IPCC’s greenhouse narrative is becoming implausible, eminent climate scientist says
By Paul Homewood
London, 23 September – A prominent climate scientist has warned that the picture of climate change presented in the IPCC’s narrative is simplistic, ill-conceived, and undermined by observational evidence.
In a new discussion paper, Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) points out that the official picture, focusing narrowly on carbon dioxide as a warming agent, becomes implausible when applied to the details of the climate system.
According to Lindzen,
"If you are going to blame everything on carbon dioxide, you have to explain why, on all timescales, temperatures in the tropics are extremely stable while those in high latitudes are much more variable. The IPCC’s story is that small amounts of greenhouse warming near the equator are ‘amplified’ at high latitudes. But neither theory nor data support the idea of amplification."
Instead, says Lindzen, this pattern – of stable tropical temperatures and fluctuating ones in high latitudes – is mostly a function of natural processes in the atmosphere and oceans; in other words, changes in oceanic and atmospheric currents that transport heat poleward while drawing varying amounts of heat out of the tropics. These changes in transport affect the tropics, but they are not determined by the tropics.
"The changes in the earth’s so-called temperature are mainly due to changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles – at least for major changes. The changes in tropical temperature, which are influenced by greenhouse processes, are a minor contribution."
Richard Lindzen: An assessment of the conventional global warming narrative (pdf)
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Would Milliband understand this?
More complex than a bacon sandwich so probably not.
🤣🤣
Ed did manage a B in A’ level Physics and good grades in Maths and Further Maths, according to Wikipedia, so political fog, if not something worse on someone’s part, can’t be ruled out.
Political ideology unfortunately knocks several grades from all science subjects so on that basis he failed all his subjects
Depends how much you want to pay him!
“focusing narrowly on carbon dioxide as a warming agent, becomes implausible when applied to the details of the climate system. ”
The climate on Mars would seem to support that.
You have no idea how right you are.
There is little warming from CO2 in the absence of water vapor. That’s why Mars is cold. Every time we oxidize carbon fuels we add both.
CO2 has been more than double what it now is about 30 Myr-ago and the climate was warmer but still mild. The pH of the oceans was much less alkaline than today but the marine carbonate plankton thrived and diversified. This would seem to falsify the climate models and their dire forecasts.
It is interesting to note that those opposed to the CO2 warming hypothesis use Mars as an example, whilst those promoting the hypothesis use Venus as an example. Both planets have an atmosphere dominated by CO2, and both have water vapor only as a trace gas, calculated in ppm.
Both sides of the debate miss the importance of non-greenhouse gases, which are necessary for the greenhouse effect to work. Therefore the extremely dense atmosphere of Venus is the cause of the high temperatures and the low density of the Martian atmosphere the reason for the colder than expected surface temperatures.
Norman,
You are correct about the high pressure of Venus producing a high surface temperature. This is because the interception of solar energy by the atmosphere of Venus takes place near the tropopause and not at the surface.
A Modelled Atmospheric Pressure Profile of Venus
However, you are not correct about Mars, there is indeed a tiny greenhouse effect of +0.17 Kelvin. This arises because the average surface temperature of Mars is 210 Kelvin while The Vacuum Planet Equation calculates a value of 209.83 Kelvin.
Thanks for your reply, Phillip: an interesting hypothesis re the Venusian temperature.
I do not understand why you deem me to be incorrect on Mars: with an atmosphere 95% CO2, a surface pressure of 0.006 atm., it still contains around 15 times the CO2 compared to Earth. If one takes the figure given for Earth (a doubling of CO2 equivalent to a rise of 1C), then we should see a greenhouse effect of circa 4C, a lot more than you have estimated. Assuming your calculation to be correct, then I am also correct in stating that Mars’ surface temperature is cooler than it should be, if the sensitivity to CO2 is what we are being led to believe.
Norman,
Thank you for your reply.
Four important things to note
1. The surface pressure of Mars is 0.006 atm (i.e. 685 Pascals). At this pressure the Martian atmosphere is completely transparent to surface thermal radiant emissions. A comparison of the atmospheres of solar system terrestrial bodies shows that once the pressure drops below 100 mb (0.1 atm) then all planetary thermal radiation exits to space unimpeded. This pressure control on thermal radiant opacity explains why energy is lost to space from the Earth’s stratosphere.
2. I have calculated the average annual surface temperature for Mars (MY29) from data and the value is 210 Kelvin. (The Excel data files are on my Research Gate site).
