CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!

Bob Ashworth | Sep 04, 2009

Share/Save  
Abstract

There has been a lot of discussion about global warming. Some say anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused the earth to warm. Others say there is no abnormality at all, that it is just natural warming. As you will see from the data presented and analyzed, a greater than normal warming did occur in recent times but no measurements confirm an increase in CO2 emissions, whether anthropogenic or natural, had any effect on global temperatures. There is however, strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the major cause of the near recent abnormal warming.

CFCs have created both unnatural atmospheric cooling and warming based on these facts:

  • CFCs destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998. This time span was selected to eliminate the effect of the natural solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.

  • The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 10" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).
  • Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere- upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere-earth at a sustainable level of 1.71 x 1018 Btu more in 1998 than it did in 1966.
  • Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions caused these areas to warm up some two and one-half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC) rise. This has caused permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane, estimated at 100 times that of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2 and water vapor and its release has contributed to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
  • There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north, warmed like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there, black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric ozone destruction took place.
  • No Empirical Evidence for CO2 Causing Global Warming

    Recent empirical data (1) show that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no discernible effect on global temperature, see Figure 1. The temperature plots shown are from two sources; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and the United Kingdom's (UK) Hadley Climate Research Unit. The CO2 plot is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. A certified meteorologist developed the temperature -- CO2 concentration graph from the data sources.



    While CO2 levels increased some 20 ppmv over the past 10 years, global temperatures did not increase as predicted by the IPCC models -- they fell! The earth's temperature from 1998 to 2008 dropped by 0.7 to 0.8 oC depending on which temperature set is chosen for comparison.

    Besides a carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, concentration of methane has increased 2.5 times from pre-industrial time (700 ppbv) to 1,745 ppbv in 1998 (2). In 2000, methane concentrations leveled off at 1755 ppbv and currently are slowly dropping. Two years earlier, stratospheric CFC concentrations leveled off and started to drop slowly, so methane emissions look like they are tied to depletion of ozone. Where is the methane coming from? A recent study (3) showed that the permafrost is melting in North Siberia and is releasing methane from the surface of thawing lakes that has been sequestered there since the Pleistocene era (10,000 to one million years ago). Further, the researchers' estimate that methane carbon is being emitted at a rate some 100 times the rate of carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. Methane (CH4) slowly converts to CO2 in the atmosphere and this is the most likely cause for increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

    Ozone Loss Effect

    Stratospheric ozone has been diminished by CFCs and other refrigerants-propellants released into the atmosphere. These compounds are broken down by the sun's UV rays and release chlorine and bromine molecules that destroy the ozone. Scientists estimate that one chlorine atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules over its life in the stratosphere. With less ozone in the stratosphere, more UV rays hit earth, warming it up and increasing the risk of skin cancer. The protective ozone layer extends from 8 km (upper troposphere) up throughout the whole stratosphere.

    The annual mean stratospheric ozone concentration above Antarctica (4) as measured at the British Antarctic Survey Station in Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west) was 319 Dobson Units (standard measurement of ozone concentration) in 1956. In 1995, the mean value was 212 Dobson Units, showing an average drop of 33% from 1966. Although not as severe, ozone concentrations, north of the Arctic Circle, have dropped as well.

    It is well known that the warming of the stratosphere is caused by the reaction of ultraviolet light with ozone. Energy is absorbed and ozone (O3) converts to diatomic (O2) and (O) nascent oxygen. Conversely, ozone loss decreases the amount of UV light absorbed and thus causes the stratosphere to cool. The direct effect of ozone concentration on temperature is shown in Figure 2 (5). Excluding the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon, Pinatuba, and others, whenever stratospheric ozone concentration drops, the temperature drops with it and vice versa. This effect is shown clearly from 1995 to 2005.



    The legendary hypotheses (6) of Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina led to CFCs being banned because they were destroying stratospheric ozone. In 1978, the USA banned the use of CFCs in hair sprays and other aerosols. Then in 1987, the world governments, through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), agreed to limit the production and release of a variety of CFCs at a meeting in Montreal, Canada. Since then the agreement has become known as the Montreal Protocol. CFC production was stopped in developed countries but not in developing countries. It will be produced in China, Mexico and other developing countries until 2010.

    CFC's and CCl4 are nearly inert in the troposphere and have lifetimes of 50-200+ years. Total stratospheric organic chlorine is currently a little over 3 ppbv. It is different in the stratosphere; the major source of CFC decomposition there is photolysis (7) reaction with ultraviolet (UV) light radiation. Ultraviolet light has wavelengths in the 200-400 nanometer (nm) range.

    UV-A light is a low energy light and only about 5% of the UV-A light is absorbed by ozone. Most reaches the surface of the Earth. UV-B light is of moderate energy and ozone absorbs most of the UV-B light before it reaches the surface of the Earth. UV-C light is a high energy UV light. Both ozone and oxygen molecules absorb the UV-C light before it can reach the Earth's surface. Therefore, when there is low stratospheric ozone, more UV (A, B & C) light from the sun passes through the atmosphere to hit earth and heat it up.



