Forums

The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate

The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-d...

Dr Pierre R Latour, a renowned American Chemical Engineer, shows how four known mechanisms and three laws of nature prove why CO2 cools, not warms, our atmosphere. Moreover, it may be shown that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the supposed world authority deferred to by governments, lacks a rigorous mathematical description for their so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory.’
CO2 Affects Several Temperatures in Different Ways

Here we develop the physics, chemistry and biology to quantify the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on Earth’s temperature. There are five mechanisms and three different temperatures involved.

Four show a small cooling effect, one warms surface and cools upper atmosphere with no net bulk effect. I am unaware of a rigorous mathematical description of the greenhouse gas theory that purports to do this and show a warming affect. After decades of research attempts, promoters cannot reduce greenhouse gas theory (GHGT) to mathematics of science and engineering.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, the emissivity, e, of a planet to space must increase. While emissivity of CO2 is less that global emissivity, it is greater than the O2 it replaced by “fossil fuel” combustion. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation is

I = σ e (T/100)4

If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore, CO2 causes global cooling.

This is true for all bodies of matter, no matter the composition, rotation speed or weather.

I = radiating intensity, irradiance, power of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239. It is only a transfer rate when surroundings do not radiate, at 0K. Outer space at 3.7K radiate with very low intensity.

T = temperature of radiating body, K, estimated for Earth to be 4.60C + 273.15 = 277.75

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. e varies with composition. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.70827 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = 5.67*0.70827(277.750/100)4 = 5.67*0.70827*59.51 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

If doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv increases emissivity 0.001 from 0.70827 to 0.70927, T would drop -0.098C from 4.600C to 4.502C.

I = 5.67*0.70927(277.652/100)4 = 5.67*0.70927*59.43 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

SCCRENDO | 21 mai 2018

None of this is supported by data. The claim is that CO2 replaces O2. Data please??? There is enough evidence for CO2 trapping heat and a direct correlation between fossil fuels, CO2 and temp rise
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/global...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-gre...
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

FREE ENERGY | 22 mai 2018

400 ppm, increased to 5000 ppm, with referance from Al Gores fake test, to a real life test chamber = 5000 ppm and it gets COOLER, its proven. If you want to witness this test you are more than welcome :-)

FREE ENERGY | 22 mai 2018

Since I can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory, I call it a greenhouse gas hunch.
SCIENCE FACT vs "CONCENSUS" - by raising your hand, give me a break, thats NOT science !

After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance. Even for personal political or financial gain. Would they?

Conservation of Energy of Atmosphere
1st Law Thermodynamics: Input Rate = Output Rate + Accumulation rate. At steady-state, Accumulation Rate = 0 and this ordinary differential equation becomes an algebraic one.
Absorption of solar + absorption of thermals and evaporation from surface + absorption from surface radiation = radiation to space
79 + 97 + 23 = 199 w/m2
Since CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps solar spectrum tail a small amount at two wavelengths, the 79 value would increase a small amount with CO2; a cooling effect on surface neglected by greenhouse gas theory. Some climatologists say CO2 affects the rate of heat transfer from surface by thermals and evaporation, 17 + 80 = 97, but I shall neglect that controversial effect here. However, once quantified, this model structure can assess the effect on global temperatures. An additional 161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface, 1 is retained by surface. 160 is transferred from surface up: 40 is transmitted through atmosphere as radiation from surface directly to space, 97 is transferred to atmosphere by convection and evaporation and 23 is absorbed from surface radiation.

Total incoming is 79 + 161 = outgoing 199 + 40 + 1 = 240. Transfer to space = 239.
These global energy flows come from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, as promoted by the UN’s discredited IPCC.

