View Article & Comments

Dear Richard Haas,

As per Marc Morano's email below, herewith my contribution to the alleged "inanity" of the EPA report, thus proclaimed by Joe Romm, who it would appear does not have the slightest understanding of any of the laws of physics nor any understanding about the basics of chemistry.




As a retired analytical chemist and webmaster of www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com I would like to submit the following comments, which I hope will be taken into account and receive serious consideration.
---
By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever. The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth's surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.

Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area). If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead - instead, an instant cooling is experienced - instant.

Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we'd be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.

As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it - if only! All natural heating that takes place in a greenhouse (be it made with glass, plastic, cardboard or steel) is due to the restricted access of the heated air to the open atmosphere, where it would normally disperse its excess heat to the next available cooler molecule of any of the IR susceptible gases in our atmosphere in the cascading manner described above.

To classify carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming or as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practised by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science).

One further critical aspect of global warming alarmists that is so fiercely debated by all is the "climate forcing" property of carbon dioxide. Allow me to state categorically that, despite any and all arguments to the contrary, including the most elaborately well-balanced mathematical formulae by the best mathematicians in the world, the climate forcing ability of carbon dioxide equals exactly zero. Not 4 degrees C, not 1 degree C, not even 0.0001 degree C. Just plain zero. Even the much heralded graphic indicating that the first 20ppmv of carbon dioxide makes a difference to the air temperature that is much greater than any subsequent increase in concentration is a useless bit of info based on laboratory tests that have absolutely no relation to the open atmosphere. There exists not one single laboratory test on climate that can be extrapolated to mimic the open atmosphere and that includes the most advanced computers that in any case treat the earth as a flat disc with a 24 hour haze of solar radiation - about as far removed from reality as is possible.

It is therefore that I rest my case, as expanded upon on my website (see links below).

Sincerely yours,

Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/theory.html
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latest.html
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latestarticles.html

From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Subject: Joe Romm urges his readers to contact CFR to urge them to pull 650 Scientist report!

If any of you have time to write the CFR man Romm is urging his readers to write, it would provide a bit of balance to the alarmists at the moment.

The President of CFR is Richard Haas, Romm write: “You can let Haas know what you think of this inanity — and how it undermines the credibility of the once distinguished Council he was entrusted to lead — by emailing him at president@cfr.org “

Perhaps a few emails from climate realists would help offset the madness!

Council on foreign relations is duped by inhofe labels denial rehash an "Essential Document" and a "Primary Source"

Original Email from Marc Morano: -

All,

Romm is trying to say our Senate website called alarmists “lunatics.” We did not. We simply reprinted Motl’s analysis of the sun study. Just to be clear, this solar study and the author Romm is communicating with was not and is not in any way part of the 650 dissenting scientist report. It was simply part of our routine news round up of articles in a blog post. The professor is claiming the study was misinterpreted. I detect a lot of spin from her and Romm, but I have not had time to analyse her quote.

Our Senate website reprinted an excerpt of Motl’s long analysis of the study. Romm apparently did not notice the weblink to Motl, nor the word EXCERPT before Motl’s quotes.

Here is our Senate website report that included Motl’s quotes (way down the page)

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

And here is a direct link to Dr. Motl’s analysis of your study: Eichler et al.: Half of recent warming was solar

Romm is mistakenly trying to say our website wrote the analysis.

Just an FYI

Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Inhofe, CO2 — but not the sun — “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850

Romm versus Motl

Thanks

Marc


Email from Fred Singer to SMITH,GEORGE E

George

On the solar activity -climate link, take a look at the evidence in the NIPCC report “Nature – Not Human Activity – Rules the Climate” especially Fig. 14.

Pretty convincing, isn't it

Fred

SMITH,GEORGE E wrote

Well I am not sure I was able to decipher just who said what in that exchange; but I did find some puzzling things.

Given that the last 35 or so years of satellite based measurements of the solar “constant” (1368 W/m^2) amounting to about 3 sunspot cylces, show a peak to peak variation in that number on the order of 0.1% ; and given that prior to such satellite observations, the literature contains NO measurements of the solar Constant that are anywhere near that level of resolution or accuracy; to whit, from 1940 when P.Moore reported a value of 1323 W/m^2 until 1969 when M.P. Thekaekara et al, reported a value of 1351 W/m^2, and in between, at least 8 other groups reported values from 1326 to 1430 W/m^2, as reported in “The Optics Handbook” edited by Walter G. Driscoll and sponsored by the Optical Society of America; and furthermore given that there a virtually no reports of sunspot numbers, and only anecdotal tales prior to 1600, and no awareness of even the existence of sunspots as of 1250; just what is the scientific basis on which these authors were able to claim, not only correlation of solar activity with earth climate, but to actually claim causation.

My anecdotal response to such a claim would be “fiddlesticks.”, a scientific term denoting a level of unproven believability.

I should also note that other researchers have presented evidence in their published papers, that human beings produced global warming as long ago as 8000 years; even stopping an ice age in the process; so there is at least disagreement, that prior to 150 years ago, there is no evidence of human caused climate change.

Also the most studied data on atmospheric CO2 concentration goes back no further than the IGY of 1957/8, and since then has shown nothing but continued increase, and even acceleration, and hints at a rate of increase that likely persisted even before 1957, that goes back to around the 1930s, when it would merge with the claimed long lived background level of 280 ppm; which is claimed to have persisted for thousands of years.

Yet reported temperature records over the last 100 years show significant temperature cycling that shows absolutely no correlation whatsoever with the CO2 record; regardless of any time offset of the data; so the reliable history data for the last 100 years, presents no causative link between atmospheric CO2 and recent global surface temperature changes; or at least purported representations of that global surface temperature as given by GISStemp, HADcrut, RSS, and UAH historical anomaly sets.

Regardless of any claims as to human caused origins of any of the CO2 record; there simply is no causative relationship between that CO2 data and representations of the global surface temperatures as represented by the anomaly sets.

Indeed the only long term reported temperature and simultaneous CO2 concentration data, from ice cores over perhaps ¾ million years, strongly suggests that it is the global surface temperature changes that are the cause of subsequent CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere, and that that causation is delayed by about 800 years.

And interestingly enough, 800 years prior to today’s clearly rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, puts us right back to that 1250 AD era which is widely regarded as somewhere in the middle of the Mediaeval Warming Period (MWP).

That leads me to comment on the claim of recent (last 150 years) man made climate change; “fiddlesticks” !

But I am still puzzled as to who is quoting whom, in the exchange between Professor Romm and Anja Eichler (whose academic title is sadly lacking from the text), and Marc Morano.

George