    CFC chlorine can take other reaction paths, but this is believed to be the predominant ozone destruction cycle. Though the concentration of CFCs is only around 3 ppbv in the stratosphere, one chlorine atom can destroy some 100,000 ozone molecules during its lifetime there. Since the 1960's the stratosphere has cooled (8), see Figure 3. The data suggest that the cooling is due to a loss of ozone.



    When CFC refrigerants started to be produced and released into the atmosphere in the sixties, the stratosphere started to cool. The exceptions to cooling occurred during the times of the major volcanic eruptions of Agung, El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.

    In 1998, the stratosphere was 1.37 oC cooler than it was in 1966. This 1966 to 1998 time span was chosen for analysis to negate the solar irradiance cycle and large volcanic eruption effects. The increase in stratospheric temperature from major volcanic eruptions lasts only two to three years; then the temperature goes back to where it would have been if there were no eruptions. As the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere cooled (1966 to 1998), the troposphere and earth warmed (9) by 0.48 oC see Figure 4.



    In the Arctic, from 1966 to 1998 (10), the surface temperature increased 2 ½ times the average global temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC), see Figure 5. The much colder than normal stratospheric temperatures cause even a greater loss of ozone and thus make the Polar Region stratospheres even cooler. This is why polar landmasses have warmed more than the rest of the earth. Ice crystals that form provide a surface for chemical reactions that change chlorine compounds that do not react with ozone (e.g. hydrogen chloride) into more active forms that do:



    The change in ozone depletion chemicals in the stratosphere versus time (11), including future concentration projections is shown in Figure 6. Because of the Montreal Protocol implementation, CFC concentrations peaked in the late nineties and then started dropping slightly.



    The line at 2 ppb corresponds to the time when ozone depletion was first detected (1980). It also shows when major ozone recovery is anticipated (2050 to 2060). Figure 7 shows a correlation of CFC concentration and average stratosphere and earth temperature plotted versus time.



    The author plotted this graph based on data from Figures 4, 5 and 6. As shown by the vertical lines, in a logical sequence, CFC concentration started to drop first causing a reduction in stratospheric cooling and then a reduction in earth warming. When one sees like trends, it is a good indication that the trends are related to one another.

    Large solar heating-cooling cycle variations occur every 80,000 to 110,000 years, but the sun's thermostat also changes in shorter term cooling-warming cycles of approximately 11 years (12), see Figure 9. The period chosen for analysis to negate this effect as mentioned previously was from 1966 to 1998. At these two points in time, the solar irradiance hitting the earth was approximately the same (1368.8 W/m2).



    According to NASA (13), the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere, both of which have cooled together, extends from 19 km down to 8 km above the surface of the earth with the lower troposphere being in the 0 to 8 km elevation. Knowing how much the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere cooled and how much the lower troposphere-earth warmed, mass and energy balances could be made to determine how much more radiant energy hit the earth in 1998 compared to 1966.

    Table 1 show mass and energy balances for the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere (19 km down to 8 km above sea level). The balances were made by first calculating the mass of gas in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere. Then the recorded average temperature for the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere for 1966 and 1998 was used. The lower stratosphere-upper troposphere was 1.37 oC cooler in 1998 than it was in 1966. By subtracting the energy in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere found in 1966 from that found in 1998 the loss in UV light energy absorption could be calculated. The amount of stratospheric heating from UV-B light in 1998 was 1.7123 x 1018 Btu less than it was in 1966.

    The mass and energy balance in Table 2 shows the effect of that additional energy being absorbed by the troposphere/earth in 1998 compared to 1966. The lower troposphere temperature in 1966 (484oR) was used as a base and the added UV light (1.7123 x 1018 Btu) energy passing through the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere was added to the earth/troposphere. Using that increase in UV light energy, after heating the lower troposphere up by 0.48o C there was enough energy left over to heat up ten inches of earth plus water by 0.48 oC. This matches the recorded earth temperature rise from 1966 to 1998.





    Added UV light hitting earth accounts for observed warming from 1966 to 1998 (0.48 oC or 0.863 oR)

    Conclusion

    Many factors influence the earth's temperature. From a scientific analysis, the effect of CO2 is very minimal as shown by an earth temperature drop of around 0.7 to 0.8 oC from 1998 to 2008 during a period when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased some 20 ppmv. It should be obvious to anyone analyzing climate change that climate-driving forces, other than CO2 control the earth's temperature. Chlorofluorocarbon destruction of stratospheric ozone correlates nicely with both the stratosphere cooling and earth warming anomalies seen over the time span from 1966 to 1998. CFCs appear to be the dominant cause of greater than normal earth warming. One can account for most, if not all of the 0.48oC rise in earth's temperature from 1966 to 1998 with the additional UV light that hit the earth due to loss of ozone in the stratosphere.

