Let Us Hope That Global Warming Is True

I confess that I have a simple idea about science. I think that any scientific claim is meaningful only if it is falsifiable. If hypothesis X or theory Y is viable, each has to state what data will confirm it and, what is the same thing, what data will refute it. The Daily Caller asks the obvious question concerning Anthropogenic Global Warming:

Increased warm temperatures indicate global warming. Severe winter storms also help prove global warming, according to a recent op-ed in the New York Times. So is there any weather pattern that would disprove or call into question the existence of global warming?

I thought it obvious that one day, or one year, or even a decade of temperature records can't confirm or refute the proposition that we are in a period of long term warming. Only long term records can speak to that. Apparently I was wrong.

"And now, what about all this [cold, snowy] weather?" ["World News Tonight," anchor Diane] Sawyer said. "The experts on climate change say the evidence is in: 2010 is tied for the hottest year ever on record. And last year, it was the wettest one in recorded history. And those scientists say that's why we're reeling from the deadly weather extremes."

So hot weather, cold weather and wet weather all confirm "climate change." One wonders about dry weather. At least now we understand why "climate change" has replaced "global warming" as the term of choice.

The AGW ideology has always rested on the answer to several specific questions. First, are we in a period of long term warming? The answer to that is very probably yes, at least until recently. It has tapered off a bit, but there was surely a spike in the last half of the last century. Second, is human activity influencing that spike? I think that question is very hard to answer, but let's assume it is yes. Third, can national policies and international agreements modify human activity in a way that might have a significant influence on climate change?

That is the easiest question to answer and the answer is definitely no. Neither the developed nations nor India and China are going to voluntarily restrict carbon emissions (economic growth), let alone reduce emissions/growth to 19^th century levels. Here, all the data and common sense converge and there is no reasonable doubt that the proposition is refuted.

Almost all the public conversation has been confined to the first three questions, but there is a fourth. Is further global warming a bad thing for us? AGW ideology simple assumes that the answer is yes. The ideology recognizes that question only in order to answer it with nightmare scenarios.

Powerline directs our attention to a recent article in Reuters manages to raise the question while trying to bury it.

Climate change seems a factor in the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, according to a study of ancient tree growth that urges greater awareness of the risks of global warming in the 21st century.

Well, that seems relevant. If global warming doomed the Romans (here we thought it was Christianity and the Germans) then surely it can doom us. Of course it seems unlikely that the industrial output of the Roman Empire really had a large carbon footprint, but let that aside.

The problem is that it warming wasn't the problem for the Romans or for anyone else so far.

Good growth by oak and pine trees in central Europe in the past 2,500 years signaled warm and wet summers and coincided with periods of wealth among farming societies, for instance around the height of the Roman empire or in medieval times.

Periods of climate instability overlapped with political turmoil, such as during the decline of the Roman Empire, and might even have made Europeans vulnerable to the Black Death or help explain migration to America during the chill 17th century.

Warm and wet climates have been good for the Romans and for Medieval Europe and for human beings in general. So what has been bad? Reuters's villain is "climate instability," which almost avoids saying "cold." That bit about the "chill 17^th century," however, gives the game away.

The terrible truth may be that civilization arose in and only because of an unusual warming period. If that is the truth, God help us, we are probably doomed in pretty short order (historically speaking). Meanwhile, warming has always been good for us and there is no reason to think that that will be different in the future. Individual persons and societies in general suffer much more from cold than from heat. If or when the global climate cycles back and the glaciers return, let us hope that human activity really can heat up the world.

Comments

[Johnny Flatly]

is there any weather pattern that would disprove or call into question the existence of global warming? Ive been thinking about the same thing and that definitely is a VALID question!

[Peter]

Sawyers ABC News was refreshing- it gave us straight reporting- that was based on solid science. The weather in 2010 showed plenty of extremes- and that is carrying into 2011.

The climate models have long predicted these events- but those models would be useless if these events failed to happen. If so then climate change could be called a hoax. However the climate is showing increasing instability.

The amount of C02 at 390ppm has not been this high in at least the last 3.5 million years-perhaps even longer. It is rising at the rate of 2.5ppm a year.
We will pass 400ppm by 2013.

As C02 continues to rise- these kind of weather events will increase, and become even stronger. The havoc they will cause will ripple all across the global
economy- including North America.

From the upper great plains, there will also be more precipitation- but increasing heat in the summer- will actually cause drought and drier conditions.

At the rate we are warming now, the loss of summer ice in the arctic, and the rise in C02- we are going to be facing events that human civilization
over the last 10000 years has never seen.

[George Mason]

The protean nature of the global warming crowd is rather stunning. What they supply for evidence is always anecdotal and subjectively on point (their point). When Al Gore (the pope of the high church of global warming) visited Sioux Falls a few years ago he promised us that we would live in perpetual drought with ever warming temperatures (google "gore effect"). Ever since Gore was here we have been through a period of below normal temperatures and above normal rainfall (there is my anecdote). The southern hemisphere just came out of an unusally cold winter. The Norwegians are reporting the deepest and densest Arctic ice pack ever measured and the Russians report the deepest Siberian snow pack on record (there are the Norwegian and Russian anecdotes). Global warming people appear ignorant of the hydrologic cycle and the carbon cycle(or hope you are). As the East Anglia e-mails revealed anyone who questions there meme will be threatened with slander and libel or worse. There is something wrong with your science when you have to threaten people with professional, personal and occasionally physical harm. If your science so sound and your data so irrefutable it would stand on its own unchallenged.

[Rob]

What weather pattern would disprove global warming? How about a sustained cooling over a 10 - 20 year period, and fewer extreme weather events?

[BillW]

So long as those crying wolf the loudest are more than willing to give the 'developing nations' - by that I mean China which is according to their science the greatest contributor to global carbon emission levels and trashing of the environment in general - a relatively free pass, their credibility is in serious doubt. Their rationale is that curtailing the industrial development of China would put a serious crimp in the growth of the economy of the developing nations and keep vast numbers of people in pretty dismal economic conditions. No doubt this is true. However, it acknowledges a clear nexus between their climate change agenda and economic prosperity. Erego it acknowledges that their agenda will have serious negative economic consequences to the United States, Western Europe and the rest of the developed world.

In the end, an agenda that allows great levels of carbon emissions but elevates the economy of China, India and other dysfunctional political/economic systems, while curtailing carbon emissions and degrading the economies of the great free-enterprise driven democracies is not really about the environment at all. It is a great fraud. It is creating false concern over carbon emissions in order to socialize the world economies. That is a tough sell, so instead we are regaled with depressing predictions of the impending extinction of polar bears.

[latitude]

I'm amazed at the amount of people that have bought into the "extreme weather event" line.

If someone told you that oxygen levels were at the lowest levels ever recorded, would you want to lower oxygen levels even more?

CO2 levels are at the lowest ever recorded. About 150ppm above where plants stop growing of die. Plants evolved to grow in much higher CO2 levels.

This science is based on the lowest CO2 levels ever recorded on this planet.

The real questions are:

Why have CO2 levels dropped so low?
Why isn't CO2 being replaced in the atmosphere?
Why, when CO2 levels were many times higher, did CO2 levels crash and
the planet went into another ice age?
Are we in danger of CO2 levels crashing again?

[Keith Rice]

Environmental hysteria goes back to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (1962) and
was further incited by Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" (1968) resulting in
a new "environmental protection" industry that pits the "good" people of the
world against "evil" industrialists. Typically socialist, this self-righteous industry offers no credibility to human ingenuity or adaptability, always taking the worst case scenarios and exploiting the fears therein.

How could they possibly anticipate a green revolution in the 1980's, or that we have the ability to absorb as much carbon into peridotite as we want? Indeed, there has been no more extreme case of fear mongering in the history of the world than the current global warming hoax.

[Donald Pay]

There's a lot of misinformation here, and in the posts. Scientific experiments proceed along the line of hypothesis testing, but how this is accomplished depends on where such studies are conducted, and the scale of the experiment. Lab experiments and testing of small scale change can occur under more controlled circumstances. When experiments are done in the field, control becomes less possible, but statistical methods allow for assessing the contributions of some variables. Larger scale natural processes, such as climate, are usually modeled using data, and confirmed theory. Portions of the model or the entire model are tested against data from nature.

Scientists can't control any of the inputs in real life. They have to rely on modeling to describe the impacts. Models of climate change indicate that global warming increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather.

You seem to have a problem with the models, but you don't seem to be able to pinpoint what it is about the models that you have a problem with, other than you don't like the results.

[larry kurtz]

Half of the mercury released into the biosphere is the result of human activity; now multiply that by the other symbols on the Periodic Table.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12186245

Fascinating that you've chosen to focus on one brief Southern European empire as the only example of civilization collapse, KB. The eruption of Mount Vesuvius is remarkably absent in your discussion as well. When Rome was disintegrating the Hopewell Tradition was thriving in North America where humans were smelting metals.

Continued Euro-centric post-colonialist jibberish is one more paradigm shaping red state failure. Thank you for proving once again that The Right is so wrong.

