View Article & Comments

This theory, like all the current theories of atmospheric warming being promulgated, runs afoul of the definitive evidence against the greenhouse effect, the comparison of atmospheric temperatures on Venus and Earth, presented by me at

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

(I strongly recommend also reading the comments following that article.) That comparison directly and unarguably reveals that the atmospheric temperature at any given pressure level is basically just a function only of the planet's distance from the Sun, nothing else (not CO2, not albedo, not the ocean), and that the atmosphere is warmed by direct apsorption of incident solar infrared radiation, not by first warming of the surface and not by additional infrared emission by the surface. A secondary effect is a local cooling inside clouds, probably due to the presence of liquid water in them (occurring as dilute sulfuric acid in the thick clouds of Venus).

The Venus/Earth evidence I have brought out trumps all of climate theory, and demolishes it. Even the "skeptics" need to face that overwhelming fact. The whole field is riddled with scientific incompetence, and no one is an expert.

Sorry Harry but I cannot accept that.

Some sceptics are promulgating the view that molecules such as CO2 water vapour and methane have no so called greenhouse effect.

Well it depends on your definitions.

The fact is that such molecules do indeed slow down the exit to space of energy received from solar input more than do molecules of nitrogen and oxygen.

Thus it is correct that in principle they do add to the energy content of the atmosphere.

However my contention is that on a watery planet such as the Earth their effect is of little significance in the face of the regulatory power of the water cycle and the natural variations from internal oceanic variability and from changes in the effect on the atmosphere of solar variability.

What I can accept though is that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth's oceans is linked to the solar shortwave input and that is linked to the distance from the sun and of course I have also pointed out that the equilibrium temperature of the oceans is dictated by solar shortwave input plus atmospheric pressure plus the strength of the molecular bonds between water molecules as compared to water vapour molecules.

Thus I think you will find that on reflection your objection is not valid.

Your Honor I object to this Councilors objection to Harry D Huffmans objection ! ! !

May it please the court, Councilor Wilde is a trained lawyer and an untrained scientist. He has repeatedly presented this failed hypothesis. Weather and climate are the final manifestations of heat flows from two sources, solar fusion and Earth's fission. These forces are inter-related and governed by a multitude of magnifying and buffering forces. Heat flows are then subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics with only three varibles....mass, specific heat and temperature difference. The atmosphere does not have the MASS to govern the temperature of 259 trillion cubic miles of mostly molten rock. The minimum 'heat' released for capture at night has limited 'thermal differental'. The specific heat for CO2 is less than that of standard air. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. This scientist, and councilor for TRUE science, directs the court to the series of articles posted herein in by "Joseph A Olson, PE". In addition the court should review the most current refinements to Earth science research posted at

http://www.FauxScienceSlayer.com

We further request that all future submissions with reference to "Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society" be accompanied by the actual "conditions" of that membership.

Ok Joe,

I know you contributed to 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' the main gist of which is to deny that there is any such thing as a greenhouse effect.

I'm afraid that discredits your opinions completely.

And the opinions of anyone who shares them.

Anyhow my point about the global equilibrium temperature being set by the oceans, the enthalpy of vaporisation and the atmospheric pressure is an entirely different issue.

Stephen,
I urge you to check the numbers. You'll find both Harry and Joe are correct. The greenhouse gas theory is busted. No evidence in nature supports it's continued promulgation. Adiabatic pressure and planetary distance from the sun is a far more compelling explanation. Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder sum it up neatly here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5770

Time to get out Occam's Razor and cut out this GHE nonsense.

So is it not accepted that molecules such as CO2 water vapour and methane do slow down the exit of energy to space more than do molecules of Oxygen and Nitrogen ?

Anyhow my point about the global equilibrium temperature being set by the oceans, the enthalpy of vaporisation and the atmospheric pressure is an entirely different issue

By the way chaps, I have often refrained from adverse comments on the posts of fellow sceptics when I felt they were getting things wrong.

If their incorrect views result in them attacking my work then I will no longer feel so constrained.

I want to hear and deal with objections from AGW proponents not objections from fellow sceptics.

There is a group of sceptics who are bringing sceptical views into disrepute by refusing to accept the proven thermal characteristics of the so called greenhouse molecules.

It is possible to become a 'self trained scientist' but very few who make this claim could pass the rigorous examinations required for a college science degree or career professional registration. Without this level of knowledge it is difficult to for those 'under-trained' to understand some complex subjects. One may 'nod' at the concepts of Thermodynamics and Electromagnetic Transmission and not be able to QUANTIFY any of the associated properties. That which you CANNOT QUANTIFY YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

There are in fact three sides to the climate debate. There are the Warmists, the Luke Warmists and the Deniers. Two of these sides are WRONG. "The proven thermal charactestics" are that the tiny mass of CO2 in the air CANNOT dictate the temperature of the vast Earth mass. The total extend of 'CO2 warming' is the time delay in Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) which is just a few milliseconds.