3. The Vacuum Planet Equation is the recognised process for calculating the Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiant emission temperature of a terrestrial body. This value is 209.83 Kelvin for Mars.
4. Mars possesses a vigorous active troposphere with a tropopause of some 70 Km elevation. The presence of this large troposphere has forced me to conclude that the greenhouse effect on Mars is due to adiabatic mass motion circulation of air (as per Stephen Wilde’s hypothesis) and not due to CO2 induced thermal radiant opacity of the current paradigm (Our Work in Progress).
Glad they are coming around. A semester of paleobotany would have led to the same conclusions on many levels.
It is an excellent, fairly straight forward paper and several sections are well worth repeating to the broader audience. The discussion at the end (with Nick Lewis) is also worth reading. The issue of ECS is dealt with well, but Lindzen is not quite critical enough of the values used to justify the models that underwrite the whole madness of CO2 damnation: he mentions a lower bound of 1 deg K/ CO2 doubling, although, even that is probably too high to sustain a “fear-campaign”!
To be fair to Lindzen, he has, according to AZ Quotes, been critical elsewhere of the CO2 / global warming hysteria:-
“To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science.” ~ Richard Lindzen
and
“…there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.” ~ Richard Lindzen
Regards,
John.
Looking back to Rio 1992, where Chair Maurice Strong who was a proponent of World Government by the UN. He visualized the best way to accomplish the goal was to collapse Western societies was by creating mass hysteria proselytized by the willing dupes in our education system that CO2 is going to destroy the world because allegedly it will cause the temperature to go up 3*C.
All going to plan according to Miliband and his ilk.
The United Nations has been one of the organizations leading the manmade climate change push. The paragraph below, from the February 10, 2015 Investor’s Business Daily article “U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare” seems to state the goal clearly.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said
The CC scam is the vehicle for UN led ‘global socialism’
And it will be going even better soon if Parliament passes the Climate Education Bill!
” undermined by observational evidence. ”
Undermined by following a scientific process. The current situation would be laughable if the damage caused by the believers wasn’t so severe and continuing.
Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .
And yet the infamous BBC continues to espouse a narrative that even a minor gas leak is global warming (in Scotland)..?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62969519
Won’t installing million of heat pumps inevitably increase the quantity of F-gases accidentally released into the atmosphere?
Lindzen describes the pattern of warming in his paper — mainly at high latitudes (TMIN) and not much in the tropics (TMAX), that describes exactly what is expected from greenhouse gas warming. Then he appears to dismiss greenhouse warming as a possible cause. Lindzen has become a science denier.
Yeah?
So what about the world famous (but non existant) tropical troposphere hot spot?
I would have thought GangGreen could afford a slightly more credible troll than yo appear to be.
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.
It does not.
Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. One of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth’s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:
Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.
Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot
Link to this page
What the science says…
Select a level… Intermediate Advanced
Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.
Climate Myth…
There’s no tropospheric hot spot
The IPCC confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a tropical, mid-troposphere “hot spot” about 10km above the Earth’s surface. Yet in the observed record of the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, the predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent (source: Christopher Monckton)
Part 1: The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.
It does not.
Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. On of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth’s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:
2% increase in solar forcing (via RealClimate)
Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.
Doubling of CO2 (via RealClimate)
In the doubled CO2 scenario, there is a pronounced cooling of higher altitudes, i.e. the stratosphere, and this feature is entirely absent in the +2% solar scenario.
This stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming. For a more in depth discussion of why the stratosphere cools under enhanced greenhouse warming, see discussions at Skeptical Science and The Science of Doom. In other words, the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a “hot spot” in one and its absence in the other, it’s the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.
The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.
The Cliff troll:-
A hint for you.
When you copy a chunk of Fat Albert Gore’s ‘Disinformation for Climate Trollers’, try not to paste the text more than once.
@ thecliffclavenoffinance , where is the proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
thecliffclavenoffinance Your post is an excellent example of revisionism, and how you are being misled by your favourite websites.
Rather than websites, take a look at Santer et al: “Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere” (Science 1995). Prominent names among the co-authors of this paper include Santer, Wigley, Mears, Wentz, Free, Fu, Hansen, Karl, Meehl, Ramaswamy, and Schmidt.
These people knew what they were looking for. You might wish to downplay the hotspot, but they thought it was important, and they carried out this research with the aim of confirming the hotspot pattern in the real atmosphere.