[paul]

BillW - you post that we don't want to give China a free pass, yet we do this every day. We give them most favored nation status, and we send a lot of money there for the junk they manufacture. If we really analyzed what we should do regarding climate change and the problems we have in this nation, we would heavily invest in green energy. There are many methods of shifting the costs of this investment, carbon tax, cap and trade, etc. If we have a green manufacturing industry here, we have a chance to keep our middle class, if not, we are all going to be poor and suffering from extreme weather events, while the rich can move around the world to the nice places that benefit from Global Warming. How many of you think you or your kids are going to be able to pick up and move to those places where we have warm wet climates, will you be able to afford that. Who is going to buy your house?

The only way forward is via manufacturing in the USA. The only viable future industry right now is green energy!

[larry kurtz]

How red states fail students; this girl is from Virginia where AG Ken Cuchinelli is taking money from the Kochtopus to fight EPA oversight: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics

[Meme Mine]

THE DENIERS HAVE WON
As a former climate change believer, may I personally apologize for condemning billions of children to death by CO2 for 25 years, just to get them to turn the lights out more often. I had become the fear mongering neocon of CO2 environMENTALism as I issued CO2 death warrants to YOUR family and mine. I apologize for calling: cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for splitting responsible environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it. I apologize for not endorsing population control instead of impossible climate control. I apologize for scaring children with: “unstoppable warming” and “out of control warming and “runaway warming“ and not having the honesty to call it THE END OF THE WORLD.
I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact:
-that it was the trusted scientists we bowed to and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
We former believers admit to being pretend rebels as we were spoon-fed by corporations and politicians promising to lower the seas. The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s and the scientists have never admitted responsibility for their chemicals that are causing cancer. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy. Please forgive me?

[Billm]

Latitude misstates that CO2 levels are the lowest ever recorded. CO2 levels have risen steadily since about 1960, when they were recorded by Charles Keeling at Moana Loa at 340 parts per million (ppm), to 2010 when they were recorded there at 390 ppm. According to ice cores, this is approximately 120 ppm above levels going back thousands of years, and the last time they were this high the planet was a very different place. There is a lag between CO2 levels rising and temperature, so we will experience higher temperatures for decades to come even if we stabilize CO2.

[George Mason]

Please tell us what the concentration of CO2 in the earths atmosphere was in 1811. Then we can begin to discuss any effects it may have.

[BillW]

Paul,

You missed my point entirely. I don't want to give China a free pass. I pointed out that the greenies are already giving them a free pass - and that so long as the greenies let China pollute at will, but demand a virtual shut-down of American manufacturing they have little credibility.

As far as green manufacturing is concerned, most of it is unsustainable tripe that only exists because the Obama administration is willing to prop it up with billions of our dollars.

[larry kurtz]

Statehood for Mexico and Canada's provinces. Are you there yet, KB?

[NikFromNYC]

What spike?! A plot of the longest running thermometer records show no spike whatsoever: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

Finding these was the end of the story for me. They would be all over the IPCC reports if they were bonafied little Hockey Sticks. Instead all the players rely on a global average that cuts all data before 1880 off.

[Miranda Flint]

I think you're onto something here! Indeed, global warming may actually create world peace!

According to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/may/30/g2.weather):

"The majority of riots in the USA occur when the temperature increases to between 27C and 32C. When the temperature goes over 32C, however, riots level off and begin to fall because people become so hot they can't be bothered."

So maybe the trick is to make sure that temperatures never go below 89 Degrees!

[Pat]

Deniers keep committing a fatal fallacy: They keep confusing weather with climate.

And you had better not hope CO2 warms the planet, and here's why:

Copy and paste and Google search with quotation marks:

"Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed
Livable Limits, Researchers Find" (2010)

and

"Report: Climate change could render much of world
uninhabitable" (2010)

and

"The Health Effects of Hotter Days and Nights"
and the study itself, published 2010 by the National
Academy of Sciences, being

"An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat
stress"

which for the first time tested the limits of habitability.....In a couple or few short centuries from now, if from ANY set of causes Earth sees a global temperature average temperature increase of just 12 and then 21 degrees F - which is respectively about 7 and then 12 degrees C, which is very doable over the next couple or few centuries, Earth will see during the daytime during the hot months of each year the return of WET BULB temperatures (NOT standard temperatures) of at least 95 degrees F, covering AT LEAST the tropics and subtropics. These are wet bulb temperatures not seen for tens of million of years. The study's author said, "The wet-bulb temperatures we are talking about would have a feels-like, or heat-index, temperature of between 170 to 196 degrees Fahrenheit."

Warm-blooded life evolved to inhabit hotter parts of Earth only after it sufficiently cooled from where it was tens of millions of years ago. Daytime hot month heat-index or feels-like temperatures of at least almost 200 degrees covering at least all the tropics and subtropics would kill off all human and warm-blooded animal life in at least these areas - note that just several hours of exposure to such temperatures kills warm-blooded life. Roughly half the planet would become a dead zone, devoid of all warm-blooded life. And via sufficient food chain destruction almost all wildlife on the planet, period, and it would kill human civilization. (What land could be inhabited then could support only a drastically reduced population - look at a global map to see which nations are in at least the tropics and subtropics, and stop and think of what all this means. For instance, does anyone think that Russia is going to be just fine and dandy with letting into their country all those many billions of people to its south, including for instance most of India and China? It would be the end of the great civilizations of India and China.)

[larry kurtz]

Trophic cascades continue: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_77afb480-2137-11e0-b13d-001cc4c002e0.html

[George Mason]

Pat; You have the new mantra down pat (couldn't resist). A few years ago when the winter had above normal temperatures weather was climate according to the church of global warming. As asked above what was the CO2 concentration in 1811 or the average temperature. You do not know and neither does anyone else, so where is the basis for your comments. What we do have is geographical history and agricultural history. We know where people lived and what they grew. Research why Greenland is called Greenland. Or more recently study the pattern of crop dispersion in the U.S. in the 19th century. For instance, oranges were a cash crop that was grown as far north as Vicksburg, Ms. at the time of the Civil War. Today it is impossible to grow oranges north of Orlando, Fl. due to the climate (or is it weather) being to cold. Weather records prior to the last decade are too incomplete and too undependable to produce reliable models. The global warming movement is just another grab at political power to allow liberals the opportunity to dictate to other people how to live

[Pat]

Copy and paste and Google search with quotation marks these article titles, articles reported on published science:

"Cosmic rays, climate and the origin of life" (2010)
(Cosmic rays are not causing global warming.)
[".... we did not find any significant effects of ionization on cloud cover."]

"Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays,
According To New Research" (2008)
["New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover."]

"Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study
Finds" (2008)
["A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-calledgalactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small."]

The mathematical scientists have been working out the physics of the interaction of CO2, clouds and water vapor. If there were no CO2, the planet would turn into a ball of ice. It's the CO2 that is the thermostat, not clouds and water vapor and all that.

To be more specific about those citations: Copy and paste with quotations marks into a Google search the titles, and then read these articles:

"Cloud 'Feedback' Affects Global Climate and Warming" (2010)
["Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study..."]

"Cloud Study Predicts More Global Warming" (2010)
["...climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see."]

"Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature, New Modeling Study Shows" (2010)
["The study...examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation...Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect...A companion study...shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect."]

And any changes in the sun are not causing global warming: To see this, copy and paste and Google search these article titles and read the reports on the published research:

"Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated?" (2010)

"Earth more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought" (2009)

"Global Temperatures Could Rise More Than Expected, New Study Shows" (2009)

"Beyond Carbon Dioxide: Growing Importance Of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) In Climate Warming" (2009)

"Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows" (2009)

"Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research" (2008)

"Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds" (2008)

"Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (2006)

It's the process of elimination - everything has been eliminated as an explanation for the increasing global warming outside of the increasing of the greenhouse gases.

[Pat]

To follow up my posts Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM and Jan 16, 2011 12:13:55 PM:

If people think the sun and not CO2 is causing global warming: Here are three points of fact that falsify the claim that the sun rather than CO2 is causing the increasing warming - that is, the Sun Hypothesis three separate times makes definitively false predictions, while the CO2 Hypothesis makes the correct predictions:

(1) The CO2 Hypothesis implies the average night-time temperatures warming faster than the average day-time temperatures, and the Sun Hypothesis implies the opposite, the average day-time temperatures warming faster than the average night-time temperatures. The average night-time temperatures are warming faster than the average day-time temperatures.

(2) The CO2 Hypothesis implies the stratosphere (high atmosphere) cooling, and the Sun Hypothesis implies the opposite, the stratosphere warming. The stratosphere is cooling.

(3) The CO2 Hypothesis implies the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere) rising in altitude, and the Sun Hypothesis implies the opposite, the tropopause remaining at relatively the same altitude. The tropopause is rising in altitude.

To address this incessant denial of mathematical science by the deniers:

Having a degree in mathematics, I appreciate mathematical models as things to be appreciated, not scorned. All physics theories in essence are mathematical models. All engineering and science largely now is done by mathematical modeling via computer simulation. Much around us is largely designed or run by mathematical modeling via computer simulation: Aircraft, cars, the power grid, the Internet, CPU's, medical imaging, you name it. But all we see from deniers is this double standard: Complete acceptance of mathematical science in all these areas, but complete scorn of the best and most recent mathematical science applied to climate. The deniers do not offer contrary mathematical science. They just deny it all just because they don't like the results. Very anti-science.