Radiant Energy Transfer Law
The rate of radiant energy transfer between radiating body 1 and radiating surroundings 0 is
I1 – I0 =σ [e1 (T1/100)4 – e0 (T0/100)4]
(I am neglecting complicated geometry effects here.) For transfer from Earth to space, I shall assume surroundings at T0 = 3.7K, neglecting starlight, so
I – Is = 5.67 [0.70827 (277.75/100)4 – 1.0 (3.7/100)4] = 5.67 [0.70827*59.51 – 1.0*0.00000187] = 5.67[42.152 – 0.000002] = 239.00 – 0.000010626 = 239.00.
So there is no problem equating Earth’s radiation intensity to space with its radiant heat transfer rate to space. Intensity only equals radiant energy transfer rate when T0 = 0.
If this is applied to transfer from surface 1 to atmosphere 0, rate I1 – I0 is constant (I1 actually drops a little when incoming drops due to increased atmospheric CO2 absorption), and e1 is constant, then when e0 increases with CO2, either T1 must increase to overcome increased resistance to heat transfer by increased e0 (as postulated by GHGT and the only possible warming mechanism I can find), or T0 must decrease. They both change in such a way as to reduce global T from S-B Law.
In the unusual situation where surroundings do not obey Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity, a0 = e0, because surroundings has energy transfer by means other than radiation, like thermals plus evaporation = 97 from surface to atmosphere, one cannot replace e0 with a0.
Inserting appropriate values (T1 = 14.85C, T0 = -18.15C, e1 = 0.1615 and e0 = 0.167) gives:
I – Is = 5.67 [0.1615 (288/100)4 – 0.167 (255/100)4] = 5.67 [0.161*68.797 – 0.167*42.283] = 5.67[11.111 – 7.061] = 62.998 – 40.037 = 22.961 = 23.
Note surface emissivity = 0.1615, radiates I = 63, 40 directly to space and 23 absorbed by atmosphere. While pure water has e = 0.96, ocean phytoplankton absorb solar power, reducing its emissivity. Emissivity of atmosphere seen from surface = 0.167. Emissivity of atmosphere to space is 0.830 because it receives 97 by convection and evaporation and does not obey Kirchhoff’s Law: emissivity = absorptivity.
For atmosphere component,
199 = 5.67*0.830 (255/100)-4
Note surface radiates directly to space with effective emissivity = 0.1025.
40 = 5.67*0.1025 (288/100)4
Now we can find weighted average global emissivity from atmosphere and surface
e = (0.831*199 + 0.1025*40)/239 = 0.708
which confirms the initial assumption precisely.
I realize these average emissivity values may not be acceptable to some, but they do fit the observed data and are hard to determine from first principles.
At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1must increase to accommodate. This could be the basic claim of GHGT and yetCO2decreases atmospheric T0and global radiating T. The amounts depend on the effect of CO2 on emissivity of the atmosphere.

Lapse Rate
This is consistent with the slope of T vs altitude in troposphere, lapse rate = -g/Cp (universal gravity constant / heat capacity) because kinetic energy of gas decreases as its gravitational potential energy increases with altitude, by energy conservation law.
Increasing CO2 increases atmosphere Cp because CO2Cp> O2Cp, making the slope less negative. It rotates counterclockwise about its radiating centroid T near 5 km and -18C (which decreases a bit by transfer rate to space). This causes lower atmosphere T to increase and upper atmosphere T to decrease.

Conservation of Energy of Earth
1st Law Thermodynamics: Input rate = output rate.
(1 – alb) S/4 + IO = I – Is + P
S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m2 incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m2 of incident sphere
Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7. Some say CO2 affects albedo through cloud formation; this could be a significant cooling effect.
Is = intensity of surrounding space = 0.000010626 @ 3.7K = negligible
P = energy absorbed by plant photosynthesis
IO = sum inputs (core, volcanoes, fires) minus other outputs, negligible
Rearranging and substituting gives the overall relationship:
I = (1 – alb) S/4 – P = σ e (T/100)4
Dividing by σ e gives the overall relationship for T:
I/σe =(T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4σe – P/σe
If S increases, T increases. If alb, e or P increase, T decreases. All we need to do is find the effect of CO2 on alb, e and P to quantify its effect on T. Easy to show increasing CO2 causes increases in e and P, decreasing T.
If Earth were a perfect black body emitter and P = 0,
(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.1605 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C
Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C
(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.8897 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C
The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating surface temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.
James Hansen, Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others, mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect.
With a corrected emissivity value for radiating 239 at T = 4.6C, e = 0.708, corresponding black body would radiate at T = 273.15 – 18.35 = 254.80
I = 5.67*1.0(254.803/100)4 = 5.67*1*42.152 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0
This means the so called greenhouse effect is 4.60 – (-18.35) = +22.95C, not +33C.