Santer et al said: “Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations that include historical increases in greenhouse gases. Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere”.
Clearly these distinguished researchers disagree with your focus on stratospheric cooling. Your position is at odds with conservation of energy since a cooling of a layer of the atmosphere cannot be the source of an increase in downwelling IR at the surface.
Santer et al goes on to say: “Simulated surface warming is amplified in the tropical troposphere, corresponding to a decrease in lapse rate. In contrast, a number of radiosonde and satellite data sets suggest that the tropical troposphere has warmed less than the surface, or even cooled, which would correspond to an increase in lapse rate “.
And: “Our focus is on the amplification of surface temperature variability and trends in the free troposphere…. The scaling factor is simply the ratio between the temperature variability (or trend) at discrete atmospheric pressure levels and the same quantity at the surface”.
Santer et al did not find the predicted scaling ratio and concluded: “On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification”.
Christy et al followed up the above paper in 2010 with: ” What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?”
Likewise, this paper contradicts your stance. Christy et al says: “These model simulations indicate that a clear fingerprint of greenhouse gas response in the climate system to date is that the trend of TLT should be greater than Tsfc, by a factor on average of 1.4”. (TLT is lower tropospheric temperature trend in the tropics, and Tsfc is the adjacent surface temperature trend.)
Christy et al reached the same conclusion as Santer: “Given that the surface temperature (Tsfc) trends from three different groups agree extremely closely among themselves (~ +0.12 °C decade−1) this indicates that the ―scaling ratio (SR, or ratio of atmospheric trend to surface trend: TLT/Tsfc) of the observations is ~0.8 ± 0.3. This is significantly different from the average SR calculated from the IPCC AR4 model simulations which is ~1.4”.
Just in case you did not get that conclusion, the models predict amplification (SR of 1.4) the response of the atmosphere is attenuation (SR of 0.8). It is difficult to imagine how the models could be more wrong on this important test.
thecliffclavenorrinance: here’s what meteorologist Roy Spencer, Ph.D. has to say about climate change on hos website:
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.”
“that describes exactly what is expected from greenhouse gas warming”
Like everthing else, whatever anomoly, it’s evidence of AGW. If we discovered that 10% of the CO2 was anthropegenic that would be the problem, if it were 1% that would be the problem. Just cut to the chase it’s humans you freaks hate.
Manmade CO2 is currently 32.5% of atmospheric CO2
Lindzen is jumping to a conclusion by claiming that a+48% increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1850 is not causing global warming, especially in the years from 1979 to 2015, when the CO2 rise was several ppm per year.
Cliff Troll
I see you are an order of magnitude out on the anthropogenic component of CO2.
Never mind.
As 100% of the modest 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely beneficial, as is 100% of the trivial warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, I can say quite sincerely that I don’t care much what caused the warming and I am much more interested in the fact that self styled “Scientists” tell so many barefaced lies.
Seconded
Lindzen, a ‘science-denier’? You really must lay off the wacky-backy.
I don’t smoke or drink
All my comments are written while sober.
Perhaps you read them under the influence?
“All my comments are written while sober.”
Oh dear….
TrollCliff
I don’t think it is even remotely acceptable to childishly call a very eminent Jewish Atmospheric Physics Professor a “Science Denier”. Deliberately and maliciously comparing him to a “Holocaust Denier”. Should we be relieved that you didn’t bring in Jolly Jim Hansen’s other jibes about “Death Trains”and “Death Factories”, just to underline what a nasty little antisemite you are?
So, compared to an Emeritus Professor at MIT, with a shelf stuffed with published papers and books, who do you consider a “real” Scientist
Now, lets see. Perhaps a 16 year old Swedish autistic school truant whose parents have taught her apocalyptic nonsense and faux indignation by rote?
Saint Greta, perhaps?
Cliff
Lindzen is very open to discussions with members of the public. His email address is readily available. Why don’t you explain to this eminent scientist where he has gone wrong and post the answer here? Willam Happer is also willing to debate the subject with private individuals and they have worked together so you might copy him in
Maybe Lindzen is coming to the correct conclusion that CO2 does not warm the Earth.
Perhaps -the cliff.etc above could supply a scientific paper that indicates to him that CO2 is an energy source additional to the radiation from the Sun.
I must go now to feed my unicorns.
Lindzen appears to be jumping to a conclusion about CO2. It is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm but it is still a greenhouse gas. Adding more greenhouse gases to the troposphere impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown mount. There is no danger from CO2, but it can not be dismissed as having no effect. Lindzen appears to be doing that. That makes him a science denier.