    References

    (1) D'Aleo, J. S., "Correlation Last Decade and This Century CO2 and Global Temperatures Not There"
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf Data used to develop graph:
    NASA microwave sounding unit for temperature of lower troposphere:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
    Hadley Met Centre for the temperature of the land and oceans:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
    and Scripps monthly CO2 concentrations from the Mauna Lao, Hawaii Observatory:
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    (2) Houghton, J.T., et. al.,"Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the
    Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University
    Press, UK, pp 944, 2001.

    (3) Walter, K.M., et al. "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming",
    Nature 443, 71-75, Sept. 7, 2006.

    (4) Halley Bay ozone data taken by the British Antarctic Survey,
    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/data/ZOZ5699.DAT

    (5) United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Vital Ozone Graphics, p. 13, ISBN 978-92-807-2814-9
    http://www.grida.no/_res/site/file/publications/vitalozone.pdf

    (6) Nobel Prize in Chemistry, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, October 11, 1995.
    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html

    (7) Zander, R. et. al., "The 1985 chlorine and fluorine inventories in the stratosphere based on ATMOS
    Observations at 30 degrees North latitude", J. Atmos. Chem. 15, 171, 1992.

    (8) HadAT2 radiosonde developed by the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre, maintained by Peter Thorne
    and Holly Titchner. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images.html. Hosted by Met Office Hadley Centre for
    Climate Change.

    (9) Brohan, P., et.al. 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new
    dataset from 1850, J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006548

    (10) "Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, ACIA Overview Report", Cambridge
    University Press, 2004

    (11) "Australia State of the Environment 2001 Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the
    Environment and Heritage, p. 27.
    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/report/pubs/soe2001.pdf

    (12) Lean, J. 2000, Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder minimum. Geophysical Research
    Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp.2425-2428, Aug. 15, 2000

    (13) Duan, A. (2007), "Cooling trend in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere over China",
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 34

    Related Topics

    Comments

    Bob, you could very definitely be right, but I wonder if I can take the word of a chemical engineer in this matter. Better a chemical engineer than fools like Paul Johnson, Lord Something-or-Other, and Bjorn Lomborg, but even so I suspect - although I am not certain - that to really master this subject you need a lot of years of intensive study.

    Maybe though it's jealousy on my part. If I had been smart enough or alert enough to become a chemical engineer or an electronic deisgn engineer like Bob A., I probably would tune out everytime I heard global warming mentioned.

    Ferdinand: I don't consider myself as being smart. I have found in my lifetime that everything we want to know about life and the universe is very simple and staring us in the face.

    I analyzed global warming like I do everything else, no preconceived ideas going in. Whether I get a result I like or don't like doesn't matter. The data does the talking and I listen. As you see I got a result here that others have not seen, yet it should have been obvious to those who have worked in the climate field their whole lives. The ozone hole is still there and more UV light is still hitting the earth. There is much more energy in UV light than infra-red light to heat up things (E=hf), so why didn't they see this? However, having said this, it is still very easy to overlook the obvious. Every time I finally find a truth I have been looking for I always tell myself, you are dumb as a brick, you should have recognized that long ago. Our brains for some reason want to make things complex when in reality nothing is complicated.

    Let us not underestimate the impact of volcanic emssions on the ozone layer - - - they can be every bit as harmful to the ozone as CFC's. Part of the global warming phenomena may be self inflicted by Mother Nature . . . ocean tides (El Nino and El Nina), abnormal solar cycles and emissions from volcanic eruptions. Climate change of an earlier era has been cited as having being responsible for having wiped out miost of the Mayan Empire of Latin America.

    Humanity today has the technology to adapt to changing weather patterns and climate change regardless of source.

    Harry:
    When you look at Figure 2 above, the El Chichon eruption did not appear to affect the ozone concentration but you could make an argument that the Pinatubo eruption did lower ozone. The effect is probably determined by what was spewed out. Further the particulate spewed out from Pinatubo had a greater effect than that of ozone destruction, for although ozone dropped during that period, the temperature did not drop it increased. However, as you can see the effect of a large volcanic eruption is not is not very long lived, some two to three years only.

    I've been saying all along that CO2 by itself is not the only potential disruptor of climate behavior, there are many other factors that must be considered. This fascinating article is links global climate temperature changes to emissions of other man-made pollutants and volcanic emissions sources.

    The destruction of the ozone layer was one of the first causes for concern decades ago because of increased incident UV radiation hitting the earth. If this article turns out to be highly accurate, ozone layer destruction is far more important to climate change than burning of fossil fuels. This could be great news for natural gas and coal. But declining oil production in the coming years will force us off oil dependency in any case. If nothing else it could be a wake-up call to the potentially misguided looming cap&trade or carbon tax measures about to be imposed on us.