Photosynthesis
Organic molecules are made by living flora by photosynthesis chemical reaction of xCO2 + 0.5yH2O + sunlight = CxHy + (x+0.25y)O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll, according to biology. CxHy are hydrocarbon molecules: sugars, starches & cellulose, and which decay slowly to oil, gas, peat, tar and coal along with decaying fauna residue. CxHy can be natural gas, CH4, methane.
Surface does not obey Kirchhoff’s law either,a0 = e0, because of this non-radiation chemical energy transfer mechanism.CO2 is green plant food driving the cycle of flora – fauna life. Flora make O2 for us fauna. Fauna make CO2 for flora.
Reaction rate, consumption of CO2 and incident solar energy, P is
P = k*p*Ss [CO2][H2O]exp(-E/RT1)
p = pressure at leaf, atm
Ss = sunlight impinging on green surfaces, w/m2<160. = a(1 – alb)S/4, a = absorptivity
[CO2] = atmospheric composition, vol % = 0.0390
[H2O] = atmospheric composition, vol %
T1 = temperature of surface leaf, K
k = kinetic rate constant
So increasing [CO2] will increase P and reduce T, cooling. Increasing S or T1 will have the same effect.
So the sensitivity of T to CO2 depends on which temperature you are talking about: T, T1, T0. And what the net effect of all relevant mechanisms is. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion and controversy.

Combined System Effects
With an increase in CO2, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T1 drops to 14.85-. With increased e0 the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T0 decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO2 is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance.
Therefore increasing CO2 causes decreases in surface T1 = 14.85-, atmosphere T0 = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO2 global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.

Back-radiation
Greenhouse gas theory to support the notion of global warming, postulates heat transfer from cold atmosphere down to warm surface, heating surface further. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram says back-radiation transfer rate is 333, which is 2.1x that impinging surface from the sun, 161. This extraordinary value defies common experience.
I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea.

Measuring temperature
While climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer says satellites measure Earth’s global temperature, their spectrometers actually measure radiation intensity, I = 239, a pole to pole, day/night, season/season average. Roy must assume a corresponding emissivity, e, to infer or deduce an estimate of T. Since e is hard to determine from first principles physical properties of dissimilar surface + atmosphere and is likely to change, particularly with CO2, using satellite inferred T is fraught with error. He must get distance between radiator and spectrometer accurately, which is not easy for a 50 km thick atmosphere and rocky mountains.
T is a point property of matter indicating its kinetic energy. We have no way in physics to average T over different phases and compositions of matter. You can’t even calculate the average T of your moving car: engine, cylinders, a/c, radiator, exhaust, body, interior, tires. Wouldn’t mean much if you could.
By the way, how are global temperature maps constructed? If they are from closely spaced thermometers, averaged daily, that would be meaningful. But if from spectrometers, how are emissivities of ocean, desert, jungles, cities, mountains, ice and clouds assigned to each point of radiating intensity, for a corresponding S-B radiating T? And averaged over sphere?
Careful study of Spencer’s writings indicates he equates/confuses radiation intensity with radiant heat transfer rate, which have the same units, w/m2. The former is given by S-B Law for intensity, irradiance, radiance, power, exitance, emission. The latter is driven by a difference in intensities between two radiators or a radiator and its surroundings. Both are vectors with direction, not scalars. The former intensity, I, is not called radiant heat transfer rate because it isn’t.
When two facing plates are radiating at each other with equal intensities in opposite directions, there is no radiant heat transfer between them and their temperatures remain constant. (Note if emissivities differ when I1 = I0, so will radiator Ts. Chrome and wood on a beach have different steady temperatures, chrome is hotter because its emissivity is low and reflectivity is high, radiating with same I as high emissivity, colder wood.) The walls of my office radiate, but no heat transfers between them.
Chemical engineers design and operate radiant/conductive/convective furnaces with chemical reactions for a living. You can’t control something unless you can measure it or reliably infer it from measurements and known constants of nature.

Cause and effect
Just because [CO2] and T may be correlated over significant periods does not mean one causes the other; a third input may drive them both. Solar irradiance is not constant and dominates all other influencers of T.
Solubility of CO2 in water, beer, soda, Champagne and oceans decreases with temperature. Cooling drives CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean; warming drives it back out. A simple energy balance on oceans confirms the measured 800 year lag of [CO2] following T, following S; a well-known inconvenient truth for Al Gore’s embarrassing Academy Award movie misnomer.
There is no known mechanism in the literature quantifying any effect of [CO2] change on climate change.

