our time..."
Have a read of each link if you dare.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Although I grew up in North Queensland, I did not visit Carteret Islands. So far as I can see from Google Earth, Han Island is a triangle shape, about 1 km on each side. The 30 or so dwellings among the trees to the West average about 15 metres above sea level. I do not know what the significance of your observation is. Would you care to elucidate?

Here's an oldie but a goodie - a great lecture by Professor Bartlett http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html the link will take you to his presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY which gives some excellent examples of finite systems and the continued growth model dilemma. A finite system is any that is self-contained - like our planet or a culture inside a petri dish. It is an hour lecture, but after explaining the basics, he gives some very good examples - the elegance and inescapability of pure maths :)

Sigh

"we" is commonly used in the English language in this context to refer to "our species".

If you really want to get gnarly, "we" don't "know" anything (albeit the beginning of wisdom), but "we" largely can expect that observed patterns tend to repeat themselves.

"finite" "we" live on a singular planet with effective boundaries of our atmosphere, "we" "know" that "we" can not yet extract resources from space or create alternative habitable biospheres. "we" "know" that at some point 8 billion years hence that the sun will collapse, then explode, hence a "finite" span, "finite" resources and "finite" natural world in which to live.

Barring some major metaphysical epiphany, this is what "we" "know" and it seems to me that creating our "human" level systems in such a way that does not recognise this is somewhat akin to a drug addicts need to get "their" fix, despite "knowing" that it's killing "them".

Happy to engage in intellectual discussions and happy to entertain a view point, but when it gets to arguing about semantics, might I suggest that belongs in parliament, where truth is not what's important, but the perception thereof.

Facetious response Geoff

Just doesn't stack up on what action on Climate Change requires and the purpose of the points delivered in the paper above by Professor Lowe, such as "We should be urgently phasing out all subsidies of fossil fuel supply and use. These don’t even make economic sense and are environmentally disastrous."

Vast foreign investment wouldn't have the confidence to build Wind Energy in Australia if the technical deficiencies made a loss, yes there is maintenance which creates local employment which did not previously exist.

As for Birds the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supports Wind Energy, why?

Urgency of curbing Climate Change will pay huge dividends to Biodiversity in Birds if we act now; read more at - http://bit.ly/12lHsge

Ed Brackenreg: As I said above here is the dissection of you posts. I start with your errors about the temperature change effect on the wavelength of IR radiated by Earth compared to that from Venus. I'd suggest you look up the Wien' s Displacement Law and Planck's law of black-body radiation. Wikipedia seems to have this one correct- they know that if they change this it will get its ass kicked.
Here is my post as it appeared in the Washington Times as a response to another pretend scientist.
Anyone that has studies quantum physics will be aware that wavelength is related to temperature as the fourth(4) power of absolute temperature, thus a 100 degree change in absolute temperature has a very significant change is peak IR radiation. The temperature difference between Earth and Venus is about 500 degrees.

"The IR from this source never reaches the ground."

This is false. Each molecule will radiate in any direction with equal probability. Solving Schwarzschild’s Equation for a column of air composed of absorbing/radiating molecules (like CO2) tells us that the amount of radiation that gets through a certain thickness of air reduces exponentially in proportion with the thickness and concentration, the rest being either scattered back (reflected) or absorbed (retained as heat). If the gas is in thermal equilibrium, energy in = energy out, so there is no retention of heat, and all the radiation is either transmitted or reflected. This means there there is always IR radiation reaching the ground, and it's equal to the initial amount minus the transmitted amount. We in fact can (and do) measure this reflected IR radiation, called DLR, and it is not insignificant. Even when taking into account the change in adiabatic lapse rate caused by convection as well as the change in proportion of radiatively active gasses, there is a net increase in DLR because of an increase in both temperature and back scattering.

"The Bohr model tells us that when a molecule absorbs IR the energy is used to excite the inter-molecular activity but not to heat the gas."