I mentioned the expected pattern or warming since 1975 as evidence of greenhouse gas warming — higher TMINs in colder nations during the colder months of the year. As opposed to higher TMAXs in the tropics during Summer months, which would be evidence of solar warming.
In a prior long comment I mentioned stratospheric cooling, another fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming.
Lindzen has no logical reason to dismiss this physical evidence of greenhouse gas warming, while ignoring the lack of evidence of solar energy warming.
He has jumped to a conclusion rejected by almost all other scientists, including those who are CAGW skeptics.
thecliffclavenoffinance
I have responded to your earlier comment to explain why your stance on the tropospheric hotspot is inconsistent with recorded scientific articles.
“Amplification” of temperature in the tropospheric troposphere (meaning the rate of increase is greater than the surface) is predicted by the models. So researchers went looking for this, and they found “attenuation” (tropospheric temperature trend below the surface rate of change).
There were many prominent authors in the paper I cited. There is no need to go at Linzen if you are looking for somebody to disagree with – you can have a go at Santer, Wigley, Mears, Wentz, Hansen, Ramaswamy, Schmidt and Christy if you think all these career researchers are all wrong about the hotspot.
Stratospheric cooling cannot be a source of IR. A cooler body of mass cannot be the provider of increased downwelling IR. There has to be something else, and I think you’ll find this is the predicted hotspot (which has been refuted by the above papers).
I suspect that’s your problem: the tropospheric hotspot has been refuted and you are forced to look for something else. Consider what you’d be saying if the hotspot had been confirmed by those papers.
The problem with AGW in theory is that the core value on which all the hype is based is completely unknown. The core value is climate sensitivity (CS, or the global temp response to 2X CO2) and even the ‘official’ IPCC value of 1.5C-4.5C is so wide as to be useless (1.5C equates to “No problema”, while 4.5C equates to “we’re all gonna fry.”). Worse, the claim is that CS just to CO2 alone is 1C but presumed but unmeasured positive feedbacks convert 1C from JUST CO2 to 3C when you include feedbacks (mostly clouds).
Every aspect of this is bogus. The forcing from 2X CO2 is said to be 3.71 W/M2…. at the top of the troposphere (TOA), but there’s dispute about even this. For example a recent William Happer paper says this value is 3W/M2, 0.7W/M2 less. Then there’s converting this forcing to surface temperature. But TOA forcing of 3.71W/M2 works out to less than 1W/M2 of surface forcing only. So how much more does the surface have to emit to increase in temp by 1C? Well that would be 5.5W/M2, which is the difference between in Stefan-Boltzmann terms between 288K and 289K. And it gets worse, because only 78% of the energy transport is in radiate, the rest being latent heat (which cools the surface). So you need 5.5/.78 = 7.05W/M2 of forcing to net out to 5.5W/M2 at the surface, and yet all the experts get is 3W/M2 or 3.71W/m2 at the TOA or about 1/4th of that at the surface. So the 1C temp response to 3 or 3.71W/M2 TOA forcing is total BS.
It has been implausible since the scaremongering started
>>becoming implausible
To compound the ‘it can only be the rise in CO2 is why we have global warming’ the west in general have followed a route for decarbonisation that cannot work, i.e. investing heavily (Gordon Brown speak invest equalling squander) in renewables. And continuing to so do by making the task much harder by electrcifying domestic transport and heating. It’s beyond fiction.
Come on – think! The UN IPCC brief was to study co2 involvement in changing world temperature. Their studies produced endless models and conclusions all framed in ‘its co2 doing it’. Not a whiff of alternative reasons (being outside the brief to the IPPC) as to how the world temperature may change. The IPCC’s efforts have soaked up endless repetition/discussion/refutation in manhours and effectively captured most of the research funding.
Heres a very well researched possiblity delivered, in detail, in several posts :-
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Some weekend reading from Professor Richard Lindzen, a long-time critic of IPCC climate assertions.
Sigh,just a rinse and repeat for Cliff.
Your assumptions have nothing to do with science.
Provide the scientific paper with all the testing,experiments and the data.
Let us know when your CO2 heaters will be going on the market.We will need them this winter.
CO2 heaters – yes, I’ve also thought that there’s a market gap here. Leave one in the sunlight on a cold winter’s day, and keep warm at night.