Thermostat
The notion of building a thermostat to adjust fossil fuel combustion rate to control the temperature of the Earth was shown to be unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable by control systems mathematical analysis in 1997, before Kyoto Protocol. In other words, it can never work.

Empirical models
It is acceptable engineering practice to infer fundamental constants/properties like an emissivity or reaction rate constant by measuring related variables and using one of these laws of physics to deduce it. Resulting law has predictive power so long at the property does not change. This know-how is particularly useful for rigorous differential equations accounting for dynamics of mass and energy accumulation rates. Stability analysis shows no tipping points.
But to fit arbitrary algebraic polynomial, exponential, sine, log or hockey stick equations to measured transient data is unacceptable since it is well known in chemical control systems engineering that they will have no predictive power.
The UN IPCC use of such models confirms they have no greenhouse gas law built on accepted physics and engineering and should be summarily dismissed. Calling for more research funding after repeated failures is compelling evidence the science and engineering of global warming and climate change is far from settled. In fact, this brief essay should settle the matter, save money and delight those practicing the scientific method.
I used only three laws of nature here: S-B Law, 1stLaw of Thermo and Chemical Reaction Rate Law. And 10th grade algebra. World has been spending $1 billion per day for a decade on global warming/climate change research to quantify the effect of fossil fuel combustion production of CO2 on Earth’s temperature. A large government is shutting down its coal industry in 2014 on the mistaken belief CO2 causes great harm, when it is benign and net beneficial. This paper proves it is all unnecessary, worthless.

Global cooling
Since Earth is warming half the time and cooling the other half, reputable climatologists report a consensus of imminent, significant, prolonged global cooling, and the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature is vanishingly small, be prepared. Invest in energy production from oil, gas, coal and nuclear. For goodness’ sake.

Precautionary Principles
Be careful. Look before you leap. Do no harm. Think before you speak and write. Play it on the safe side. Better safe than sorry. Know what you are saying and doing. Do not frighten people unnecessarily. Supply relevant, valid evidence for every claim; lest they be dismissed as frivolous. Perform an accurate scientific, engineering and economic analysis before devising a plan and implementing it. Provide performance measures and fulfill them. Be prudent & frugal. Be a fiduciary with other people’s money. Foresee unintended consequences. Analysis comes before synthesis, always. Avoid attempting the impossible. Avoid building perpetual motion machines, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Learn from your mistakes, admit them, apologize, accept consequences and reconcile with Nature and Nature’s God (TJ, 1776). Honesty is the best policy. Seek truth. Skepticism is a wise starting position.

Since I can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory, I call it a greenhouse gas hunch. After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance. Even for personal political or financial gain. Would they?

SCCRENDO | 22 mai 2018

@Free energy. You are being totally theoretical and cherry picking points. You forget about the fact that homeostasis is what is needed. I am not going to spend the time and effort trying to refute every point but will address a few. As regards CO2. Yes it is necessary for life and the more you have the more greening you get. However one needs sufficient plants to take care of the CO2 and unfortunately we do not have sufficient plants. Thus the excess goes into the oceans and CO2 becomes H2CO3 which is an acid and drops the pH turning our oceans more acidic. Life forms needs narrow pH ranges and at some point we change the life forms and destroy our ecology. CO2 levels are also rising in the atmosphere which even you admit to and there is more than enough data to show that it is the major greenhouse gas. And indeed while temperature measurements may have their flaws there is sufficiecient data to show a correlation between CO2 and temp rise. While a good theoretical knowledge is important studies need to be performed and unfortunately they are consistent with the climate change model. You cherry pick isolated facts yet the homeostasis of the planet is far more complex. Why are glaciers melting, sea levels rising and why is the climate changing???

FREE ENERGY | 22 mai 2018

And the SUN, combined with cosmic radiation = The little ice age between 13-1400, debunk that evidence please. Has happend before and will again !

teslu3 | 22 mai 2018

As you wish, debunked: earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age

science-isbetter | 22 mai 2018

Free Energy: I would welcome free energy. Alas! Please explain what is "free" about your energy.