    Bob: It would be great if you were right, and I hope you are, as CFCs are much easier to manage than CO2 emissions. The next 10-20 years might illuminate the merit of this theory vs. the conventional CO2-based theory. Unfortunately, I do remain dubious at this point.

    However, either way, its points to the frailty of our environment and how much man's efforts can affect it.

    Bob,
    I congratulate you for the fine analysis and the effort that you put into this!
    Now all we have to do is derail all those other misconceptions about global warming and get down to solving our other most pressing problems, instead of spending our limited resources on chasing a red herring.
    How can we get your work a larger scientific and POLITICAL audience?
    Do any of you that follow this rag have any ideas on how to get this published more widely? Prof. Ferdinand Banks??
    I am just another Chem. Eng. who can perform mass and energy balances!

    Bob, This ancient Ch.E. is glad to see a mass and energy balance expressed in BTU’s, pounds and degrees Rankine. I have wondered if I were the last man standing. With only a quick once-through reading I can’t comment (yet) on the arithmetic (and isn’t it all about arithmetic?) but what I got made good sense to me.

    Bob

    Although I see convincing evidence that global climate change is occurring, for 20 years I've questioned one of the basic charts used to explain man-made CO2 as the main culprit. One example is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Mauna-Loa.png . The problem I've had with that chart is that it has a single annual peak and a single annual valley. We all know that man-made CO2 emissions from the developed countries that emit the vast majority of CO2 have peak and valley twice each year. My question has always been, If man-made CO2 is trumping natural production of CO2, why doesn't the growing concentration data show that? And to the folks who claim global climate change is a hoax, how do you explain the CO2 concentration growing year after year? Your explanation is the first one I've seen that convincingly explains both the annual growth in CO2 concentration, and the single annual peak and valley. Thank you.

    Bob: Fist, an excellent and worthy contribution. A fine effort to stay with the topic. However I grow a little concerned with statements such as your following:

    "Therefore, when there is low stratospheric ozone, more UV (A, B & C) light from the sun passes through the atmosphere to hit earth and heat it up."

    1) The issue with AGW is primarily one of earth re-radiating energy back out to space, a process which is blocked by increased IR blocker gasses in the atmosphere. Your discussion of incoming UV blocker levels may be relevant or not, I don't have enough data to decide. It appears from your discussion that UV-C is always blocked by oxygen regardless of CFC levels, so the question is "How much of the sun's radiant energy arrives at the upper atmosphere as UV-A and B?"

    2) The earth has such huge heat sinks available in its oceans that i'd be surprised if the full effects of GHG emissions are even apparent yet. Its not present GHG effects on present climate that concerns me, but present emissions on future climate averages. Analysing short periods of temperature averages may or may not be interesting to that debate, though I can see that your use of those is more to co-relate with CFC levels than to discuss climate.

    I think this topic needs some further research.

    I also question your process of assigning all excess UV which enters to causing an increase in temperature. Why would that make sense when such an increase in temperature will cause an increase in re-radiation, given static unchanged blocking, as you assme? eg. a 1 degR increase in temperature should require sufficient increase in incoming energy to both cause the 1 degR increase in temperature of all affected materials, as you calculate, PLUS sufficient to supply the additional IR re-radiation caused by that increase in temperature, over the time period of that increased temperature.

    Along with Len's points, one could argue that any depletion of the ozone layer which allows more energy IN would also allow more energy OUT in the form of re-radiation. It seems to be a given that, all other parameters considered, a planet with a thicker atmosphere is hotter (overall) than one with a thinner atmosphere.

    Your charts show an oxygen concentration of 23.24%. The concentration of oxygen in air is 20.9%.

    Why should we take anything seriously concerning anything else, when the basic information in the charts used to make the conclussions is incorrect?

    Jim,

    Your more-in therefore more-out statement makes sense and would apply provided what comes in is reflected or later re-emitted back out again equally as easily as it came in. The article says though that UV is allowed in where much of it is then converted to heat through absorption. The radiation going back out later at night presumably is re-emitted at infrared wavelengths, not UV, so I doubt whether as much thermal energy would be lost going out as what came in. Probably not equivalent since the wavelengths are different. If anything other things might tend to act as a heat sink trapping the thermal energy, like the oceans and other component gases in the atmosphere including CO2 and water vapor. Something like a what a real greenhouse does.

    Sorry Gentlemen for not responding sooner to some queries.
    Fred: Look closer, the oxygen is a weight percent concentration, not volume.

    The increased UV light energy I calculated is based on the cooling of the stratosphere from 1966 to 1998. If the energy is not absorbed in the stratosphere it has to pass through and be absorbed in the troposphere and earth. No rocket science required.

