Global Warming and Settled Science

ocean_acid

By Andre Lofthus

The AGW community would have you believe that the science in favor of AGW is settled. As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe. Atmospheric transmission measurements taken in the 1950s demonstrate conclusively that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming if global warming even exists.

A basic principle of science is that correlation does not prove causation. Climate scientists are working overtime fudging temperature related data showing global warming over many decades that correlates with the industrial revolution and increasing use of carbon-based fuels. Climate scientists are boldly asserting that this correlation proves global warming is caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.  Is there any real physics behind this unsupported bold assertion?  As I am about to explain, based on test data from the 1950s, there is not.

Read the rest at American Thinker

  • I posted this because it is essentially saying the same thing I’ve been saying for years about CO2 and saturation. But this is a scientist saying it, not poor little ol’ HVAC tech Neilio! 🙂

  • Rob N. Hood

    Wow, how great for you! Even though you’ve posted this very sentiment many times, via other articles; and the fact that you agree with non-AGW “science” does not make you some kind of genius. But maybe you are a genius of some sort or another, a savant perhaps. It’s really nice that a site like this exists so as to allow the rest of humanity a witness to your greatness. Saturation truly is your real calling.

    • Please explain what you mean by non-AGW science. This is the fundamental basis, and the foundation for the theory of AGW. This is as AGW science as AGW science gets!
      And it is not a “sentiment”. I can’t fathom why you would describe it as a sentiment. It’s actually a basic scientific fact that has been known since the 1950’s. And furthermore, I have always talked about it as a scientific fact, not a feeling based on emotion. That’s your domain.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Reading comprehension not your strong suit. I called the “science” you rely on and believe in “non-AGW science”. That is all. And wow, it’s based upon 1950’s data/info?? No wonder you seem to love and emulate that era so much. Like most Rightys, the 50’s were just the best…!! And to Dan below: your parroting of the Right’s stance on this is not needed. Neil’s got it under control. And there’s an overwhelming number of hard data that begs to differ with you and yours. That is all. Differently wired brains, left hemisphere or right hemisphere dominance that causes much of the disagreement with regard to most issues. Neither side changes the other’s minds. Sites like this aren’t really here to do that, they are here to solidify an existing “prejudice” via brain washing technique. Although sometimes they do work to keep the status quo, which is a much easier prospect than actually creating change.

        • Computer models are not hard data. And how does one access this hard data? Does one put in a FOIA request for it? Is that how you get it? Oh, and the 50’s? I’m not into anything 50’s. Music, style, none of that, not my thing at all.
          The Sun is hot. That’s a fact. A known fact that predates science itself, and it is no less true today than it was when Man first thought about it. A fact is a fact until it is dis-proven. The fact that the 15 micron band of IRR is 100% absorbed at 300 meters is a fact, and it doesn’t matter when that fact was established. What matters is that fact has stood since its establishment and has never been dis-proven.

          • Holio

            Great job Neilio. Robin Hood (one of the control freaks on the left) [Personal insult deleted by moderator.] who you should not waste your time arguing with. I’ve seen first hand how the the control freaks actually believe, through the use of faulty diagrams, that GHGs “radiate” heat back to the surface of the planet. While there may be a small amount of radiation, the net flow would be in the other direction from the surface outward, so the control freaks have it backwards.

          • Dan

            Hah! Try to get some raw “hockey stick” data and see where that gets you. Those climate scientists sure circle the wagons to make sure nobody sees their source material. Wonder why?

          • Fietser

            It doesn’t matter what the absorption rate is, CO2 gets higher in the atmosphere causing less radiation of heat. As you like to call it, fact.

          • I think it does matter, and it is significant. But really it does not matter because CO2 is still less than 1/10 of 1% of atmospheric composition. And to think of it like a blanket covering the Earth is like thinking a few strands of dental floss can cover a person like a blanket.

    • Dan

      Pish.

      Been busy at the state Capitol and organizing events, but I’ve seen things get too personal here, lately. Self-police, please!

      The hard data favors the “non-AGW” position… In other words, the position of geologists throughout human history and students of pre-history.

    • tom brown

      Not coping too well with collapse of your disaster religion, are you Rob?.

  • Mark

    Agree with Dan. AGW seems to require almost religious like faith in the leaders, without actually viewing the duplicatible facts of physics. Attack an AGW religion with scientific fact, receive vitrol in return.