To further address the anti-mathematical-science nature of so many denier arguments:

Cause and effect can be a valid interpretation when the data graph shows a mathematically verifiable trend. But deniers incessantly commit the fallacy that if a curve-fitting graph is not a one-to-one function, then cause and effect is proved to be not the case. That is, they incessantly commit the mistake of thinking that temporary downward sub-trends in an upward trending graph prove false any possible cause and effect.

And consider basic geophysics: More total heat in the whole system leads to more total evaporation of water in the whole system leads to more total precipitation in the whole system, which means more rain or sleet or hail or snow in various locations at various times.

On mathematical models:

Improving a set of mathematical models' accuracy from say, 90% to say, 95% does not mean that the older set of mathematics is contradicted by the newer. And, by the way, having less than 100% accuracy and instead having, say, 90% accuracy does not falsify the assumptions of a model. This is especially true if one can always improve the accuracy while keeping the underlying assumptions.

That is, what deniers are not handling is this: It is not true that in science, if some conclusions are proven wrong by observation, then the hypothesis is totally rejected. This is especially true in mathematical science. For example, the whole history of physics is simply replacing one set of mathematical models with another set of mathematical models, where many times much if not all of the older set is included in the newer set. (Well-known example: In physics, classical mechanics was not abandoned even though it made some false predictions - its equations are embedded in the newer, bigger set, which taken as a whole is a more accurate predictor of the total picture.) That's what mathematical science is, the evolution of mathematical models.

Deniers have nothing of any scientific value to say because they have no mathematical science to back up their denials - especially RECENT mathematics to refute the best and MOST RECENT mathematical science.

Challenge to the deniers: Where is your mathematical science? And I mean MOST RECENT mathematics.

[anon]

The point is the nationalization of the energy industry. Don't you get it? It is just one giant scam for promoting hard left policy.

[George Mason]

Pat, you keep denying the obvious so we can take it that you are among the Deniers you keep referring to. Now it's mathematics not climate? What we do know from historical research is that the world has gone through periods of warming and periods of cooling, dry periods and wet periods since the beginning of recorded time. You can read about it in the Bible if you're so inclined. The global warming crowd has too little data, from too short a time period too convince an honest scientist (someone who does not have a vested interest in the global warming business). So what was the CO2 concentration in 1811?

[BillW]

Pat,

What a false arguement! Mathematics is not reality - math is an unreliable attempt to quantify reality. If you actually have a degree in mathematics you should know full well that an assertion that anything is true until it can be refuted by a mathematical model is bogus logic.

[larry kurtz]

Here is the CO2 data for 1811: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

[PAT]

George and BillW:

Yes, it's been colder and hotter and so on throughout Earth's history, but so what?

The deniers out there are denying mathematical science - otherwise known as physics.

That is, they deny the plain, brute fact of physics that spewing ever more greenhouse gases into the environment will make it ever hotter than it otherwise would have been.

And mathematics is reality: It's called physics, the most powerful science we have.

In fact, the whole history of science is the mathematicizing of science, where all branches of science are becoming ever more mathematical - even biology. This is simply because as the science becomes more mathematical the science becomes more rigorous and more able to accurately predict and explain - it just becomes more powerful as a science.

And on this plain, brute fact of physics that spewing ever more greenhouse gases into the environment will make it ever hotter than it otherwise would have been:

As I cited in my Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM post, through the very best physics we presently have, the trend lines are showing that humanity is receiving a warning to cease and desist from this ever more spewing or face "The wrath of God" - in just as soon as a couple or few short centuries from now - in the form of roughly at least half the planet becoming blanketed in daytime summertime feels-like or heat index temperatures of at least just under 200 degrees F, which, as a plain, brute fact of physics, will kill off all warm-blooded life in this roughly half the planet, turning this roughly half the planet into a dead zone, devoid of all warm-blooded life. (Think of what that means for wildlife as a whole all over the world and for human civilization.)

As a Christian (from the rhetoric of right-wingers here and elsewhere, many probably think that people like me are atheist commies or whatever), I strongly advise all my fellow Christians - and all others who I would think would want to not see this above happen - to copy and paste all those article titles I gave into Google to read all the articles reporting on all this science I cited in my prior posts, and to think long and hard about this very clear warning. That statement "The time has come to destroy those who destroy the Earth" should read in the ears of anyone with a conscience. (To anticipate an objection from some: You don't think that humanity can be warned through physics?)

[William]

It's not that I don't believe mankind's activities can't, or don't, influence the climate. I have, however, seen nothing proposed that would seriously address remedying the apocalyptic scenario you describe above. Of course, one large volcanic eruption can eliminate much of what we could do anyway.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/volcanoes-cause-climate-change/

[larry kurtz]

Nothing pleases me more than South Dakota being downwind of the Yellowstone supervolcano. There IS a god.

[PAT]

William:

More volcanoes spewing into the atmosphere make things worse, but humanity makes it vastly worse. The US Geological Survey says that 100-300 times more CO2 is emitted by humans than volcanoes:
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
"The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions."

Soot could only temporarily cool. The extra CO2 stays in air lots longer than the soot. This is why things got really hot on Earth when it did. For instance:

Volcanoes killed with global warming, 200 million years ago
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=volcanoes-killed-with-global-warmin-2010-03-23

Mass Extinctions Tied to Past Climate Changes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes
" FOSSIL RECORD: Analyzing the fossil record and past temperatures shows that a warming world is bad for the number of different plants and animals on Earth.

...

There have been three major greenhouse phases in the time period we analyzed and the peaks in temperature of each coincide with mass extinctions," says ecologist Peter Mayhew of the University of York in England, who led the research examining the fossil and temperature records. "The fossil record and temperature data sets already existed but nobody had looked at the relationships between them."

Since humanity is spewing so much more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature (100-300 times more), all of this means that to avoid the apocalyptic end humanity is being warned about we must be even more determined to heed the warning. (Again, please see via copying and pasting the article titles those citations I gave in my prior posts, Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM and Jan 16, 2011 12:13:55 PM, and see in my other posts such as those three points of fact showing the falsification of the idea that changes in the sun are causing the warming.)

[Donald Pay]

I learned decades ago not to assume you can convince the professional deniers of anything. You see many of the same pseudo-scientists and groups involved in issue after issue. They make good money pushing the special interest line, whatever it happens to be. These are a class of people who get paid to bamboozle the Williams and George Masons and KBs with junk science "studies" paid for by special interests and put out by the usual corporate funded think tanks. They never deal with scientific evidence, and use it only to try to manufacture doubt about the normal scientific process of testing hypotheses and models. You will never get them to answer the simple questions of what in particular they object to in the models or studies except for results. They don't care about the science.

[paul]

You know William, when you post something and say:
"one large volcanic eruption can eliminate much of what we could do anyway"

You should really read what you link to. There are so many better sources. Even what you posted from sdsu geology states the opposite of what you are saying:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

Man is causing Global Warming, Climate Change, etc. etc. etc. whatever you want to call it. A good place to start your volcano research:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

[George Mason]

THANK YOU LARRY! Punch up Larry's link. Check the CO2 in relation to time. Then look up why Greenland is called Greenland. The entire Global Warming/CO2 argument collapses. Larry you have done a service to mankind.

[larry kurtz]

Hey George, want to buy some pot? Your meds aren't working.

[Stan Gibilisco]

In my opinion, both the purveyors and the deniers of anthropogenic global warming place politics above science, in some cases so much that they insult the scientific method.

[KB]

Thanks to my critics here for making me look reasonable. And thanks to Larry for making everyone else look reasonable.

[William]

If anyone seriously thinks the human race will willingly destroy the global economy in order to "address climate change", they're delusional.

Even if one accepts the most apocalyptic forecasts, the bottom line is simply this, no solution that requires mankind to eliminate carbon based energy could possibly be imposed without force, oppression and violence.

When someone can demonstrate that mankind truly possesses the means to "control global climate" without resorting to worldwide economic collapse and the elimination of a large portion of humanity, then we can have a productive discussion.

[graham]

"...What spike?! A plot of the longest running thermometer records show no spike whatsoever: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

Finding these was the end of the story for me..."

That graph is from one single spot in central England.
Duh!!

Not even a 'nice try' bozo.

Mind you - even that graph show a steady increase in temperature so it doesn't support your moronic stance in any case.

"If the denialist cult is so sure of it's case, why do they lie all the time?"

[graham]

"....look up why Greenland is called Greenland...."

Don't tell me - you actualy think Greenland was once green!

Bwahahahahahahaha!

You morons just slay me.

Just for your info' Greenland was populated in two small sheltered fiords in the extreme south west at roughly the same latitude as the Shetland Isles of Scotland.
It supported about 5,000 people via a hardy breed of small cattle and by gathering berries, seaweed and seafood. The population at it's peak was 5,000. These days it supports 50,000. The ice over the mainland of Greenland is over a mile thick and has been there for 200,000 ****ing years.
You obviously havn't read a damn thing about the early history of Greenland and why Eric (from Iceland - way to the north) named it Greenland.
You sad sad little man.