Not true. Actually, it tells us that negative electrons orbit a positive nucleus separated by discreet energy levels and was used to explain the existence of emission spectra. It was later verified that the atomic bonds in molecules do the same thing, with multiple modes: vibrational, rotational, and translational. The interaction between photon and molecule can and does change its velocity, and therefore its temperature. This is exactly the same way that the Sun heats the Earth: photons of visible and UV light getting absorbed versus photons of IR light getting absorbed. To say that absorbing IR photons cannot heat an object is also saying that absorbing visible and UV photons cannot heat an object, which is demonstrably false.

"It is well established that cloud absorb sunlight thus shading the ground thus the ground is cooler."

Again, wrong. Clouds reflect the high frequency sunlight very well, reducing the incoming solar energy quite a bit in the area, cooling it; this is why they look white and cast shadows. But another thing they do is absorb the IR emission from the ground and scatter it in all directions, including down giving a warming effect. Which one wins out is entirely dependent on the size and type of cloud as well as the time of day (clouds at night don't provide any cooling effect).

You have so far shown very little understanding of the actual physics behind radiatively active gasses and the experiment you proposed to "disprove" it failed miserably because of this.

"This energy is retained for a very short time,many be nano seconds to mil-seconds."

This is not necessarily true. Each molecule will have a probability to exist in any particular energy configuration determined by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. This includes the very real probability that the energy will transfer into translational mode absorption, increasing the kinetic energy of the molecule, which means it gets heated up (especially when not in thermal equilibrium). In fact, the rate of absorption and the rate of emission are independent of each other, with absorption being determined by the absorption coefficient at each frequency and emission determined by the energy configuration. The two rates are equal only when the gas is in thermal equilibrium otherwise it will either retain or lose energy until it is (mostly in the form of heat).

"According to quantum physics the energy is radiated as photos of the same frequency as received."

No, quantum physics dictates that the probability of a photon emission in a specific energy range is determined by the configuration of the system. There is no requirement that it has to be the same energy as what is absorbed. In fact, some materials are more likely to emit multiple photons of lower energy after an large excitation.

"This in theory would 'Heat' other molecules,however there is little information on percentages."

There are many reference materials from materials science research which determine exactly those percentages. Most are proprietary and require a fee to access.

And stating that the absorbed energy never heats a gas and then stating that the energy can be transferred into kinetic by collision is contradictory. Also, claiming that it doesn't happen and then admitting you have little information on the rates is disingenuous.

"...the amount of “heating” is not measurable as determined by my Balloon experiment."

Partly because you didn't properly conduct the experiment. How much incident IR radiation was coming into the gas? How did you calculate the percentage of transmittance, reflection, and absorption? Did you take into account convective cooling? How much of a temperature change were you expecting? What was the Null Hypothesis? Were the instruments sensitive enough for the experiment?

"Thus while it is important it can not control the other 94 % of the thermo energy storage."

And that is not what the greenhouse effect is at all, either. The real effect is through the back-scatter of emitted terrestrial and atmospheric IR reducing the percentage of IR energy escaping to space because of the Beer-Lambert law, causing an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy, warming the planet and increasing the emitted IR, which increases the outgoing IR energy in proportion until equilibrium is reached again.
"that the Earth is coming out of the last ICE Age"

The Holocene Maximum was about 9-5,000 years ago, we should be in a very slight cooling phase of the ice age cycle. The cooling phase is supposed to continue until the end of the next ice age, about 90,000 years from now.

"Astrophysicists have found a cycle of mini-ice ages that are about 210 years apart"

False. They found a series of periodic small solar forcings with different frequencies combining together to make the Milakovitch cycle, which has ice ages roughly 100,000 years apart.

"I think she is avoiding my calls now."

Respectable scientists typically ignore many people who try to challenge the science without any understanding of it.

"but we know that cosmic particals effect cloud formations"

And multiple studies have shown that the effect is either negligible or very slightly cooling.

"...air temperature decrease with altitude. Which means that there is less stored energy in the air molecules and there are fewer molecules hitting the Thermometer..."

Temperature has nothing to do with the number of molecules, it is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules.

"To have a “computer model” that can be used to cover all the variable is beyond the capacity of even the larges computer in existence today."