As to your statement, about the absence of a mathematical theory you only need to look at a little bit of science to negate your statement.

"Consider the CO2 molecule ( Figure 7-10 ). Its vibrational state is defined by a combination of three normal vibrational modes and by a quantized energy level within each mode. Vibrational transitions involve changes in the energy level (vibrational amplitude) of one of the normal modes (or rarely of a combination of normal modes). In the "symmetric stretch" mode the CO2 molecule has no dipole moment, since the distribution of charges is perfectly symmetric; transition to a higher energy level of that mode does not change the dipole moment of the molecule and is therefore forbidden. Changes in energy levels for the two other, asymmetric, modes change the dipole moment of the molecule and are therefore allowed. In this manner, CO2 has absorption lines in the near-IR. Contrast the case of N2. The N2 molecule has a uniform distribution of charge and its only vibrational mode is the symmetric stretch. Transitions within this mode are forbidden, and as a result the N2 molecule does not absorb in the near-IR."

Note the statment "CO2 has absorption lines in the near-IR." IR means infrared. I would show you the absorption spectra of CO2, but the forum doesn't make it easy to show pictures. You can find the complete explanation at
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html#38448

You say you "can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory." Here you go (sorry for the difficult rendering of the equation, it's hard to do on this forum.

T(0) = (Fs(1-A)/4sigma(1-f/2))^1/4

T(0) is the earth's global mean temperature
f is the absorption efficiency of the atmospheric layer
Fs is the solar radiation flux
A is the earth's albedo, the fraction A of the intercepted radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow, ice)
Sigma is the Stefan Boltzman constant: 5.67x10-8 W m-2. Your quotation of this constant is eight orders of magnitude off...but this is not what invalidates your statement. Anyone can have a typo.

Tesla-David | 22 mai 2018

This guy is worthless tool! Unbelievable crap.

NoMoPetrol | 23 mai 2018

He's already proven it to himself. What more does he need to do? Perhaps he could be hired as the science advisor to the Trump administration.

SCCRENDO | 23 mai 2018

I think he is the science advisor to the Trump administration.

Mike83 | 23 mai 2018

They need to stop falling rocks to solve the problem. LOL

FREE ENERGY | 23 mai 2018

Its science fact !

SCCRENDO | 23 mai 2018

I think your science fact has been debunked. See what @science-isbetter has to say. And refute it if you can. Also I have provided enough links to show that CO2 is indeed correlated with global warming. Your science is as factual as that of Trump and his administration.

MitchP85D | 23 mai 2018

CO2 responds to temperature changes, not cause it! Allow Dr. Ian Clark to explain this for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb08wPe4zEc

SCCRENDO | 23 mai 2018

No weathermoron. See if you can explain it without me sitting through an infomercial.

MitchP85D | 24 mai 2018

It is not an infomercial. It is a brief interview with a Canadian geologist who knows his stuff about this issue!

He is basically saying that the natural CO2 exchange mechanism between the earth and atmosphere dwarfs the human contribution of CO2. And that climate change is a driver of CO2, not the other way around!

Dr. Ian Clark knows this stuff a lot better than you or me do. Worth a listen!

Kinda like Wildcat Jen. She knows insurance a lot better than you or me do. We should listen to her!

SCCRENDO | 24 mai 2018

@weathermoron. But unfortunately the science suggests otherwise. Fossil fuel abuse is indeed driving up CO2 levels with all due respects to Dr lan Clark and our local weathermoron

I guess you are talking about the geologist Ian Clarke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark_(geologist)

FREE ENERGY | 25 mai 2018

SCCRENDO, do you know why Al Gores CO2 experiment simply failed, and why ?

mschaffer11 | 25 mai 2018
science-isbetter | 25 mai 2018

Free Energy:

You wrote that you cannot find a mathematical description for climate change. Well, you fuzz it up by saying something about a "consensus" greenhouse gas theory.

I then pointed you to a mathematical description. You have not replied.

Are you here to learn or to obfuscate?

SCCRENDO | 25 mai 2018

@FREE ENERGY. I think you need to answer @science-isbetter. As regards Al Gore/Bill Nye. That this may not be a perfect experiment but that does not negate the rest of the science.