    Gentlemen, hate to burst your bubbles but the IPCC re-radiation effect is bogus Even so, many scientists, even college professors, are expounding this inane stupidity. My college Profs are probably turning over in their graves because of this. Let me just say this, if 1 Btu/hr of energy hits the earth, 3 or more Btus per hour cannot be radiating away from the earth. YOU CANNOT GET MORE ENERGY OUT OF A SYSTEM THAN YOU PUT INTO IT! Period - case closed!

    Of course all bodies radiate energy but the net heat transfer is always from the hotter to cooler body, never the other way around. The net rate of radiation is calculated using the temperatures and emissivities of the two bodies. This, my friends is Thermodynamics 101 which apparently they are not teaching anymore. They must have stopped shortly after I graduated. Nowadays you write a computer program and whatever it spews out you accept as gospel, no need to analyze the actual data.

    Seems to me Bob has used the defining method of chemical engineering quite effectively. Draw an envelope around the problem. Account for the weight in vs out, components in vs out, enthalpy in vs enthalpy out, heats of reaction, and added heat. Except for radio activity (which can be accommodated) this type of analysis is rigorous.

    Bob,

    There you go again with this re-radiation rant. Just who are these professors that dispute this? No one seems to have argued with NASA determining the temperatures of our Solar System's planets over the past 50 years. Not sure why this would be so controversial at this point in time,

    Don: "Except for radio activity (which can be accommodated) this type of analysis is rigorous. " -- You're wrong. As I pointed out, Bob's "envelope" fails to account for the increased IR re-radiation caused by his claimed increased temperature due to the increased UV capture.

    Jim: It does make me mad; this should have never been an item for discussion. I rant because Dr. Lindzen of MIT and the two professors in Colorado who developed the graph the IPCC uses, support the more energy in than out concept although Lindzen does disagree that CO2 is causing warming.

    I have no problem with NASA temperatures except maybe those that Hansen develops. If you look at either the NASA or Hadley UK Met Lab temperature data the earth has cooled over the last ten years, so no problem there.

    The big question is which one has changed the most from normal levels - increased incident sunlight energy incident on the earth’s surface from ozone destruction, or less re-radiated thermal energy from increased CO2 trapping additional heat in.

    We know ozone destruction started in recent decades whereas CO2 has been increasing for over a century. We also know CO2 levels were already elevated substantially before ozone destruction began. The problem is that widespread climate changes happening now are clearly the combined effect from both because ozone destruction and increased CO2 are both present, we cannot separate their individual effects to measure them. But chronologically the climate changes were not happening or were too small to be noticed before ozone destruction started.

    One is therefore inclined to bet that ozone destruction has let a greater energy rate in than CO2 has been reducing energy going out. It’s impossible to prove other than by theoretical calculation however.

    From a practical viewpoint, I claim once again that CO2 is not the only factor, and the evidence in this article strongly suggests it may not necessarily be the biggest factor either. The only way CO2 could be the biggest factor is that if CO2-driven climate change alone is happening exponentially faster than the rate CO2 is increasing.

    Reducing CO2 emissions might very well help reverse climate change, but I fear it will not get us the biggest bang for the cost. Consider those disputing CO2 alone is driving climate change, and given as Jim says ozone destruction is much easier to manage and deal with than curbing CO2 emissions, at least why not pursue ozone destruction management with as much effort as is being focused on curbing CO2? Like the old saying you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket, and in this case the analogy is especially if another basket is much easier to carry without dropping.

    Perhaps CFCs are heating the atmospere.

    CFCs are in the atmosphere because of humans put them there.

    This does not mean that CO2 does not also heat in the atmosphere.

    Everyday, humans pour billions of tons of new CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Both of these are consistent with the IPCC premise that human activity is the cause of atmospheric warming.

    We have banned CFCs for about 20 years. There are still CFCs in the atmosphere and environment. This is not a surprise, we produced them because they do not break down. It was inevitable that they would build up over time It is also inevitale that they will take a LONG time to go away.

    So, this leaves CO2 as the only human activity that we have any control over. Therefore, I think we need to control CO2.

    Fred, WE have banned CFCs but has every country done so? I got the impression they haven't from the article.

    Gentlemen: CFCs are banned in developed countries. They will be banned in underdeveloped countries like China, Mexico and others in 2010. The problem is that CFCS stay in the stratosphere for long periods of time. I put a proposal into the Virgin Earth Challenge to remove the chlorine that is liberated by CFCs in the stratosphere by spraying sodium hydroxide over the oceans. It would tie up the chlorine as sodium chloride and fall into the ocean. Of course Branson is in bed with Gore on CO2 and so my proposal was rejected.

    Joe Bastardi of Accuweather debunked CO2 causing warming last night on Fox (O'Reilly). O'Reilly used to buy into the AGW hoax but no more. He was man enough to admit that he was wrong. I found it today on YouTube if you care to watch it, about 3.5 minutes long..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY

    Fred Linn wrote"Everyday, humans pour billions of tons of new CO2 into the atmosphere."