That is why we have models that either ignore or estimate the insignificant variables that contribute negligibly to the climate, of which there are many. This is commonly done, to great success, in every field. That is because climatology is a statistical science and can handle chaotic systems fairly accurately

"This energy is retained for a very short time,many be nano seconds to mil-seconds." This is not necessarily true. Each molecule will have a probability to exist in any particular energy configuration determined by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. This includes the very real probability that the energy will transfer into translational mode absorption, increasing the kinetic energy of the molecule, which means it gets heated up (especially when not in thermal equilibrium). In fact, the rate of absorption and the rate of emission are independent of each other, with absorption being determined by the absorption coefficient at each frequency and emission determined by the energy configuration. The two rates are equal only when the gas is in thermal equilibrium otherwise it will either ...
For anyone to think that a “trace gas” can cause these dangerous conditions projected by the Cult of the AGW is insane."

Those trace gasses are responsible for keeping the planet from being an ice-ball. Without them, the Earth would have an average temperate of -19 degrees Celsius instead of the +14 degrees Celsius it is now, a difference of 33 degrees Celsius. And the more of those gasses we put in the air, the stronger we make the heating effect.

"There is no creditable experiment that proves the existence of the GHGE."

It's the combination of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (with emissivity), the principle of radiative heat transfer, the Beer-Lambert law, and spectroscopy. In place of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, you could use a spectroscopic weighted integration of the Plank equation over all wavelengths. All of these are backed by countless experiments and completely explain the greenhouse effect.
This energy is retained for a very short time,many be nano seconds to mil-seconds." This is not necessarily true. Each molecule will have a probability to exist in any particular energy configuration determined by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. This includes the very real probability that the energy will transfer into translational mode absorption, increasing the kinetic energy of the molecule, which means it gets heated up (especially when not in thermal equilibrium). In fact, the rate of absorption and the rate of emission are independent of each other, with absorption being determined by the absorption coefficient at each frequency and emission determined by the energy configuration. The two rates are equal only when the gas is in thermal equilibrium otherwise it will either

" the temperature of Venus is caused by other factors"

Ok, name them, and describe the mechanisms by which they work

Venus has a metal core, a mantle of liquid rock and an outer crust of solid rock. Its specific composition is currently unknown since it's surface is extremely inhospitable to exploration.
Sources:
1. Universe Today - http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/ven...
2. NASA - http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm...
[edit] Clouds
Venusian clouds are thick and are composed of sulfur dioxide and droplets of sulfuric acid.[29] These clouds reflect about 75%[30] of the sunlight that falls on them, which is what obscures the surface of Venus from regular imaging.[1] The reflectivity of the clouds causes the amount of light reflected upward to be nearly the same as that coming in from above, and a probe exploring the cloud tops could harness solar energy almost as well from below as above, enabling solar cells to be fitted just about anywhere.[31]
The cloud cover is such that very little sunlight can penetrate down to the surface, and the light level is only around 5,000–10,000 lux with a visibility of three kilometres. At this level little to no solar energy could conceivably be collected by a probe. Humidity at this level is less than 0.1%.[32] In fact, due to the thick, highly reflective cloud cover the total solar energy received by the planet is less than that of the Earth.
The atmosphere of Venus is much denser and hotter than that of Earth. The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), while the pressure is 93 bar.[1] The Venusian atmosphere supports opaque clouds made of sulfuric acid, making optical Earth-based and orbital observation of the surface impossible. Information about the topography has been obtained exclusively by radar imaging.[1] The main atmospheric gases are carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Other chemical compounds are present only in trace amounts.[1]
Troposphere
The atmosphere is divided into a number of sections depending on altitude. The densest part of the atmosphere, the troposphere, begins at the surface and extends upwards to 65 km. At the furnace-like surface the winds are slow,[1] but at the top of the troposphere the temperature and pressure reaches Earth-like levels and clouds pick up speed to 100 m/s.[3][12]
The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 92 times that of the Earth, similar to the pressure found 910 metres below the surface of the ocean. The atmosphere has a mass of 4.8×1020 kg, about 93 times the mass of the Earth's total atmosphere.[1] The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth.[1]
The large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere together with water vapour and sulfur dioxide create a strong greenhouse effect, trapping solar energy and raising the surface temperature to around 740 K (467°C), hotter than any other planet in the solar system, even that of Mercury despite being located farther out from the Sun and receiving only 25% of the solar energy Mercury does.[10] The average temperature on the surface is above the melting points of lead 600 K (327°C), tin 505 K (232°C), and zinc 693 K (420°C). The thick troposphere also makes the difference in temperature between the day and night side small, even though the slow retrograde rotation of the planet causes a single solar day to last 116.5 days on Earth. The surface of Venus spends 58.3 days of darkness before the sun rises again behind the clouds.[1]
What little knowledge that there is available came as a result of radar imaging of the planet. These images revealed a surface dominated by volcanoes. Many scientists believe Venus was resurfaced by volcanic activity 300 to 500 million years ago. There are at least 1,000 volcanoes or volcanic centers larger than 20 km in diameter. Lava flows have produced channels that extend for hundreds of km in all directions. The mixture of volcanic ash and the sulfuric acid clouds is know to produce intense lightning and thunder.