    • Amen! 🙂

    • Mark

      That’s because the AGW story follows the primal motif of the apocalyptic Flood which is latent in the human imagination and exists in one form or another in nearly every religion and folklore tale in the world.
      The motif in the general sense claims that due to mankind’s collective “sin” against the Divine, the weather will turn wrathful and the seas will rise and destroy civilization unless some sort of salvation or repentance ensues. The AGW narrative follows this motif exactly, with Al Gore as this myth’s Noah and burning fossil fuels as “sin”. The dis-believers are labeled heretics (deniers).
      Those that have weak intellect, poor scientific literacy, while claiming to be irreligious, are very susceptible to the imaginative power of such universal myths and are prone to adopting environmentalism as a replacement for traditional religious fundamentalism which they have rejected. However, the psychological process is identical to a Biblical literalist, only the environmentalist cites “science” as their scriptural appeal to authority; and like a biblical literalist, selectively interprets and misconstrues the scripture to vindicate their belief.

      • I have not considered that. That is actually quite fascinating. It does fit, and explains a lot. Thanks Mark.

  • Fietser

    Let me guess, this is not a peer reviewed paper but a blog?

    • So? Would it matter if it was peer reviewed? You would reject it anyway. Ok. You want peer review? How about this?
      http://junkscience.com/2014/04/24/roy-spencer-responds-to-andre-the-physicists-essay/

      • Fietser

        Thanks for confirming it is just a blog.

        • Oh, no problem. If you don’t like it you can go away. It confirms what I thought, though I learned from Dr. Spencer that it is more complicated than that, but hey, that was a blog post too! This is not a scientific blog. This is an opinion blog. So stick it where the Sun don’t shine, because I really don’t care if it matters to you if it is a blog post, or a peer-reviewed paper. Tell you what, I want you to post a peer reviewed paper that contains proof of AGW. Oh, and it can’t be a study of computer models. I want a peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves AGW. Go on boy, fetch!
          Here are some peer reviewed papers for you. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

          • Rob N. Hood

            There goes that supposed Mr. nice guy approach Neilio has been trying to cultivate.

          • No more, Mr. Nice Guy. No more Mr. Clean. No more Mr. Nice Guy, they say, he’s sick, he’s diseased. – Alice Cooper.
            Great song!

          • Fietser

            You learned something from Dr. Spencer. Good for you.

          • I haven’t learned a thing!

  • Ben

    Wait a sec. The 100% refers to the percentage of potential energy that hits the CO2 that is absorbed by it, and adding more CO2 would increase the chance that energy hits a CO2 molecule. The fact that there is a 100% band simply means that all of the energy in that band THAT HITS the CO2 is absorbed, not that just all of the energy in that band is already absorbed. Besides, there are areas on the edge of the band, which are not 100%, which would increase by his reasoning.
    If climate change isn’t real, then why do 97% of scientists believe it? I doubt that most of the vast scientific community is Democratic, considering that it’s the Republicans who are rich enough to afford the higher-level studies.

    You may think this is nonsense, but PLEASE consider what I say.

    • 97% of climate scientists don’t believe it. There are only a dozen or so “climate scientists” behind all the science backing up global warming. Maybe 97% of those scientists adhere to a principle of certainty about warming (and it’s their job to prove it), but see here for a list of scientists who Don’t buy it: http://www.petitionproject.org/

      Want an eye-opener? Try to compile a list of scientists who adhere to the notion that man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming is a real problem, then tell us what the percentages really are.

      • Ben

        How many of these scientists are Republican?

        I don’t think that many of these scientists know the full impact of climate change. The problem is that they don’t see the full perspective from which climate change happens.

        Also, there are 7 billion people in the world right now. Next to that number, 31,487 people doesn’t really sound like that much, even when you compare it with 400 million US citizens.

        Besides, most people who believe in climate change are more moderate, and they don’t want to broadcast their name out to everybody. If I am one of the 3%, then why are the party lines, and the believers and the non-believers in the overall population around 50-50?