    This slide rule engineer first finds the order of magnitude. By a very quick and very dirty few second calc I say it's somewhere around one hundred million tons per day. Not multple billions of tons per day. 500x10^15 x.5 x 44/12 / (365 x 10000 x 2000) = 1 x 10^8 tons per day CO2.

    Petty, perhaps, and I am sorry. But where we can agree on arithmeic and facts let's not waste the opportunity. Perhaps Fred meant every year.

    Production of Coal by Country and year (million tonnes======= USA 972.3(2003) 1008.9(2004) 1026.5(2005) 1053.6 (2006) (and increasing 2-3% per year)

    That is 2.88657 million tons per day for the US, which accounts for 17% of world coal production. So roughly 3 million tons per day(by now) / .27(% of C in CO2)=11.1 millon tons per day / .17 = 65.2 million tons of CO2 per day from coal alone.
    Add to that CO2 from petroleum and natural gas.

    So, you are probably right Don---I just guessed---looks like maybe it might be closer to 1/3 to 1/2 bilion tons per day world wide.

    Bob--------"Fred, WE have banned CFCs but has every country done so? I got the impression they haven't from the article. "-----------

    What does it matter what any other country in the world does? That does not change our obligation to do what WE must do. The US uses more energy than any other country in the world, That makes the US far more obligated than any other country to change.

    Spraying a fog of sodium hydroxide(lye) in the upper atmoshere does not sound like a good idea to me, considering the effect of lye on living organisms.

    Bill O'Reilley---now THERE'S an expert for you! He'd try to turn eating corn flakes into a political issue if he thought he could make money off of it somehow.

    Joe Bastardi----wants to sell sell private weather forecasts.

    I don't really care about global warming too much. It seems to me that there is plenty of evidence to say it might be happening----and just the fact that it MIGHT be happening is plenty of reason to make a change and not produce CO2. If it IS happening----we have done what we can. If it is not, then we've simply changed what we were doing. The world is not going to stop because we switched from coal to solar, wind or some other form of energy generation.

    There are plenty of reasons for us to stop using coal and petroleum. Forget the weather---just the fact that there is CO2 in the air is raising the acid level in the oceans. Life exists only in a very narrow pH tolerance range. Keep pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, and you are creating more and more carbonic acid. And there are a whole lot of other very nasty things in coal and petroleum. Things that you don't want in your body, like mercury, lead, arsenic, bismuth, and many others. You also don't want them in the air you breathe, the water you drink, or the soil your food comes from.

    Don: Here is the IPCC estimate that shows humans emitted 2.9% of the total CO2 to the atmosphere and nature the rest. It is every year, not every day.

    TABLE 1. GLOBAL SOURCES AND ABSORPTION OF CO2

    Carbon Dioxide: Natural Human Made Total Absorption

    Annual Million
    Metric Tons 770,000 23,100 793,100 781,400

    % of Total 97.1% 2.9% 100% 98.5%

    Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188.

    Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 385 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in January 2008, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level we had in 2001-2002 when it was warmer than it is now.

    Hope this helps put things into perspective.

    Don: Sorry table came out skewed. You can see the table correctly in the May paper of mine on "No Evidence that Carbon Dioxide is Causing Global Warming.

    http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2035

    Fred: The oceans already contain around 3% sodium chloride. Sodium hydroxide is very reactive and what doesn't react with the chlorine to form sodium chloride should react with CO2 to form sodium carbonate.

    Bob------smear oven cleaner all over your body. Then tell us what happens while you are waiting for it to react with CO2 to form calcium carbonate.

    So, again, how does any of this show that CO2 is not a cause of global warming.

    ooops--sodium carbonate. Calcium carbonate is bone and shells.

    Fred: You dilute the sodium hydroxide and air atomize it in the stratosphere. I see process engineering isn't your forte.

    Back in the 70's when the first ozone discussions began, my chemistry prof recommended putting up ozone generating satellites. Since we sell ozone generators for the home, not sure what would be so difficult about this, especially if they are solar powered. In fact this would be a nice project for Rutan, wouldn't need to be space based, just very high orbit. Maybe easier than transporting all the sodium hydroxide solution to that altitude, since we can cause ozone to accumulate by ionization methods.

    Bastardi is like the other 95% of meteorologists who don't believe in AGW. Funny those with the most day to day experience concerning weather don't believe those who merely prognosticate about it. Kind of like stock traders not believing what the economists are saying. :)

    --------"Bastardi is like the other 95% of meteorologists who don't believe in AGW."---------------

    I doubt if 95% of meterorologists will like you going around making up statistics about what they think.

    ------------"Fred: You dilute the sodium hydroxide and air atomize it in the stratosphere. I see process engineering isn't your forte. "------------

    I don't think flying around spraying lye all over the place is a very good idea.