[larry kurtz]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/

[George Mason]

My Dear Graham; Archeologists (a term you are probably not familiar with and cannot pronounce) have confirmed Norse oral history concerning settlements on Greenland. There were Scandinavian agricultural colonies settled on Greenland around the year 1000 AD. This was possible because the earth was in a period of Global Warming (sans Pats CO2). There was green land on Greenland (hence the name) and the settlers cultivated crops, established vineyards and raised livestock. You may not realize this but it is difficult to succeed in agriculture on a sheet of ice. These colonies thrived for 400-500 years. They disappeared around 1500 AD because the world had entered a period of Global Cooling. Colder temperatures and the advancing ice sheet made agriculture unsustainable. This tidbit is an example of how history can provide some context to the global warming debate. Unfortunately in the cult of global warming there are history Deniers (such as your self).
There is your lesson for today. Now that you are foaming at the mouth you can crawl back into your little hole and get on with your insipid life.

Kindest regards, G.M.

P.S. Why would someone name an island covered in ice Greenland?

[larry kurtz]

ydiots: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4738014

[Jimi]

I have been carrying on this Climate Change Debate for twenty years now. I have spent a considerable amount of time going piece by piece thru the science. having a degree from SDSM&T, I found that I do have the ability to understand what I am reading, compared to alot people who are challengeing this debate.

I also have rejoined the debate recently in two specific areas.: The abillity of Computer Modeling to make accurate predictions, and the "Black Balling", & "Fraud" that is taking place in the Climate Science Research, especially in American Universities and European Research Centers.

My conclusion to date:

1.) Neither side have the evidence to convince anybody of anything
2.) Political Agendas have infiltrated the Scientific Method
3.) You cannot provide a "Solution" unless you have a "Problem," and anyone who has "Solutions" should not be allowed to advocate unless they have defined and scientifically proven that a "Problem" exists.

[PAT]

Jimi:

Neither side has the evidence to convince anybody of anything?

You evidently missed it, so, as one with a degree in mathematics, I will spell it out.

The idea that the sun and not CO2 has been causing global warming has been definitely falsified: The form of the falsification is the rule of inference called modus tollens:

p -> q
~q
Therefore
~p

Statement p is the hypothesis that changes in the sun is causing the global warming. Statement p -> q occurs in three separate instances below. And so we see that not just once, not just twice, but three times we employ modus tollens to prove false the claim that changes in the sun are causing global warming.

In those 10 points of fact I cited
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7357970&tstart=0
we see that the Sun Hypothesis three separate times makes definitively false predictions, while the CO2 Hypothesis makes the correct predictions - they are points 7, 8, and 9:

(1) p -> q : The Sun Hypothesis implies that the average day-time temperatures should be warming faster than the average night-time temperatures.

~q : The average night-time temperatures are warming faster than the average day-time temperatures.

Therefore, by modus tollens,

~p : The Sun Hypothesis is false.

Note: The CO2 Hypothesis correctly implies that the average night-time temperatures should be warming faster than the average day-time temperatures.

(2) p -> q : The Sun Hypothesis implies that the stratosphere (high atmosphere) should be warming.

~q : The stratosphere is cooling.

Therefore, by modus tollens,

~p : The Sun Hypothesis is false.

Note: The CO2 Hypothesis correctly implies that the stratosphere should be cooling.

(3) p -> q : The Sun Hypothesis implies that the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere) should be remaining at relatively the same altitude.

~q : The tropopause is rising in altitude.

Therefore, by modus tollens,

~p : The Sun Hypothesis is false.

Note: The CO2 Hypothesis correctly implies that the tropopause should be rising in altitude.

Theoretically, the only way to save The Sun Hypothesis is to show that The Sun Hypothesis itself does not predict what it predicts above.

And people dump on mathematical modeling, claiming that those who accept it have some sort of political agenda? I

If anyone has a political agenda, it's those who reject mathematical modeling, otherwise known as physics, the most powerful form of science we have, most powerful because it's the most mathematical. Again: Having a degree in mathematics, I appreciate mathematical models as things to be appreciated, not scorned. All physics theories in essence are mathematical models. All engineering and science largely now is done by mathematical modeling via computer simulation. Much around us is largely designed or run by mathematical modeling via computer simulation: Aircraft, cars, the power grid, the Internet, CPU's, medical imaging, you name it. But all we see from deniers is this double standard: Complete acceptance of mathematical science in all these areas, but complete scorn of the best and most recent mathematical science applied to climate. The deniers do not offer contrary mathematical science. They just deny it all just because they don't like the results. Very anti-science, and VERY much of a double standard.

See again my posts below for a review of the fact that all the evidence falsifies all other explanations other than greenhouse gases as the explanation, pointing therefore only to greenhouse gases as the cause for the global warming that, as a plain, brute fact of physics, is occurring:
Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM
Jan 16, 2011 12:13:55 PM
Jan 16, 2011 12:29:38 PM;
Jan 16, 2011 4:30:59 PM;
Jan 16, 2011 6:36:10 PM

[Jimi]

Pat,

The problem is that people like you want Global Warming to be true! Your position and how your justifying your position is just as much in denial as anybody's position on this topic. You need it to be true, because as with most believers it is the "Solution" that drives your interest, not the definition of the "Problem."

You went thru the entire justification of your position, but you started from a flawed, unscietific, unproven assumption:

"The idea that the sun and not CO2 has been causing global warming has been definitely falsified."

The statement is suspicious at best:

1.) According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics you can not assume Heat Transfers from Cold to Hot. In this statement you are claiming that Thermal Conductivity of the Atmosphere, which retains heat from the Sun thru Radiation, and that Heat is then transfered "down" to the lower atmosphere which is already warmer than the higher atmosphere where the majority of CO2 gases exist.

2.) If the amount of CO2 doubled over the next decade, which no one on the planet believes is even remotely possible, the effect CO2 has as a "Minor" Greenhouse would create a Thermal Conductivity of the atmosphere that would change by +/- .03%. This is not a convincing looming "crisis"

3.) The statement also makes the false assumption that the Plantary Atmosphere is a "Closed System" or a true "Greenhouse." It is not, and Entropy still takes place as dictated by the laws of Physics.

Also, "They just deny it all just because they don't like the results. Very anti-science, and VERY much of a double standard."

That's just striaght up B.S. I have been considered a "Denier" since I first entered the debate twenty years ago, and all I ever asked for, was to be convinced of the existance of a "Problem" or evidence of a "Crisis." And people like you that, make outrageous claims, have not been convincing, and you have not dug deep enough into the debate to understand that even though there is evidence to support your position, the overwhelming evidence lies on the side of the people you like to refer to as "Deniers."

[PAT]

Jimi:

Yes, you are a science denier. How do I know?

I cited RECENT published result after published result after published result published in reputable journals in my two posts
Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM
Jan 16, 2011 12:13:55 PM
and you DENY EVERY LAST BIT OF IT, even though NONE of it has been refuted by later published results.

Can you cite even just one RECENT result published in a reputable journal that refutes these RECENT results I cited?

And going to logic and mathematics:

You sound like one who is not educated in the propositional calculus, in that you seem to have no idea of the full import of a rule of inference like modus ponens or modus tollens, the latter form being the one I used above in my
Jan 18, 2011 6:44:30 PM
post.

That's too bad, because if you can't see that ~q follows with 100% logical certainty from the conjunction p -> q and ~q, then you very much need to learn some propositional logic.

When confronted with a rule of inference, where the term "valid" means that its form is correct, the only way to prove that it is not what is called a "sound" argument is to prove that one of premises is false. That is, if all the premises are true, then the argument is called a sound argument, and what we then have is the equivalent of a mathematical proof - and it actually is a mathematical proof if the domain of discussion is mathematics proper.

All your points above about thermodynamics are so out of it that one wonders where you get your idea that you are even remotely correctly identifying what is being claimed by those you think you argue against. I think that you are committing one heck of a very large set of straw man fallacies. You need to cite who says what you say, or else there's no point with bothering with trying to figure out what you think you are arguing against.

I did not give the below citations before, and I apologize for that. Here are the citations for the three modus tollens based falsifications of the Sun Hypothesis that I gave:

(1) p -> q: If the sun were doing the warming, then average day-time temperatures should be warming faster than the average night-time temperatures. ~q: The average night-time temperatures are warming faster than the average day-time temperatures. Therefore, by modus tollens, ~p: The sun is not doing the warming.

Braganza 2004:
http://www.met.sjsu.edu/%7Ewittaya/journals/diurnalTempRange.pdf
Alexander 2006:
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706

(2) p -> q: If the sun were doing the warming, then the stratosphere (high atmosphere) should be warming. ~q: The stratosphere is cooling.
Therefore, by modus tollens, ~p: The sun is not doing the warming.

Note: The CO2 Hypothesis correctly implies and predicts that the stratosphere is cooling.

Jones 2003: http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/%7Emnew/teaching/Online_Articles/jones_et_al_attribution_3d_GRL_2003.pdf

(3) p -> q : If the sun were doing the warming, then the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere) should be remaining at relatively the same altitude. ~q: The tropopause is rising in altitude. Therefore, by modus tollens, ~p: The sun is not doing the warming.

Note: The CO2 Hypothesis correctly implies and predicts that the tropopause is rising in altitude.

Santer 2003:
http://www.math.nyu.edu/%7Egerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf
Braganza 2004:
http://www.met.sjsu.edu/%7Ewittaya/journals/diurnalTempRange.pdf
Alexander 2006:
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706

Again, speaking as one with a degree in mathematics, I tell you that the only way you or anyone could ever keep the Sun Hypothesis even on just life support is to prove that ALL THREE p -> q statements above are not facts of physics. Problem for you is this: They are.