        I don’t mean this to be inflammatory, but you get the point…

        • Rob N. Hood

          That’s an interesting comment. It would be very interesting to find out the political leanings for all the scientists who have a professional opinion re: climate change. We already know the political leanings for the general public re: the issue. And while there is a dispute going on about the actual percentage of scientists who believe in AGW, and that it may not be as high as 97%, there have been several responses from people who have tried to determine the actual number/percentage. As far as I can tell from all that the number is still a clear majority who believe in AGW, much to the dismay of those who cannot abide by it. And they claim we are religiously fanatic about it. Cults consist of the minority, always, by definition. And in this case those are the deniers, and it is they who are cultishly fanatical.

        • “I don’t think that many of these scientists know the full impact of climate change. The problem is that they don’t see the full perspective from which climate change happens.” -Ben

          Just what is the full impact of climate change? Do you know?
          And, do you see the full perspective from which climate change happens?
          Are you talking about natural variations in climate? Or, are you talking about anthropogenic climate change.
          I ask because I understand the theory of anthropogenic climate change predicts that adding an unnatural amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will supposedly cause an increase in the global temperature average, which in turn would cause changes in the climate. The theory never said anything about causing the global temperature averages to stagnate, or that it would cause “extreme” weather events. Nor did it ever say anything about shifting the jet stream, or causing cooling. I’m just curious, where exactly is all this climate change that’s caused by warming? Where is the warming that’s caused the cooling where I live?

        • Dan

          Polls already show that the majority of the general population don’t rank global warming as a serious problem, but that’s beside the point. Show me a list of accredited scientists who believe anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem and let’s compare, shall we?

  • Natan

    “If global warming even exists”

    YES it exists! It is a fact. Don’t deny the obvious.. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/?gclid=CJbVsO_wj74CFXLJtAodC3UApg#feature

    • Wow, really? You’re going to use, as evidence, the Micheal Mann hockey stick graph? That has been destroyed utterly, I don’t know how many times, or how many ways, by how many people.
      And an account of “I know a guy that flew over the Arctic”? Seriously?
      Glaciers respond to temperature changes on a scale measured in centuries.
      Sea level measurements are uncertain because of changes in land level due to isostatic rebound, and tectonic plate movement.
      I could go on, and on but what’s the point?
      I do agree that global warming does occur, but so does global cooling, and so does global temperature stagnation. Which is what has been happening for the last 17+ years, stagnation despite a steady rise in atmospheric CO2. And all of those things have occurred naturally in the past, including varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have to say, it really isn’t obvious at all.

  • Hamin’ X

    Yes, it is truly settled and the Feds have put the nail in the coffin with this latest report.

    http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

    Not! Talk about double speak.

  • Josh
    • It’s easy to call someone “crazy” when you want to discount their argument. Not only are we not crazy, but our arguments have merit as well. Basically when someone say’s “they’re crazy, don’t listen to them”, they are really saying that they don’t want you to even hear the argument for fear of you not supporting their argument any longer.
      I say look behind the curtain. Find out as much as you can about every aspect of it. And do not base your opinion on someone saying “oh they’re crazy, don’t listen to them”. Don’t be lazy! Do your own research, and form your own opinion.

  • Josh

    The argument against climate change is irrational, childish, and ignorant of science in its entirety. To dismiss data collected from 30 years by international scientists and widely accepted is to be on the same scientific literacy as a young earth creationist. Around the earth, we see countless signs of climate change: rising sea levels, etc. CO2 emissions by men have been detrimental to the health of the environment, and the vast majority of reports and peer reviewed studies will back this. If there wasn’t climate change, then there wouldn’t be any environmental organizations, or a sticker on the bottom of plastic water bottles that says EPA. In the most developed countries in the world, the realization of climate change is in the 90 percentile. Every scientific centre with merit will tell us that climate change is happening, and it is man made. Have you heard of green house gases? Have you seen the immense pollution of cities and what it does to the environment around it? How can you dismiss such evidence and facts when we see it everyday? Every student in America or England learns about climate change in science class. It, like evolution, is a fact backed by evidence.

    • Well, Josh, no one is arguing against climate change. The climate changes whether or not humans have any influence upon it. It has been changing for as long as there has been a climate.
      The glaciers are melting! Yes, they are. But they have been melting, or receding, since the end of the last ice age. The same can be said for sea levels. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age too. But the problems with measuring sea levels is that the level of the land also changes over time due to what is called isostatic rebound, which is the land rising up from the weight of a mile of ice upon it being removed, and from tectonic plate movement.
      Ocean acidification? Tell you what, if the pH level of the ocean ever becomes neutral, or 7, and starts to drop from there, then we can talk about acidification.