    I suspect that if you spayed NaOH far aloft it would react with CO2 in the air before reaching the surface. This is the reaction in the Orsat apparatus long used to measure the CO2 content of flue gases. A sample of flue gas is bubbled through caustic solution (KOH or NaOH) and the loss in volume is the mol percent CO2 of the flue gas. Works great.
    Fred Linn, the effect of lye pits in old ghoulish story books and Hollywood are very much of literary license. I was literally drenched from the chest down with the stuff when a transfer hose came undone and the full steam hit me squarely. I didn’t shower for quite some time as I stayed on the job to help set things right. By then NaOH had crystallized out. All I suffered was a slight redness on tender skin, as back of the knees and inside the elbows, gone in hours. Never-the –less not recommended.

    Don------I wouldn't make NaOH showers part of your daily routine. LOL!

    Old news Fred, I guess you were asleep while it was going on. Don't you remember the Cullen pogrom?
    That in turn led to a huge counter-backlash which is where I got my number. I documented the sources previously two years ago, but here it is for you again. Read it and weep. Note the 95% just like I said.
    he Ohio TV meteorologists, Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Mark Nolan and John Loufman, mocked the UN's global warming alarmism. "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Johnson said. "I’m not sure which is more arrogant — to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said. "Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, ‘about 95%’ share his skepticism about global warming," the paper reported. Johnson dismissed the new UN IPCC summary, “Consensus does not mean fact. … Don’t drink the Kool-Aid."

    Jeff: Making ozone was my first thought as well, but the chlorine will keep destroying ozone. Estimated to last 50 years or so. We only need to remove the chlorine once. The other way you would have to generate ozone for some length of time, maybe 20-30 years.

    Mr. Ashworth,
    No challenge here, just a couple of honest questions. First, what exactly is the transport mechanism for the relatively heavy CFC molecules to reach up to the ozone layers and do the deed? And second, how is it that the flatulence of 6.7 billion humans is never considered in methane analyses?

    OK Jeff, I see two weathermen making up statistics about what others think.

    --------"I’m not sure which is more arrogant — to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said."----------

    What would be your prefered course of action?

    Kent: The gases become well mixed because of gaseous diffusion; a process by which molecules intermingle as a result of their kinetic energy of random motion.

    That is why even though oxygen is heavier than nitrogen they still get intimately mixed in the atmosphere. I am not sure how molecular weights enter into the speed of diffusion but CFCs have been measured in the stratosphere, see Figure 6.

    I would think they would include methane from humans and all other animals, but maybe not. A lot of scientists don't seem to be very thorough. For instance, I doubt they calculate the cooling effect of photosynthesis which is a heat aborbing (endothermic) reaction when they are predicting global warming.

    Thanks Bob. I have, or thought I had, a pretty good handle on gaseous diffusion which is why I posed the question of a seeming anomaly in gas behavior while under the influence of gravity.

    In a confined space without a mechanism with which to move gases around, say by heat or mechanically induced convection, a mixture of heavy and light gases will eventually separate into layers, therefore random diffusion alone is insufficient to cause thorough mixing. For example, CO2 released into a confined space will tend to seek lower elevations whereas light gases like helium will rise. Thankfully, human effluent methane is a lighter gas and also rises. Gaseous oxygen and nitrogen are probably close enough in weight to remain together as a diffuse mixture of two gases, for a long time anyway, so the laws of gas diffusion easily prevail over gravity .

    In the troposphere (atmosphere below about 30,000 feet) the mixture of a variety of gases is kept randomized by the heating/cooling patterns which cause wind currents. Without the variations in solar incidence there would be no wind to stir up the air and the heavier molecules like water vapor, dust particles, and heavy gases like, halon, CFCs, CO2, etc., would settle into lower elevations due to greater influence by gravity, ....or so the argument goes.

    As I learned it, the next higher layer in the atmosphere, the stratosphere, wherein lies the ozone layer, was so named because it is a stratified layer, highly stable, unaffected by convection and is characterized by a lack of water vapor and other matter such as dust. It would further seem that a seriously heavier molecules of CFC (CCl3F), et al, would literally outweigh the effects of random diffusion, especially if they encounter a stratified layer. Would not stratification help to inhibit natural transport, or mixing, of atmospheric gases between those layers?

    I would offer this as a counterpoint if I were more educated in the total behavior of complex molecules, which is why I am asking not telling. Obviously these heavier gases do exist in the stratosphere – I am merely trying to understand why the CFCs are “defying gravity” so to speak. Diffusion, as a transport mechanism, seems intuitively inadequate, but I do not deny it out of hand. Inquiring minds, ..... etc.