MitchP85D | 25 mai 2018

I don't think Free Energy will pop to your finger snapping!

Yes Goebbels Apprentice One, Dr. Ian Clark, no e. And you keep saying that stupid-ass "the science says." Science doesn't say a damn thing. Scientists say things!! And they don't all agree!!!

SCCRENDO | 25 mai 2018

Hey weathermoron. Scientists say what the science says. Weathermoron says what the trashy denier rags say. I don’t care whether Free Energy pops or not. FREE ENEFGY knows more science than you but like you he gets his info from the well discredited WHAsupwithat and Principa. I think our local physics expert @science-isbetter has shown @FREE ENERGY where he his math was off by 8 fold giving his misleading result. But I guess one needs to fudge the math to get a result that contradicts the consensus science.

MitchP85D | 26 mai 2018

Hey Goebbels Apprentice One, scientists say different things. Science doesn't say a damn thing! But, there are scientists who can say some direct, straight-forward things that simple folk like me can understand. Look what Dr. Spencer says about sea level rise.

www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/

But for you self-proclaimed super intellectual types in this here Tesla Forum, here is something more detailed by Dr. Curry concerning sea level rise.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/02/17/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-pa...

SCCRENDO | 26 mai 2018

@weathermoron. Yes scientists say different things. They disagree on some things. But climate change is not something that scientists disagree on. Roy “the earth was created 6000 years ago” Spencer would be a “scientist” who has destroyed his credibilty.

MitchP85D | 26 mai 2018

That has got to be the biggest load of crap statement posted in the Tesla Forum thus far! "But climate change is not something that scientists disagree on."

Uncle Paul | 26 mai 2018

Just because someone wins a debate, it does not mean that he is correct, just the winner of the debate.

Some of the better debaters can even win when taking the wrong side...they are that good.

Just because someone says the scientific community is settled on the matter does not make it correct.

Most scientist agreed that Pluto was a planet, until another debater came along and made the case that it is just a rock.

To me the entire back and forth is mute. Makes no difference who is right/wrong.

The reality is that the world is changing.Coal and Oil for generating electricity will give way to Natural Gas/Solar/Wind/Geothermal/tidal etc. The economics will doom the fossil fuel when the governments of the world begin to charge for the clean up of those polluting sources.

Same with Nuclear. It is cheap to make, but expensive to clean up after.

I do predict, however, that those same people writing in forums about the dangers of global warming will soon find some thing else to rail against.

SCCRENDO | 26 mai 2018

Hey Uncle. This is not about winning or losing a debate. We are here to voice our concerns about climate change. A good debate can only occur when both sides know what they are talking about. The weathermoron pops up with links to discredited rags and quotes “scientists” who have been discredited and /or in the employ of the fossil fuel industry. Some like you just pop up with your opinions and no knowledge as to what you are talking about. When someone who knows what they are talking about arrives with good scientific facts that differ from the consensus then we we can have a debate.

You post some idiotic strawman arguments to try distract. Wtf has Pluto got to do with climate change. Pluto was originally considered a planet by definition. When the definitions of a planet was clarified Pluto no longer fitted the definition. Pluto did not change. The science did not change. The definition did. To make a point like to tried to make, simply clarifies your lack of understanding of science. So go out with the weathermoron and learn some science and then you will be worthy of debating.

Uncle Paul | 27 mai 2018

That is my point exactly.
When I was young, I remember being frightened about the coming ice age. Everyone was going to freeze to death and needed to move to warmer climates to survive. A bunch of movies and articles kept coming out to keep the anxiety high.
Then we were told to build bomb shelters so we could survive the initial blast. Duck and cover excercises were held in all the schools where we were tought to hide under our desks if we saw a bright flash.

Then we moved on to Zero Population Growth. People were having babies so fast that we were using up all the foodstocks and polluting our beautiful planet. Scientists plotted lots of graphs showing when the critical mass would happen, and we would all die a horrible death as the planets resources were totally consumed. People would turn into base animals and band together to roam the earth, attacking and killing we weak.

Scientist told China that they needed to initiate a one child policy, or they would all fall into poverty.

Then it was told by Al Gore that all the scientists said that Global Warming was right around the corner. By the end of the Century (Year 2,000) the oceans would rise to flood all the low islands and also the low lying coastal regions. Said the science was certain and settled. (none of that happened, but Al Gore got rich beyond belief and began to travel the world in private jets and construct huge mansions to live in.)