No sign of any for sale yet, though……
Maybe it’s because Climate Science itself is implausible.
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/savingandinvesting/dominion-energy-s-giant-wind-farm-project-just-hit-a-big-snag/ar-AA12b90T?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d34c4bcab13b45be9fe1b299d77177eb
“Regulators recently handed down a ruling that requires Dominion to guarantee that the wind farm lives up to the company’s expected generation projections. If there’s a shortfall in generation capacity, Dominion would be required to bear the cost burden. This could be a make-or-break issue for the project. The regulators’ stance appears to be that Dominion has used these projections to justify the construction of the project. If the wind farm can’t actually produce the amount of electricity that has been promised, the regulators want to protect consumers from the costs that would arise from any shortfall. ”
Looks like some regulators are waking up to the problems of unreliable electricity generation methods.
I made a quick calculation using N&Z earth data.
The surface atmospheric pressure of earth is 98550 pascal. This is the same as an energy density of 98550 joules per cubic meter. If density of air at 286K is 1200 grams per cubic meter and the specific heat capacity is 1.007 joules per gm K, then if:
Heat capacity (C) = Q joules/mass (m) x Change in Temperature
Change in Temperature = Q/m x C = 98550/1200 x 1.007 = 81.5K
This says that atmospheric pressure increases temperature by 81.5K. If the no atmosphere temperature is 197.3K (same as moon) the surface atmospheric temperature should be about 197.3 + 81.5 which is 279K. This shows the thermal effect of the work energy imparted to earth’s atmospheric mass by gravity. If this calculation is physically correct then there is no need for the AGW “back radiation” hypothesis to explain the surface temperature of earth’s atmosphere.
Mr Homewood does a great job fighting the good fight with this site. Trouble is, he is preaching to the converted. Out there in the wider world “everyone knows” that co2 is a greenhouse gas which warms the planet, so more co2 means more warming, sooner or later. Obvious. Just like in the past “everyone knew” that the sun went round the earth.
This might help.
The new Chief Scientific Officer will be able to report that he has reviewed recent evidence on climate change – Happer, Wijngaarden, Lindzen et al. – and concludes that average temperature stopped rising about eighteen years ago; models overestimate warming and are not to be relied on; the link between carbon dioxide and temperature is tenuous at best and is insufficient to warrant de-carbonisation. In fact, higher carbon dioxide levels have contributed to desirable outcomes including shrinking deserts and record crop yields. And anyway, people adapt faster than climate changes. Accordingly, the push to net zero should be abandoned and the Climate Change Act 2008 adjusted or repealed. “Everyone” will be able to say – facts changed, I changed my mind. A respectable ladder to climb down will be available.
Faced with not having to tell voters they must pay double for a new car that is half as good, and must take out a mortgage to replace their house’s heating system with something that might not work so well, politicians would pivot so fast you could power a small town with them.
“politicians would pivot so fast you could power a small town with them”
Not credible. It suggests politicians doing some useful work.
True, but have you ever watched them, J?
Some very good and useful comments are appearing.
To Ian F,I think it was Feynman,or Freeman Dyson who were in favour of the gravito/thermal effect,so you are in good company.
@quentinmichael-I totally agree.
Perhaps letters to MP,s for starters.We need to get them thinking outside their usual monotonic “the science says ” replies.
The Labour Party have just come out as the new Green Party.That should broaden our horizons.We can have some serious fun with that.
Good luck to you all .
The country needs you.
avro607: unfortunately from my experience I think it’s a waste of effort writing to MPs or even newspapers – I’ve done both over the years. Refer to any data and you’ll mostly just be ignored. If you’re fortunate enough to get something into newsprint the trolls will mount pesonal attacks on yourself and attempt to smear reputable scientists whose work you refer to – they won’t enter into discussion of the points you’ve made. Should you reply, your comments won’t be published – the trolls will be allowed to win. I’ve never seen a newspaper or television debate with scientists holding opposing views given their say. The media carry a huge responsibility for the climate scare which has been going on for so many years.
avro607: unfortunately from my experience I think it’s a waste of effort writing to MPs or even newspapers – I’ve done both over the years. Refer to any data and you’ll mostly just be ignored. If you’re fortunate enough to get something into newsprint the trolls will mount pesonal attacks on yourself and attempt to smear reputable scientists whose work you refer to – they won’t enter into discussion of the points you’ve made. Should you reply, your comments won’t be published – the trolls will be allowed to win. I’ve never seen a newspaper or television debate with scientists holding opposing views given their say. The media carry a huge responsibility for the climate scare which has been going on for so many years.