"Kirchoff's law which tells us how bodies emit and absorb thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium"

The key phrase being "in thermodynamic equilibrium." Which is defined as the state where the net transfer of energy is zero, i.e. the energy coming into the system is equal to the energy going out.

So from the start, you define the system as one which does not change in heat content. Of course it isn't going to warm or cool, because that is how it was defined. However, when the system is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, it will heat up or cool off until it is.

Geoffrey Harold Sherrington commented:
"Berthold, What is a civil engineer doing, getting so educated in spectroscopy? I agree with much that you write, but we still differ on some points. One is the derivation of that 33 deg C difference with and without the GHG model, but I have not fully worked it through. In my undergrad years there was a great deal of fascination that the big names of the early 1900s had derived so much from the measurement of light. We were well drilled with Wein, Stefan-Boltzmann, Beer-Lambert, excitation energies, quantum states, molecular modes of movement, derivation of Schrodinger from first principles, Planck, Gustav Kirchoff, Frauhnhofer lines, black bodies - I dislike the assumption that Earth can be treated as a black body because it does not conform with the original concept. Recently I've had a chance to play with a very expensive IR spectrometer that goes to about 20 micron. Especially at night, you soon learn a few more fundamentals about where the energy is. I used to have a lab with several spectrometers years ago, so I can recall some of that as well. Now, I have also forgotten a lot of the detail since those 1960s days. However, if one point comes through strongly when I read about radiation in climate work, it is this: Don't they teach it any more? Or was I taught wrongly? Or were they? There is an abundance of confusion where none needs to exist."
Hello Geoffrey: I am just a little older than you ,but I went to a good technical school that taught sophomores an introduction to quantum physics ( physics and chemistry was in the freshman year). The Professor made a statement that I remembered for the last 50 some years about the Bohr Model -that when a gas absorb electromagnetic energy it does not “heat the gas” the energy is used to excite the electrons . Now today this many have to be slightly modified in principle but not in measurable values. An example that demonstrates that the Gas does not heat is the use of low temperature IR heating systems in home and industry. Another example is that microwaves used for communications do not heat the gas. The microwaves can “heat”' liquids and solids aka microwaves ovens. This is a whole area of discussion I'm be happy to share with you later.
The reason I know about many of these are that I did not stop learning and reading when I got my Masters degree. My main interest started about 6 years ago when a Politician by the name of AL Gore published a book that was later shown to be 90% lies in a British Court of Law. . “How do you know when a politician is lying” When you see their mouths moving.” There is no way that 320 ppm of CO2 can cause a 33 degree change in Global temperature. You are correct that the earth cannot be considered a “Black body”. It is covered with 70 plus % water, much is covered with ice, sand, vegetation etc. Here is the abstract from one of the first papers I read after beginning my quest. There are many that deny that it is factual but remember that A hypotheses has to be proven by experimental data before it can be any more that a possible explanation of scientific observations. There is no credible experiment that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists.
Below the paper by G& T is a paper by Alan Siddons that also explains some of your questions. Below that is a reference to two more experiments that show that the “greenhouse gas effect” is crap.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institute fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

Abstract

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
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 equilibrate to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording 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 rm scientifc 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 fictitious atmospheric green-
house 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 falsified.
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.

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.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists (at least 4). Ph.D. Chemical engineers (at least 2 at last count) and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled "The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”

The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”

Another important website is ***. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3 The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.