      I’d like to know what data you are talking about that has been collected over 30 years. Are you talking about observational data? No, I don’t think you are, because observational data over the last 30 years does not support the theory of AGW. The “vast majority of reports and peer reviewed studies” of which you speak are based on computer projections. And I know this because that is the only place where AGW exists. It does not exist in the real world. In fact 90% of all computer climate projections have failed to come close to reality. The only computer climate projections that have come close were ones that had as a parameter reductions in anthropogenic production of CO2, and other greenhouse gases, which has not occurred either.
      Tell you what Josh, you go look and see what the “solutions” for “climate change” are. Then go and find what the expressed goals of the 60’s environmentalist movement were. I think you may be surprised to find out that they are one in the same. Oh, and they were the same “solutions” for global cooling too. Go figure?

  • I live in Seattle. 15000 years ago there was an ice sheet one mile thick pressing down upon the land right here. I always imagine a Pleistocene Al Gore wring his hands as the ice sheet begins to melt, shouting how its our fault for not adhering to his dogma. An adoring media would be crying how the fragile artic plants are being pushed out by others. The artic foxes suffering in the heat etc etc etc ad nausum. Pleistocene Democrats would be stifling human endeavor to “Save the planet”, and a multitude of fools would be blindly following along.
    The whole gorbal warming thing disgust me! Three degrees warmer in 100 years! Please, They could just impress the hell out of me by predicting the weather for this weekend within three degrees!

  • PS. Oh yeah, just in case you don’t know, the ice sheet melted, it wasn’t the fault of humans and we are all just fine here in Seattle without the ice.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Wow Dandog, whew, now we feel much better. Thanks for that bit of insight and brilliance.

    • S Man

      I, for one, thought it was elegantly beautiful.

  • Your Welcome, sorry you missed it. BTW science is not a democratic process/vote/consensus. A good theory is one that explains the evidence and is both testable and predictable. If it fails these it doesn’t matter who votes for it. So in other words your side need an accurate prediction.
    Feel free to miss this point too, others won’t.

  • Rob N. Hood

    I was referring to your (amazing!) reference to the melted ice sheet (ice age) that covered much of the US. And now your other “amazing” insight about science “voting” is nonsensical at best. Maybe you can enlighten me further about what I supposedly “missed.” Feel free to school us all about the roundness of the Earth while your at it.

    • Rob N. Fail

      Simply brilliant Rob N. Hood, your personal attacks are getting you VERY far. This whole blog is ticking me off, as I was hoping to actually see some hard scientific data. My mistake was trusting a website run by normal humans.

      P.S. Dandog’s comment about voting and scientific proof does make sense to me as a third party, and your need to belittle it makes me think your insecure.

      • Rob N. Hood

        So explain it to me, the “voting”, I don’t get it, really. I’m all ears (eyes).

  • Hamin’ X

    I think that this youngster has it figured out:

    http://tinypic.com/r/ekfcdf/8

    • That’s good! I like that.

  • MHoward

    Its simple I will take AGW more seriously when someone will tell me what the desired temperature is and why

    • I asked a similar question, in another post, but so far I haven’t really got an answer. I don’t think anyone can answer that. And I, like you, would take it more seriously if they could answer questions like this. But I don’t think that day will ever dawn because it’s not about science, or facts for that matter, this is a political movement to achieve a political goal.

    • Fietser

      The ideal temperature from a human point of view would be when we could grow the most amount of food. As that is going down a bit cooler would be nice. Also for the species extinction rate to be lowest a stable climate would be good. Right now that isn’t the case.

      http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

      • Psst, (I’m whispering conspiratorially, can you tell?) I have a little secret for you Fister, the climate has never been stable. It will never be the case. I don’t know where you could have gotten the idea that there was ever a point in history where the climate was stable.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Your condescending response N. ignores current reality. While you are technically correct, the current changes are the greatest since the dawn of man, which alters the game completely, and not in man’s favor. The time period of human’s has been very stable, and yes probably not permanent based upon the historic record, but to dismiss people who are concerned about this issue is not just arrogant, it’s pathological.

    • S Man

      You actually believe that? What about the Middle Age warming period, the part they conveniently removed from the chart for “An Inconvenient Truth?”

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.