We were told that the industrial revolution burned so much coal that the air was soon to be unbreathable. The Sun was being blotted out and we would freeze in a terrible Global Winter with no end. The extinction of all live, first the plants then the animals.

Then the settled science change to not global warming, but global climate change. Things would get colder in some areas and warmer in others. Hummanity would not be able to adapt, and again...doom on us all.

During all these predictins the scientists that could convince us that their projections were right would get vast amounts of money funneled into their valuable research. Great research facilities were funded with billions of dollars to help these scientists protect us from one man made disaster or another.

Now Elon has come along and proposed, that while he is not sure what the disaster will be, there will be some sort of disaster that will end all life on earth, and we need to build a fleet of space ships to allow us to travel to some other planet where mankind can continue to survive. At least Elon does not claim to know what the disaster will be, but feels it might be something, and we need a plan B. He does not frighten everyone, but just calmly states that we should have a plan B.

For me, I live my life in Faith, not in Fear. You might be right, but also you might be wrong. Don't believe any of us know with the certainty that we profess.

A good debate does not occure when both sides know what they are talking about here, because neither side will budge in their arguments. Both debaters will claim to the end that their side, and only their side is right. The winner of the debate will be the one with the best debating skills, not necessary to one that ends up being right.

No matter who wins this debate, the Earth will make the final decision. Things are going on all the time on our beautiful Earth that humans may never understand.

SCCRENDO | 27 mai 2018

Hey Uncle. You obviously have never had a good debate. What you describe is a discussion between 2 opinionated ignorant people. If both parties understand the facts then you can debate it in an honest manner. Some points both will agree on, others they won’t but there will be give and take on both sides. And minds can be changed. If you and your fellow science illiterates were able to come up with scientific facts and/or were able to understand climate change then it is possible minds could be changed on both sides. As regards your emotional reactions to past predictions I think the problem is your own misinterpretation as regards the scientific predictions. In either event the merits of climate science predictions rests on understanding the science. So if you want to join the party better start educating yourself.

MitchP85D | 27 mai 2018

Let me get this straight. If you don't agree with Goebbels Apprentice, then you are a science illiterate. You see, Goebbels Apprentice is the anointed one who can make the determination who understands science and who doesn't understand science. As a matter of fact, he even can make the determination on who is a scientist and who isn't!

Classic totalitarian propogandist!

docdac | 27 mai 2018

Educate yourself in SCCIENCE !

SCCRENDO | 27 mai 2018

@Weathermoron. I am not the anointed one. Pretty much everyone on this forum recognizes you as a science illiterate and an idiot.

MitchP85D | 28 mai 2018

Hey docdac, in the world of Goebbels Apprentice, belief in SCCIENCE should be mandated, and legislated into law. Punishment for violating the law of SCCIENCE will be the Gulag!

SCCRENDO | 28 mai 2018

@weathemoron. Most would suggest that if you elect to enter a scientific debate it would be nice to have some understanding of science. That is the reason you feel intimidated here. And it is not much fun conversing with you. You are attempting to refute science without any scientific background. Nobody is trying to mandate anything. We just recommend you learn something so you don’t continue to make an ass of yourself.

MitchP85D | 29 mai 2018

What in the hell makes you think I am intimidated by you Goebbels Apprentice??!!! You sure do have a ridiculously high appraisal of yourself if you dare to think that you speak for science! docdac is onto something. You don't believe in science. You only believe in SCCience!

By the way, got a good debate coming up. Check it out!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/28/climate-showdown-of-the-decade/

Note where the debate is - Charleston, West Virginia. I bet California would not even allow Curry and Moore to have an open forum to speak!

science-isbetter | 29 mai 2018

Free Energy John Tyndall (he of the "Tyndall Effect") did experiments and published results showing the effect of certain gases on trapping heat. That was back in 1859. It might be helpful for you to look at that.

Recently recovered older scientific experiments show that the greenhouse effect was known as early as 1856 and described by Eunice Foote who wrote "“The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas."

You and the Mitch can yell and scream as much as you want and resort to name calling, but science is science and as far as improving the human condition is concerned, science is better than guessing and wishing.