And if you even try to deny the results I cite here above without citing published science in reputable journals that refutes these results, then that yet again even more proves that you are a science denier. Hint: When trying to find citations to back up what you think you say on how to correctly apply thermodynamics, keep in mind this: There is a lot of crankery out there in the world of those who think they know mathematics and physics, especially among those who deny climate science and mathematical modeling, so, like I said, stick to only the published science in reputable journals or at least articles by those who are published in reputable journals in the field of climate science.

[Jimi]

Pat,

A few things:

1.) The Stratosphere has been Cooling for a long time, couple that with Ozone depletion, which has nothing to do with CO2 output, and your supposed Logic Calulation become irrelevant very quickly.

2.) The Troposphere is only Warming in One-Third of the Upper Hemisphere. the Southern Hemisphere is in a Cooling Trend in the Troposhere. But it doesn't matter either way, because of the Complexity of the Planetary Climate Cycle. Climate Science is in it's infantile stages, and with CO2 only being a Minor contributor to the Greehouse effect, small changes in the Temperature of the Troposphere mean nothing. The planet has mechanisms in place that absorb the human effect and distort the debate, and which your side of the isle seems to have a hard time admitting to.

3.) Climate Modeling has been exposed as an unreliable source for prediction. Climate Scientitist can't even agree on which variables are accurate.

What is it your argueing excately? That the planet is warming....Well so What? It has warmed many times in the past without any human input.

[PAT]

Jimi:

Just as I suspected: No citation of mathematical science published in reputable journals especially recent research - to back up the case that something other than greenhouse gases is causing the global warming - yet more evidence that this is about science denial.

Yes, Earth has always warmed and cooled, but this is about the science of how it does, and what role greenhouse gases play.

Deniers seem to think that just because CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere, it must therefore play a small part of global warming. They are wrong. See again the new research further below.

I repeat again a challenge: Give citations of mathematical science published in reputable journals - especially recent research - to refute the science that I've been citing, including those three falsifications of the idea that the sun is doing it, and including in my first post
Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM
and specifically those below. That is, STOP DENYING published mathematical science in reputable journals, and instead START CITING it.

Again: Read all those reports I cited on the new research that's just come out. Since we're on the specific topic of whether it's the sun or greenhouse gases that are causing this warming: Again, copy and paste into Google, hit the button, and read and learn:

(1)

"Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated?" (2010)

["The SORCE data reveals that even though total solar irradiance declined from 2004 to 2007, the amount of visible light output from the sun was actually increased.

Unlike other wavelengths of light, visible light cuts through different atmospheric layers to warm the surface of the Earth directly, creating an overall warming effect.

If low solar activity can lead to a warmer Earth, the opposite might also be true, the team speculates.

It's possible that rising solar activity tends to cool-rather than warm-Earth, because visible light output is actually reduced.

If this is true, it would mean that climate scientists have been overestimating the contributions of the sun on climate change and underestimating the effect of human activity, according to Michael Lockwood, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s University of Reading."]

(2)

"Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows" (2009)

{"In research published in Geophysical Research Letters, and highlighted in the May 1 edition of Science, Adams and Pierce report the first atmospheric simulations of changes in atmospheric ions and particle formation resulting from variations in the sun and cosmic rays. They find that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate."]

(3)

"Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (2006)
["Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley."]

(4)

"Cloud 'Feedback' Affects Global Climate and Warming" (2010)

["Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study..."]

(5)

"Cloud Study Predicts More Global Warming" (2010)

["...climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see."]

(6)

"Earth more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought" (2009)

["In the long term, the Earth's temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience."]

(7)

"Global Temperatures Could Rise More Than Expected, New Study Shows" (2009)

["The kinds of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide taking place today could have a significantly larger effect on global temperatures than previously thought, according to a new study led by Yale University geologists. Their findings appear December 20 in the advanced online edition of Nature Geoscience.']

(8)

"Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature, New Modeling Study Shows" (2010)

["The study...examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation...Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect...A companion study...shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect."]

[Jimi]

Pat,

You win! AGW is major CO2 caused problem....now go play in the street!

[William]

Pat,

Exactly WHAT do you propose to do about it? Something serious, that people will actually do without massive governmental force, oppression and violence.

[PAT]

William:

Before I answer your questions, recall that research I cited in my first post
Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM

Again: It calculated what would happen if the planet from ANY set of causes warmed 12 and then 21 degrees Fahrenheit - which is roughly the same as an increase of 7 and then 12 degree Celsius. Yet again, I tell you that they found that by the time those temperatures were reached, the combination of heat and humidity would be so great that roughly half the planet would have reached the point of being blanketed in so-called heat-index or feels-like temperatures of just under 200 degrees Fahrenheit during the daytime summertime. That is, they found that Earth would see temperatures so hot, roughly half the planet would have become a dead zone by then, totally devoid of all warm-blooded life - no mammals, no birds, nothing - all such life will be killed by the heat by then. (This includes the Americas from southern North America to southern South America, all of Africa, and all of the southern part of Asia, including India and China. I mean, did you not see the map that they gave with the articles, it showing where in the world that would become uninhabitable? There would be much less land for the many billions of humans to live on, and so the world population would have to go down by the many billions. Forget Mao or Stalin: The one responsible for the most suffering and death in history will be humanity itself via humanity-made global warming.)

The reason such temperatures would kill off all warm-blooded life is because warm-blooded life evolved full-scale over all of Earth only after it sufficiently cooled - these temperatures of heat-index or feels-like temperatures of just under 200 degrees Fahrenheit during the daytime summertime happened most recently tens of millions of years ago. Warm-blooded life is not equipped to handle such extremely high heat-index or feels-like temperatures of just under 200 degrees Fahrenheit.

Keep in mind that if the planet is warming naturally, then it will be that much easier for humanity to do just that last extra little bit needed to be the difference between just another warmer climate and a climate so hot, it kills off most of the planet.

As to what to do:

I know what I'd like seen done, but you might want to try to answer that question yourself as to what you would want seen done - and if you believe in Deity, what do you think such Being would want done to avoid this destruction of most human life and almost all wildlife on the planet. Do you think such Deity would want humanity to just go on and continue to act in such a way so as to destroy everything? I think you know what I'm getting at: Such Being would want no expense spared and would accept no excuse for not preventing this apocalypse of not far from total destruction of life on Earth.

And to anticipate typical denier talk trying to argue against this mathematical science published in a reputable journal without citing mathematical science published in a reputable journal that it: If that happens, then par for the course. My challenge: Stop denying and start citing mathematical science published in a reputable journal.

[William]

Pat,

My main point, is simply this, mankind as a whole will NOT make a serious effort to either modify or adapt its behavior unless and until the crisis is upon us. Not to say that's the desired behavior, but I believe history indicates that it IS the behavior to expect.

[PAT]

William:

I was making the point that "what should we do" is entirely dependent on the consequences if we keep on increasing the greenhouse gases.

I therefore referred to that physics study in question in my first post
Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM
the study showing that a 12 and then 21 degree Fahrenheit global average temperature increase (which is roughly a 7 and then 12 degree Celsius global average temperature increase) from any set of causes by the time of a couple or few short centuries from now would cause half the world to be a dead zone by then, totally devoid of any warm-blooded life because of the almost 200 degree Fahrenheit heat index temperatures produced by extremely high levels of heat and humidity during the daytime summertime months, this covering roughly half the planet, including all the tropics and subtropics, which includes the Americas from the southern US to the southern parts of South America, all of Africa, and all of the southern part of Asia, including India and most of China. Again, see the world map included in that study. (I point out again that these levels of heat index temperatures have not been since for tens of millions or years - the large-scale evolution of warm-blooded life spreading to all over the world, including the warmer climates, happened only after the planet cooled down.)

I note yet again that this study was published by the National Academy of Sciences itself, the most reputable body of science in the world. Denying mathematical science published by that body while not citing any counter mathematical science that might exist published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal is proof that this really is about the science denial of the deniers.

(I outlined how this would mean the deaths of many billions of people, not just essentially all wildlife due to sufficient food chain disruption: The land mass that would be left inhabitable would be too small to support the many billions of people - many billions would have to no longer have kids, or not be allowed into the northern climates, etc - will Russia allow into Russia those billions in India and most of China and elsewhere in southern Asia to escape the heat? What would happen to the thousands of years old civilizations of India and China and other civilizations in the warmer climates?)

And so, since we should heed the warning of such dire consequences, we should engage in MASSIVE public and private investment in science and technology to push along as fast as is possible the development of energy generation that will not turn the world into a heat and humidity furnace of just under 200 degree Fahrenheit heat-index temperatures.

And there should be massive subsidies for energy production that does not add to the greenhouse burden.

Where do we get the money for the investment and subsidies? There are sources such that it would not have to be only from government and from taxes. How? Here's how:

It's based on a little known fact: Of all the businesses in the world, Big Banking is the only business in the world that gets massive amounts of free money to continue to operate from the central banks of the world, which are those governmental or quasi-governmental entities that are given the legal right to create out of thin air any amount of money, such money made available to Big Banking in various ways. And on top of all that, we know that the powers-that-be running the governments of the world consider the big banks of the world to be too big to fail - we know that they would never allow the real possibility of a world-wide financial catastrophe. Because Big Banking gets all this free money from we the people of the world via government or quasi-government central banks, and because they have in addition to that all these implicit government guarantees to stay in business, I most certainly am one who thinks that it is time that we make it so that Big Banking no longer "owns" the people - we need to get back to the time when Big Banking served the people, not the other way around. That is, I think that because of these two facts, it is totally fair to force the big banks of the world, in exchange for this guarantee of staying in business, to direct some of their massive amounts of trillions of dollars they have to play with beyond mere operating costs to subsidize the generation of energy that would not add to the greenhouse burden - and that would include nuclear power as well.