We had this in 2010 – new nuclear will take 10yrs.
Then 2017 – fracking won’t cut this years bills.
Lindzen is claiming the +0.9 degree C. warming at the North Pole (Arctic) since December 1978 (UAH data) was not caused by CO2 greenhouse gas increases. He claims the greenhouse effect is greatest in the tropics where there is much competition from water vapor. Not in the Arctic when there is little competition from water vapor. These claims are the opposite of the climate science consensus and are not supported by observations of much TMIN Arctic warming, and little TMAX warming in the tropics
The AMO cycle can not be ignored when talking about Arctic temperatures. The data is clear on this in the north atlantic
@carbon500:yes it is very frustrating,but we have to keep up the pressure to let them know that we are sincere and unrelenting in our beliefs.
@cliffclav.:your comment”climate change consensus” shows that you have absolutely no idea of the subject in which you choose to comment.
test post
Norman,
Thank you for your reply.
Four important things to note
1. The surface pressure of Mars is 0.006 atm (i.e. 685 Pascals). At this pressure the Martian atmosphere is completely transparent to surface thermal radiant emissions. A comparison of the atmospheres of solar system terrestrial bodies shows that once the pressure drops below 100 mb (0.1 atm) then all planetary thermal radiation exits to space unimpeded. This pressure control on thermal radiant opacity explains why energy is lost to space from the Earth’s stratosphere.
2. I have calculated the average annual surface temperature for Mars (MY29) from data and the value is 210 Kelvin. (The Excel data files are on my Research Gate site).
3. The Vacuum Planet Equation is the recognised process for calculating the Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiant emission temperature of a terrestrial body. This value is 209.83 Kelvin for Mars.
4. Mars possesses a vigorous active troposphere with a tropopause of some 70 Km elevation. The presence of this large troposphere has forced me to conclude that the greenhouse effect on Mars is due to adiabatic mass motion circulation of air (as per Stephen Wilde’s hypothesis) and not due to CO2 induced thermal radiant opacity of the current paradigm (Our Work in Progress).
Leaving comments on this website results in not seeing your own comments when the e-mail arrives. Is there any possibility of everything on “Not a lot of people know that ” being able to be subscribed to, unsubscribed from, create new posts, reply to existing ones using an e-mail client instead of a web browser?
If you want to see your own comments you can click on the comments tab which shows all comments
Thanks for the tip. This is a feature of NotaLot that I was not aware of.
Norman,
Thank you for your reply.
Four important things to note
1. The surface pressure of Mars is 0.006 atm (i.e. 685 Pascals). At this pressure the Martian atmosphere is completely transparent to surface thermal radiant emissions. A comparison of the atmospheres of solar system terrestrial bodies shows that once the pressure drops below 100 mb (0.1 atm) then all planetary thermal radiation exits to space unimpeded. This pressure control on thermal radiant opacity explains why energy is lost to space from the Earth’s stratosphere.
Mars had lots of water in the past. It has little to none now. It’s that water vapor, not just CO2 is it not? That water went somewhere and left little oxygen behind.
test post #2
test post #3
2. I have calculated the average annual surface temperature for Mars (MY29) from data and the value is 210 Kelvin. (The Excel data files are on my Research Gate site).
2. I have calculated the average annual surface temperature for Mars (MY29) from data and the value is 210 Kelvin. (The Excel data files are on my Research Gate site).
3. The Vacuum Planet Equation is the recognised process for calculating the Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiant emission temperature of a terrestrial body. This value is 209.83 Kelvin for Mars.
3. The Vacuum Planet Equation is the recognised process for calculating the Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiant emission temperature of a terrestrial body. This value is 209.83 Kelvin for Mars.
test post #4
3. The Vacuum Planet Equation is the recognised process for calculating the Stefan-Boltzmann thermal radiant emission temperature of a terrestrial body. This value is 209.83 Kelvin for Mars.
test post #5
4. Mars possesses a vigorous active troposphere with a tropopause of some 70 Km elevation. The presence of this large troposphere has forced me to conclude that the greenhouse effect on Mars is due to adiabatic mass motion circulation of air (as per Stephen Wilde’s hypothesis) and not due to CO2 induced thermal radiant opacity of the current paradigm (Our Work in Progress).
Item #3 contains a trip wire and I am unable to post this part of my comment.
Apologies Paul.