MitchP85D | 29 mai 2018

Hey science isn't, got a question for ya. Did fossil fuels do more to improve or harm the "human condition?"

science-isbetter | 29 mai 2018

Mitch: Short answer: Yes, fossil fuels have historically done more good than harm.

SCCRENDO | 29 mai 2018

@weathermoron. many would say that you have no idea what science is. So I doubt you could evalute how much science we know or do not know.

leeramer | 29 mai 2018

Hey Mitch you are intimidated, it's the reason why you bully, call people names and deflect when you are called out on your stupidity and lask of science knowledge for the last few years since you have been posting. Not once have I ever seen you post something where you realize you are wrong. By the way, the arctic sea ice is still falling lower and lower every year and the tundra is still melting in Alaska according to your links. Maybe Mitch uses Mercedes physics, which would explain everything.

SCCRENDO | 29 mai 2018

@leeramer +100. No the weathermoron uses no physics. Just has random circuits revolving in his brain and he spits out statements.

MitchP85D | 29 mai 2018

Hey Leeryone, tell me more about this "lask of science knowledge," By the way, the Arctic sea ice minimum has closed above the 2012 minimum 5 years in a row!

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Click 2013,2014,2015,2016, and 2017. My bet is that 2018 will also close higher than 2012, making it 6 years in a row. If you global warming worshippers really think the Arctic sea ice is melting away to oblivion, the ice extent will eventually have to drop below 3,387,000 km2. When do you think that will be Leeryone? I think the Arctic sea ice has bottomed out in this multi-decadal cycle, and will freeze up again during the next 30-40 years.

For right now, all we can do is look at every little tid-bit of information that comes in. Polar Portal is showing a hint about the Arctic ice. Check out the ice volume.

http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

Click Large version of graph. 2018 is now running almost 3,000,000 km3 ahead of 2017 and 2016 and is very close to the 2004-2013 mean. 2018 is now on equal footing with 2014. The 2014 Arctic sea ice extent was a big recovery year from the 2012 minimum.

The writing is on the wall. The 2018 sea ice minimum will also close above 2012. Care to challenge me on that one Leeryone?

SCCRENDO | 29 mai 2018

Here we go again weathermoron, As regards Arctic ice extent. Looks like 2018 is again more than 2 SD below the mean for 1980 to 2010 and the AUC for 2018 is lower than 2012. That says the ice extent is less. That is science. What kind of spin are you trying to put on this???

As regards the Danish measurement you again cherry-pick. Here is the summary page which explains the loss of sea ice quite clearly and supports the fact that you are a cherry picking fraudulent ignoramus
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/understanding-the-arctic-s...

MitchP85D | 29 mai 2018

Oh, you trying to make a big-ass friggin' deal over the AUC? Take a look at Antarctica!

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Click on Antarctic.

Tell me about the AUC for Antarctica Goebbels Apprentice! Check out 2018 and compare it to 2017.

According to a Sanctimonious Socialist Turd like yourself, that AUC is nothing to pay attention to in this case!

The real issue is minimum sea ice extent. If the Arctic sea ice is melting away to oblivion like you global warming worshippers think it is, it will have to shrink below the 2012 minimum. There is no way around that. Guess what? It ain't happenin'!

SCCRENDO | 30 mai 2018

A random minimum on a particular day is meaningless. Even a weathermoron should know that. The AUC shows the overall longer term ice extent and this has been dropping consistently over the last nearly 40 years of measurement. And look at the link you just posted. 2018 is even lower than 2012. Ask them at Texas A&M. Science is not about cherry picking isolated data points to try make your case. It is about looking at statistical unbiased trends.

SCCRENDO | 30 mai 2018

And yes look at Antartica. It shows the same.

MitchP85D | 31 mai 2018

It is a multi-decadal event. This is what I've been trying to get through your sense skulls with. The Arctic ice has bottomed out and is recovering. If it wasn't it would have dropped below the 2012 minimum by now. Watch 2018. It will also close above the 2012 minimum. Yes, that is a forecast. But we can very easily check if it verifies or not.

2018 Antarctic ice is obviously rebounding from 2017 using Goebbels Apprentice's AUC idea!

MitchP85D | 31 mai 2018

Make that "dense skulls with."

Pages