We therefore should force the central banks and commercial banks of the world to direct their lending so that, instead of mainly just making ever richer the Wall Street type super rich of the world, the Main Street economies of the world are benefitted once again, the most important of part of these Main Street economies being all these areas of science and technology - they must be fully funded; there are many innovators and entrepreneurs out there who need funding. Here are a few of the many, many things that should be fully invested in: Read and learn, including about all the new things going:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_energy_plant_in_Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Cells_and_Hydrogen_Joint_Technology_Initiative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

There should be massive subsidies of such things that do not add to the greenhouse gas burden, as well, not just lending to them. It is insane to add greenhouse houses to the atmosphere when we could for instance be generating electricity without adding to the greenhouse burden. Nuclear power has become so safe, they now have melt-down-proof designs. (What, we should rather see the end of the vast majority of all warm-blooded life on Earth rather than have to deal with nuclear waste, which can be dealt with in ever better ways via ever better technology?)

By the way, the reason I keep repeating myself on this most important research and all that other research I keep citing like in my recent post of
Jan 20, 2011 5:14:53 PM
is that we are being warned about destroying the Earth: To use a Biblical metaphor, deniers keep covering up their eyes and stopping up their ears regarding this warning humanity is being given through this physics published by the National Academy of Sciences and elsewhere, a warning to cease and desist from this ever more spewing of greenhouse gases that will destroy - kill off - God's creation of life, especially its pinnacle, which is the higher animals, namely mammals, especially including us.

[Jimi]

Pat,

"We are being warned about destroying the Earth"

You have to be kidding me?

The problem is your position is the minority poistion. There is no need to sit here and battle with you over what evidence I can provide and what evidence you can provide. You keep claiming that you have some kind of Moral "High-Ground" over the Science, and all you provided were non peer reviewed articles. Well.....So what? I can do that all day. For every piece you provide I could provide one that directly refutes it.

For example:

"How Peer Reviewed Studies Trash the Myth"

http://www.suite101.com/content/no-scientific-consensus-on-human-climate-chan-a218400

"Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

You obviously have no understanding of the signifigance of Climate-Gate, no understanding of the fraud in the modeling, no understanding of the agenda driven propoganda machines, no understanding of the discreditation of most all of the IPCC Reports that originated this "Crisis"

[PAT]

Jimi wrote:

"...all you provided were non peer reviewed articles..."

WRONG!!!!!!

ALL - that's right, EVERY LAST ONE of the articles whose titles I gave in my posts
Jan 16, 2011 10:59:54 AM
Jan 16, 2011 12:13:55 PM
Jan 16, 2011 6:36:10 PM
Jan 20, 2011 2:19:33 AM
Jan 20, 2011 5:14:53 PM
are reports on mathematical science published in peer-reviewed, reputable journals, and some of them are the published paper itself. I leave it to you to dig up most of the actual studies being reported on. If you are too lazy to do that, then too bad for you.

This includes the one that shows that the end of the world would occur because of 200 degree F heat-index temperatures blanketing half the planet from a 12 and 21 degree F global average temperature increase, and this is published by the National Academy of Sciences itself. I gave the title of the paper itself as well as articles about it. Since you might be too lazy to go back to my prior posts, here is yet again the title of the paper itself and here, even a link to it:
"An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat
stress" (2010)
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

You are proving my case that you are a science denier when you deny this and ALL that other science I cited without citing even a single bit of RECENT mathematical science that supposedly refutes it.

You are proving my case that you are a science denier when you speak of the so-called fraud of mathematical modeling: You are proving that you are a science denier, since mathematical modeling nowadays has come the standard mode of operation of working scientists and engineers - everything is done by mathematical modeling via computers these says, including the design and operation of aircraft, power grids, medical scanning, you name it, and on scientific research, you name it.

Yes, my position - and the position of science - is the minority position in the world of scientific quacks and cranks that science deniers live in - some of these quacks and cranks of course being in science and being scientists themselves. But that's just fine with me.

And Climate-Gate? That's about OLD science. I keep saying that all you deniers can come up with is problems with some OLD research. Fine; forget that particular old research. Why? We don't need it. Why? All the RECENT science that I cited has NOTHING to do with what Climate-gate is about. (And tree rings? Who needs tree rings when we've got more and more satellite and other data coming out of our ears!)

And about those papers you cited:

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

To quote:

"In a 2006 letter to Australia's Media Watch, Peiser explained that he had retracted some of his original critique and elaborated on some of his comments: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous".[13][14]"

And that was way back in 2006, which was BEFORE all this RECENT mathematical science I cite that once and for all is putting the nails in the coffins of the denial of greenhouse gases being the cause of global warming going on for the past century.

As for that infamous paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner:

Their paper has been repeatedly debunked in the peer review process. One example:

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

To quote:

"In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings."

Keep those attempts at citing science published in reputable journals, Jimi, and I'll keep swatting them down by showing via citations that the peer-review process - these critical reviews themselves published in peer-reviewed journals - has shown them each and every last one to be false.

Here is an entertaining look at that infamous paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)

To quote:

"There is much to admire in Gerlich and Tscheuschner's work. It can surely become a new standard for miseducation and we can expect its deconstruction by psychologists and those who study theories of learning.

From a scientific point of view, there is less to admire.

They have no understanding of modern climate science, content to dwell on works from over 100 years ago and ignoring any modern work. They appear to believe that the basis for the "greenhouse" effect is an actual greenhouse (as was covered in On Having a Laugh) even though no serious work on the subject relies on greenhouses. (Some don't even mention it, some mention it to point out that the atmosphere doesn't really work like a greenhouse)."

And I again challenge anyone to do what I just did a bit further above, which is to cite mathematical science that specifically shows false the mathematical science studies of an opponent in a debate. I challenge anyone to do even just try to do that with respect to that mathematical science I cited, published in reputable peer reviewed journals, these being RECENT studies. I claim that no one will be able to find peer-reviewed published refutations of this science I cite, since these peer-reviewed published refutations of this science I cite don't exist.

Jimi, you have nothing but the complete denial of all recent mathematical science applied to climate. And that is being anti-science.

[Jimi]

Pat,

I cannot believe I am waisting my time on you. In my estimation you have really exposed your self as a Political Operative, or just really new to the overall debate.

The article you cited is very well known. The problem for which I doubt you understand is that it is written by Halpern. Halpern [Howard University Professor of Chemistry] is actually an outed Political Operative who's Blogs in the Climate Science world as Eli Rabett. Halpern has publically admitted that his focus is the Public Policy, and he has financial ties to NASA/GISS funding of the graduate program at Howard, and Soros funding in the Blog world, and he is not ashamed to politicize the science to get there. He clearly misrepresented Gerlich & Tscheuchner in his response, and everybody knows it including Halpern himself.

Your entitled to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but just running around calling people "Anti-Science" really makes you look quite foolish. Here is the Peer reviewed respond from Gerlich and Tscheuschner to Halpern's response of their position.

(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp. 1333-1359, April 2010)- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

"It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth."

[Jimi]

"The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas." - Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace (01-07-11)

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/food/newsletter-signup/Confessions+Greenpeace+founder/4073767/story.html?id=4073767

[PAT]

Jimi, you have put your faith in two individuals, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who on the issue of greenhouse gases are considered to be quacks and cranks by the professional physics community. This shows you to be anti-science.

These two quacks/cranks actual claim that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect, that gases like CO2 and methane actually do not make the atmosphere more opaque to infrared radiation, thereby trapping some of that infrared radiation. (Never mind why Venus is so much hotter than is should be, never mind that it's distance from the Sun does not explain how hot it is, never mind that the presence of all that CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus does explain why it is so hot there.)

The claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that their paper has not been refuted is not taken seriously by serious physicists, which is why the professional physics community has pretty much ignored them - they are considered to be quacks and cranks within the world of physics.

People like Gerlich and Tscheuschner are all over the place, and they are in every academic field. My field is mathematics and even within that field, there are people to be found with degrees in mathematics who continue to believe that they have proofs of this or that conjecture, even though the rest of us know that they don't.

But here is a little known fact about academia that so many people don't know: Sometimes these quacks/cranks get their false ideas past journal editors who commit the goof of not being as diligent with long and tiresome arguments as they should, and so these quacks/cranks get those false ideas published. (My physicist friends tell me that there are some people at that journal who are embarrassed about this.)

Yes, this is true even in mathematics. There are roughly 100,000 papers published per year all over the world in mathematics (roughly a few thousand journals all over the world publishing roughly a few dozen papers per year), and yes, over the past many decades, and so by sheer numbers and a low probably of not catching false ideas, sometimes they get published. And so in academia another measure of the truth and quality of a published paper is to see how often it gets cited by other published papers. (The false ideas, once caught as false ideas, don't get cited by other papers.)