The unfortunate thing is that the Warmists & Lukes teach at the same schools, write the same textbooks and master & PhD thesis. All they can debate is the 'degree' of warming. To acknowledge that there is NO possible way CO2 can warm is a career ending admission. For those with limited science training it is easy to follow the Luke herd and deride the true deniers. Again, visit my website

http://www.FauxScienceSlayer.com

and read Prof Nasif Nahle's excellent article on the OLR delay at

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html

And Stephan, I find use of the Climate Realist comment section as a blog to be most distastefull. I have your email address, but wil not use it 'un-invited'. Gabe and John 0'Sullivan have mine. You may contact me in private to continue you 'self education'.

Well I have indeed shown "that the tiny mass of CO2 CANNOT dictate the temperature of the vast Earth mass" which is just as you say.

However I go a small step further and explain WHY.

I do not see how my article is significantly different from or inconsistent with what the rest of you are saying.

It is possible to accept the proven physical properties of so called greenhouse gases yet still demonstrate the absence of any significant greenhouse effect via a countervailing process such as an adjustment in the speed of the water cycle.

I really don't see your problem.

"The total extend of 'CO2 warming' is the time delay in Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) which is just a few milliseconds."

Agreed, because the speed of the water cycle changes at the same speed as does the quantity of GHGs.

Having considered carefully the comments of those who have set out objections to my essay I think I have determined the critical issue giving rise to those objections.

As regards radiative processes it is necessary to raise the entire system temperature in order to achieve an increase in outward radiation. Thus if something (a ‘greenhouse’ gas for example) slows down the transmission of energy through the system it is necessary for the equilibrium temperature to rise to regain energy budget balance.

However when evaporative processes are involved it is NOT necessary to raise the entire system temperature to achieve an increase in outward radiation. Instead all that is necessary is for there to be a redistribution of energy within the system.

Thus is it entirely reasonable to suggest that the radiative characteristics of greenhouse gases can be entirely offset by an evaporative response without the system equilibrium temperature needing to change.

My readers will note that as regards the top down solar effects I contend that it is not radiative effects that dominate but chemical processes in the upper atmosphere that respond to solar variability.

I contend that as regards the bottom up oceanic effects it is not radiative effects that dominate but evaporative processes.
Thus the issue of radiative balance is a mere distraction yet much of the climate industry concentrates on that alone to the exclusion of chemical and evaporative processes.

In the context of Mr. Wilde's latest article, and the comments above, the following might be worthwhile reading. The terms used above, in comments especially, such as "AGW proponent" or "skeptic" do not refer to expertise, but are instead labels for philosophical positions held by individuals across some range of possible opinion - in this case, with regard to climate change.

The notion of "expert" opinion is lost here. The article below addresses this, together with the necessity in our society and historic moment, to listen to experts, and to understand expert opinion. The notion of "consensus" among experts plays large in this, too.

Mr. Olson, above, touches on an old theme in this forum, that of participants who present themselves through "credentials" as having the mantle of expert knowledge; but in fact, so far as this reader can see, non present actually do. Mr. Olson's comments are welcome as indication that this persistent lack does not go unremarked.

The article, "On Experts and Global Warming", appears today in The New York Times. The writer is Gary Gutting, professor of philosophy at Notre Dame University. Here is the link:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

I may be reached in private email here: i (at) see . to . it

Bob Tyson:

I agree with the following words from that aticle by Gary Gutting:


"It follows that a nonexpert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by arguing that climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken seriously in our debates about public policy."

The level of scientific status claimed by climate science is not appropriate.

The only consensus is as to the thermal properties of greenhouse gases and the effects if everything else in the system remains the same.

However everything else does not remain the same and there is no consensus as to the precise outcome of adding a little more CO2.

Stephen Wilde:

You are a legal professional, if not mistaken. So you surely realize that by accepting as true the one part of Gary Gutting's article you have rejected the science, and the scientific consensus, that AGW is real, and removed any possibility that your own viewpoint, or hypothesis, can be given serious consideration?

Case dismissed. And so too with your closing statement. For in fact there is scientific consensus on the consequences of increasing CO2.

The Gutting article provided reminders of this, in the runup providing context for the part you chose to say you do accept. Again, as a legal expert, you surprise me by appearing to ignore the implications of taking that bit out of context, because — "It follows . . . " reminds us that this next bit is a summing-up of an argument, a logical and inevitable destination based on a series of immovable waypoints.

Here is the preceding part of the Gutting article. It covers the bases you refer to pretty well, and again I'm surprised you hadn't given these points clearer and better consideration, either in your response above, or — implicitly — in your article.

There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Nonexpert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. But nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts. As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so. It does no good to say that we find the consensus conclusions poorly supported. Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment has no standing.

It follows that a nonexpert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by arguing that climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken seriously in our debates about public policy.

So to paraphrase, you can't reject the consensus expert opinion in favor of the minority report without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And then, if you still insist, how do you answer the question, "So having dismissed the experts, by what means are we to confirm your authority?"

The only possible reply to that question that can be believed is that any hypothesis you present will stand or fall by empirical test. And that would require accepting expert review, but you've already rejected the expert position. So where does this leave us?

"The only possible reply to that question that can be believed is that any hypothesis you present will stand or fall by empirical test. And that would require accepting expert review, but you've already rejected the expert position. So where does this leave us?"

Empirical test is not dependent on expert review so your rant is of no value.