Jimi, people like you also exist around the edges of the world of mathematics, hanging onto every word of these mathematical quacks/cranks. Since we in mathematics have better things to do than bother with such quacks/cranks, the people like you on the edges of mathematics wrongly take our silence as an admission that these quacks/cranks are actually right when they are actually wrong.

Going back to physics:

Here's another thing: Essentially every serious climate scientist - and every serious person outside of climate science - who still claims that CO2 warming is insignificant ALSO REJECTS the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper as totally false.

I have cited many peer-reviewed papers throughout my previous posts, not one refuted by subsequent peer-reviewed papers. You cite only this silly paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that no one accepts except quacks and cranks - and so it is a refutation of nothing.

And so, regarding this "discussion" with you and most recently with respect to your remark, "I cannot believe I am wasting my time on you": Since you, like the physics quacks/cranks Gerlich and Tscheuschner, believe that gases like CO2 and methane being in the atmosphere do not result in the atmosphere being more opaque to infrared radiation, well, it's the other way around, Jimi: "I cannot believe I am wasting my time on you."

[Jimi]

Pat,

"you have put your faith in two individuals, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who on the issue of greenhouse gases are considered to be quacks and cranks by the professional physics community."

Your evidence?

The most prolificate refute to Gerlich has been Eli Rabett (aka Joshua Halpern). He has no research of his own to back up his claims, no crediable reputation, no credentials in Climate Science and a political agenda which was completely destroyed by Gerlich....Of course he is the most prolific refutation of Gerlich........Ha!

Most of the idiot crap you have spewing is coming from Halpern and Hansen, both names equal mud in the real world, and you don't even know it, but your out there telling people they are Anti-Science....your a damned fool!

Going to Blogs to get opinions that cite and reference Peer Reviewed Research....is not actually providing Peer Reviewed Research for which you base you position from...Get a clue!

[PAT]

My evidence of what, that you have put your faith in a couple of quacks/cranks or that they are quacks/cranks? That you have put your faith in them is clear, and the fact that they are quacks/cranks is based on their silly claim that there is no such thing as greenhouse gases - they claim that increasing levels of gases like CO2 and methane do not result in the atmosphere becoming more opaque to infrared radiation, and they claim that reducing or even removing entirely these gases from a planetary atmosphere would have no effect on temperature. There is no reputable physicist on the planet that is willing to touch this silly claim of theirs with a billion foot pole, since anyone who wants to be thought of as a scientist and who believes crankery is also a crank. In fact, this includes all those who still have reputations but are skeptical of CO2 being the main cause of past warming. They are not willing to say they believe that increasing levels of gases like CO2 and methane do not result in the atmosphere becoming more opaque to infrared radiation; this is because they, too, do not accept crankery and they, too, do not want to be thought of as cranks.

And you need to stop lying, Jimi:

First, the two people you talk about are not the authors of the peer-reviewed studies I cite.

Second, an indirect citation is in fact a citation.

Third, I'm giving the titles of news reports at online science news magazines like Science Daily, not opinion articles, of peer-reviewed research. I have chosen to do that most of the time instead of linking to the actual research since people who are not professional scientists would get more out these reports, since the reporters not only report on the what the research says, but get quotes from the authors of the study, these quotes not found in the research articles themselves.

The only thing humanity has to free itself from any tyranny by religion and politics over the real pursuit of truth is science, where science is expressed through the system of published papers in peer-reviewed, reputable journals that cover the science in question.

Yes, sometimes garbage gets published in peer-reviewed contexts. That's why we should look to other papers published in peer-reviewed, reputable journals. That's why we should look at the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature, concentrating on the most recent - that way we can sieve out the occasional garbage that gets through, like that paper by those two German cranks, and what we get is that the CO2 hypothesis is the only one left standing. That's why if we are confronted with folks who like you deny ALL peer-reviewed science whose results they don't like, then we should smell politics or religion as the motivation as to why deniers like you are so anti-science.

I have cited many, many, peer-reviewed articles, none refuted, while you, Jimi, cited that one garbage paper that got through.

Here again are those news reports on the peer-reviewed science I cited - copy and paste and Google the titles, and there will be many links that bring up not only the news reports at many different outlets but also the research articles themselves:

"Cosmic rays, climate and the origin of life" (2010)

(Cosmic rays are not causing global warming.)
[".... we did not find any significant effects of ionization on cloud cover."]

"Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays,
According To New Research" (2008)

["New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover."]

"Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study
Finds" (2008)

["A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-calledgalactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small."]

"Cloud 'Feedback' Affects Global Climate and Warming" (2010)

["Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study..."]

"Cloud Study Predicts More Global Warming" (2010)

["...climate is actually more sensitive to perturbations by greenhouse gases than current global models predict, and even the highest warming predictions would underestimate the real change we could see."]

"Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature, New Modeling Study Shows" (2010)

["The study...examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation...Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect...A companion study...shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect."]

"Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated?" (2010)

"Earth more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought" (2009)

"Global Temperatures Could Rise More Than Expected, New Study Shows" (2009)

"Beyond Carbon Dioxide: Growing Importance Of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) In Climate Warming" (2009)

"Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows" (2009)

"Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research" (2008)

"Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds" (2008)

"Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (2006)

"Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed
Livable Limits, Researchers Find"
and
"Report: Climate change could render much of world
uninhabitable"
and
"The Health Effects of Hotter Days and Nights"

Here is the physics research itself:

"An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat
stress" (2010)
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

This research for the first time tested the limits of habitability. They found that if Earth sees a global temperature average temperature increase of just 12 and then 21 degrees Fahrenheit - which is respectively about 7 and then 12 degrees Celsius - FROM ANY SET OF CAUSES, which is very possible over the next couple or few centuries, at least roughly half the planet (including the tropics and subtropics) will have daytime heat and humidity heat-index or feels-like temperatures during the hot months of almost 200 degree Fahrenheit - a combination of heat and humidity not seen on Earth for tens of million of years. The study's author said, "The wet-bulb temperatures we are talking about would have a feels-like, or heat-index, temperature of between 170 to 196 degrees Fahrenheit."

Just several hours of exposure to heat and humidity heat-index or feels-like temperatures of at least almost 200 degrees Fahrenheit
kills all warm-blooded life. (This is because large-scale evolution of warm-blooded life happened over all the Earth only after Earth sufficiently cooled from where it was tens of millions of years ago.)

Therefore if these temperature increases occur, then over the next couple or few centuries at least roughly half the planet (including the tropics and subtropics) will become a dead zone, devoid of all warm-blooded life, and via sufficient food chain destruction almost all wildlife on the planet would die, period.

And human civilization would come to an end. Why? Consider: What land could be inhabited then could support only a drastically reduced human population - look at a global map to see which nations are in at least the tropics and subtropics - most of the Americas, and all of Africa and the southern parts if Asia. Stop and think of what all this means. For instance, does anyone think that Russia is going to be just fine and dandy with letting into their country all those many billions of people to its south, including for instance at least most of India and China? It would be the end of the great civilizations of India and China, since at least most of these countries would be part of the global dead zone, devoid of all warm-blooded life.

[Jimi]

Pat,

"CO2 hypothesis is the only one left standing."

No it is not.......It is the largest propaganda scam in the history of the world. The AGW Hypothesis based on the CO2 Hypothesis has not proven anything, except but to expose the political agendas involved.

CO2 is not the controlling factor in Infrared Radiation....it's Water Vapor! AGW Hypothesis claims that a "Positive FeedBack Loop" exists based on the amount of CO2 increase, and it clearly does not!

Case Closed!

CO2 emitts the exact same amount of energy (photons of energy) as it absorbs, it is impossible for it to store energy....conclusion....it is impossible for CO2 to trap the Earth's Heat. This has been experimented for 100 years now, and nobody refutes it.

You need to do more research on the "Peer Review Process," you need a better understanding of the fraud that has happend...why it happend...how it happend....you need a better understanding of the propoganda machine put in place to sell this junk science, because you clearly are clueless of it.

[PAT]

I wrote:

"CO2 hypothesis is the only one left standing."

Jimi wrote:

No it is not.......It is the largest propaganda scam in the history of the world. The AGW Hypothesis based on the CO2 Hypothesis has not proven anything, except but to expose the political agendas involved.

CO2 is not the controlling factor in Infrared Radiation....it's Water Vapor! AGW Hypothesis claims that a "Positive FeedBack Loop" exists based on the amount of CO2 increase, and it clearly does not!

Case Closed!

CO2 emitts the exact same amount of energy (photons of energy) as it absorbs, it is impossible for it to store energy....conclusion....it is impossible for CO2 to trap the Earth's Heat. This has been experimented for 100 years now, and nobody refutes it.

I reply:

Says who? You? Who are you? You and the science cranks you put your faith in say that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect - you and they imply that even the total removal of CO2 from any planetary atmosphere would have no effect on the temperature of that planet. Pure crankery. Says who?

The net result of the entire peer-reviewed published literature on the mathematical science, physics, and chemistry covering climate science says so.

Jimi wrote:

You need to do more research on the "Peer Review Process," you need a better understanding of the fraud that has happend...why it happend...how it happend....you need a better understanding of the propoganda machine put in place to sell this junk science, because you clearly are clueless of it.

I reply:

By your rhetoric and by all the other similar rhetoric by those like you who can't cite peer-reviewed science to back up their case (except that one paper by those two German cranks), it's those who can't cite peer-reviewed science to back up their case (except that one paper by those two German cranks) who are the ones spewing politically motivated propaganda.

What we have here is the science crankery of the claim that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have no greenhouse effect at all versus the net result of the entire peer-reviewed published literature on the mathematical science, physics, and chemistry covering climate science.

I've at least uncovered that after all this.

To comment on this idea of Jimi's that we should go with crankery instead of the net result of peer-reviewed science:

The only thing humanity has to free itself from any tyranny by politically motivated propaganda over the real pursuit of truth is science, where science is expressed through the system of published papers in peer-reviewed, reputable journals that cover the science in question. No, not all papers that get through to become published in peer-reviewed, reputable journals are correct in their conclusions - and so no paper is to be accepted no matter what. That's why we should look to other papers published in peer-reviewed, reputable journals to see whether there are contrary results. That's why we should look at the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature, concentrating on the most recent, taking in the net result of all that. If we are confronted with folks who deny that peer-reviewed science is the best we've got, then we should smell politically motivated propaganda.

To the readers who missed it: For those who prefer to go not with the cranks but with peer-reviewed science, see my prior post
Jan 26, 2011 12:12:47 AM
and copy and paste and Google the titles of all those news reports reporting on a small sample of peer-reviewed science, almost all of which is very new, less than one year old. Because the cranks are so bent on getting people to believe that there is no such thing as greenhouse gases, that only water vapor has anything to do with warming a planet, see especially the one titled:

"Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature, New Modeling Study Shows" (2010)

Recently they have finally started to work out in detail the physics of how clouds and water vapor and non-condensing greenhouse gases interact. As I do above in my prior post, I quote the news report again here:
["The study...examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation...Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect...A companion study...shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect."]

See also all the other reports in my prior post by also Googling the copied and pasted titles of the news reports, concentrating on the last one, which is very disconcerting: The reported on study published by the National Academy of Sciences itself, the most reputable body of science in the world, shows that if Earth sees approximately a 7 and then 12 degree Celsius average global temperature increase (which is approximately a 12 and then 21 degree Fahrenheit average global temperature increase) FROM ANY SET OF CAUSES, which means human-caused or natural or combined, then the heat and humidity would be so high on Earth that roughly half of Earth will experience heat-index (so-called feels-like) temperatures during the daytime part of the hot months of just under 200 degree Fahrenheit. (These are heat-index temperatures that kills all warm-blooded life including humans in just hours.) This would mean the end of almost all wildlife and the end of human civilization on Earth.

[PAT]

To amend my prior remarks:

I need to make an apology to the readers.

Jimi has put faith in the two cranks Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who claim that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, meaning for instance that removing all the CO2 from a planet's atmosphere would not change the temperature of the planet's atmosphere.

I assumed that since that absurd claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal, that claim was actually peer-reviewed.

It was brought to my attention that I should not have made that assumption, because that assumption was incorrect.

It turns out that that paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner was not actually peer-reviewed - it did not go through the refereeing process. It was not published in the section of the journal reserved for refereed articles, articles that actually go through peer-review. It was instead published in a low-impact journal and in the section of the journal where the articles actually don't actually get peer-reviewed or refereed.

I apologize to the reader for not catching this mistake.

What this of course means is that THERE IS NO PEER REVIEWED STUDY PUBLISHED IN A REPUTABLE JOURNAL COVERING CLIMATE SCIENCE THAT FALSIFIES EITHER THE EXISTENCE OF GREENHOUSE GASES OR GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY SUCH GASES.

To see more on this, go to Google and enter

Gerlich Tscheuschner "not peer reviewed"

exactly as is, with quotation marks where they are, and see what's going on. Here are two of the more than 5,000 hits:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=270&&n=429
70. KR at 00:53 AM on 27 October, 2010
mistermack - Google the horror that is "Gerlich and Tscheuschner". They claimed that the radiative greenhouse effect violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They were wrong, of course, and their physics were appalling. But their article, published as an editors choice (i.e. not peer-reviewed) in a low impact off-topic journal, got waved about by certain skeptics for quite some time. It was very sad... I shed some tears for the educational system during that time.
On the plus side, a lot of people had a chance to learn some basic physics during the arguments, and some of the more competent scientific skeptics, such as Roy Spencer, weighed in on the side of reason and dismissed it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=93&&n=179

51. KR at 10:14 AM on 5 May, 2010
[SNIP]
suibhne, it turns out that the G&T paper was NOT PEER REVIEWED; it appeared inInternational Journal of Modern Physics B as a review paper, not a research paper

[Jimi]

"The net result of the entire peer-reviewed published literature on the mathematical science, physics, and chemistry covering climate science says so."

B.S

[Jimi]

Pat,

You got nothing and you know it!

[PAT]

It's the other way around, Jimi: All you "have" is the crank claim that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, that such gases have no effect in terms of warming planetary atmospheres. You cannot cite a single peer-reviewed study to back up your crank claim that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas - not mention the fact that you cannot cite a single peer-reviewed study to back up your claim that any of the peer-reviewed science I cite is false.

I've got net result of the entire peer-reviewed published literature on the mathematical science, physics, and chemistry covering climate science. As evidence of this:

Again, for those who missed it, see my
Jan 26, 2011 5:08:31 PM
comment just a few comments above to see a summary of just a sample of all that peer-reviewed science that supports AGW. None of what I cite above is challenged by other peer-reviewed science. Taken together, it is clear that greenhouse gases is the only explanation for the majority of global warming.

If you cannot cite peer-reviewed science to back up your claims, then you have nothing. See my
Jan 26, 2011 5:08:31 PM
just above to see this, to see why it is that if we are to remain credible, we must stick to the peer-reviewed science.

[Jimi]

Pat,

Your entitled to believe whatever you want to beleive! Your linking skepticalscience and science of doom for christ sake, which severely exposes your position. I know you don't why I would say that.....but it's way to complex to explain it to you, and then I have to waist even more time proving that to you, because like any good leftist, you would deny the reality.

All I ask is......if you want to have faith in something....why are you trying to push it on everybody else? Most people have common sense, and aren't paying attention to you....because you lost credibility way up thread....and they classified you properly immediately.

We aren't bothering.....because we know that it doesn't matter....you are going to believe in the religon reguardless.

[PAT]

If there is anyone here that is practicing a "religion" here, it's you who practice the religion of rejecting ALL peer-reviewed science that says what you don't like for no other reason than you don't like what it says, where you don't like what it says for no other reason than your being brainwashed by all that anti-peer-reviewed-science political right-wing propaganda.

Why do I argue as forcefully as I do for the truth as revealed to us through the best tool we humans have for finding the truth about this world we live, which is peer-reviewed science?

It's because I have a problem with the truth including scientific truth being rejected by any and all who claim to be of The One who says "I am The Truth", that's why.

That's right; I guess it's actually a religious thing with me after all in terms of my motivations. In other words:

As you might have figured out by now, I am no atheist or agnostic (and I am obviously not addressing now anyone who reads this who is a right-wing atheist or agnostic), and I claim that anyone who claims to worship along with me The One who says "I am The Truth" but at the same time rejects the truth including scientific truth is a liar who by this inconsistency blasphemes The Truth. I claim that anyone who claims to worship along with me The One who says "I am The Truth" but at the same time rejects all warnings given through scientific truth to cease and desist from destroying the earth is a liar who by this inconsistency blasphemes The Truth.

As I said already in one of my earlier posts in this comments section, I personally have no doubt whatsoever that The Truth is revealing to us through peer-reviewed science (this best tool we've got for finding the truth about this universe we live in) and specifically that peer-reviewed science I cited that we humans are on a path that will in fact result in at least half the planet (including almost all of the Americas, all of Africa, and all of southern Asia) being devoid of all warm-blooded life (including humans) and uninhabitable by all warm-blooded life (including humans). It will in fact result in over at least half the planet becoming such that the heat and humidity during the daytime during the hot months will simply be too high for any warm-blooded life to survive - we are talking a heat index temperature of just under 200 degrees Fahrenheit, which kills all warm-blooded life in just hours. I cited again and again that peer-reviewed science that says this, this peer-reviewed science published by the most reputable body of science on Earth, the National Academy of Sciences.

I have to say this: One has every right to wonder about what is in "the heart" of any and all people that have a flippant attitude toward even just the possibility that we humans are on the path of making at least half the planet uninhabitable and kill off essentially all of the pinnacle of creation, the higher life forms of warm-blooded life.

To all who care, here yet again at some prior comments I gave are all those studies I cited, one in particular for an almost complete list of what all I cited,
Jan 26, 2011 12:12:47 AM

Most importantly, here are news reports on this peer-reviewed science warning of the destruction of the planet and the science itself (copy and paste and Google the titles to get many news media outlets carrying the story):
"Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed
Livable Limits, Researchers Find"
and
"Report: Climate change could render much of world
uninhabitable"
and
"The Health Effects of Hotter Days and Nights"
Here is the physics research itself:
"An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat
stress" (2010)
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

It is very clear: If we humans do not heed this warning to stop going down this path of destroying Earth, then we humans will bring about by our own action this: "The time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth!" [Good News translation.] (No one will be able to get away with claiming that there was no warning or that it did not come soon enough.)