    Another question I would like for you to consider is a possible effect that is also never mentioned and that is the effect upon the stratosphere by jet airliners. Because of its relative stability above the turbulence of the troposphere, the stratosphere is the preferred flight zone for passenger jets. From this I speculate that the stratosphere is has acquired a new mixing agent since the 1950’s and 60’s, jet airplanes. Upon pondering this, it does seem to me that if jets do have an effect it could be quite large and growing given the several hundreds of flights per day and perhaps hundreds of thousands of flights per year. I would also guess the effects would be cumulative given that the stratosphere has a more or less fixed volume.

    It further seems a certainty that jet exhaust is a direct means of delivering CO2 into the stratosphere in large quantities. If jet engines are introducing a large quantity of “new” CO2 into the ozone layer, would it not follow that O3 would be a smaller % of the total, even without depletion, and that stratospheric CO2 would be rising in inverse proportion? Has upper level CO2 been measured too?

    And finally, could it be that CFCs are swept into the stratosphere by being dragged along by the slipstreams of jet aircraft?

    Jeff: FYI - Confirming your comment!
    Global Warming Fever
    Debra J. Saunders
    Tuesday, June 13, 2006
    Excerpt from article:

    Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told the Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax."

    I call it the greatest worldwide scam ever!

    Kent:

    I found this by Parsons of Colorado U on the web. Diffusion is slow but occurs.

    "The time scale for mixing tropospheric and lower stratospheric air is about 3-5 years, so stratospheric chlorine is expected to peak in about 1998 and then to decline slowly, on a time scale of about 50 years. [WMO 1994] [Montzka et al. 1996]"

    Montzka was right it did peak in 1998 and then started dropping slowly

    Kent, Thanks for raising some points I have not seriously considered. As to the weight of gasses in the atmosphere, water is a lightweight , not among the heavies as implied. The relative weights are methane (natural gas and farts) at 16, water at 18, air, the mixture we breathe, at 29, CO2 at 44, ozone at 48, and CF hydrocarbons at much higher weights, Freon 22, the modern refrigerant, at 86+.

    As an aside, we frequently hear from sports experts commenting about “heavy air” (i.e. high humidity air) reducing the carry of the ball. Actually the higher the humidity the lighter the air. This has been known since long before Abner Doubleday. Yet they still haven’t gotten the word.

    I'm still waiting for Bob's response to my 9.9.09 comment regarding his erroneous energy balance calculation.

    Fellow - bloggers,
    Please compare the increase of world electricity production to speed of Arctic and Antarctic ice melting.
    For example: China produces 792.5GW per year with an expected future ten percent annual increase -
    http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/alternative-energy-knowledge-bank/china-could-meet-its-energy-needs-by-wind-alone-according-to-new-report.html?utm_source=NewNet+Clean+Energy+Investor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3d23b3f12f-newnet_newsletter1_test&utm_medium=email

    Please be aware on the effect of induction heating from electrical generators to the Earth crust.
    The effect of induction heating is well described even in Wikipedia and this effect might lead to collecting of heat inside the Earth crust comparable to quantity of ever-produced electricity.
    The links below might be helpful:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Structure_of_the_magnetosphere_mod.svg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_generator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_Induction_Law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating

    Support to every one who is gonna to use less energy than before might reduce the effect of Climate change.

    Len: I also question your process of assigning all excess UV which enters to causing an increase in temperature. I'm still waiting for Bob's response to my 9.9.09 comment regarding his erroneous energy balance calculation.

    The energy balance is correct Len. It is apparent that you have never done a mass and energy balance. Here is what you do when you add energy, it heats up that which you added it to. This re-radiation bullshit is just that bullshit. Once the body is heated, It loses heat by the T^4 difference between the hotter body and the cooler body taking into consideratioon the emissivities of the two bodies.

    Missing link: Len doesn't understand the Inverse Square Law...

    Don
    Regarding yourcorrection on the "heaviness" of H2O --- ouch! Should have spotted that myself. I can see where H2O, even though lighter than air and trending upward by diffusion, would eventually come back down due to sheer weight because of condensation/crystalization. That would explain the alleged absence of water vapor in the stratosphere. Given that both CO2 and H2O are bi-products of jet fuel combustion, they both should reveal themselves in meaurable quantities "up there".

    Bob: "This re-radiation bullshit is just that bullshit." -- ardon me but what "science" texts are you reading?

    Len, pardon ME, but what science texts have YOU read?

    Bob, here's a link you may enjoy, read down to the section: Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers' where you'll read the following, apropos to your article:
    Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

    “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess."

    The models "assume" that CO2 is "forcing" the climate to get warmer, then when the level of CO2 rises and nothing happens in the "real" world, they tweak the models some more, but rarely back off from the "sky is falling" prognostications. The lack of warming coupled with the rise in CO2 you allude to in your article is very telling, and one of the key reasons the discussion is now about "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming". I just watched the comedy, "The day after tomorrow" last night, which is almost as funny as the South Park episode, "Two days before the day after tomorrow". In the movie we note that global "warming" leads to an immediate ice age. Pretty funny stuff, although I'm glad I waited until it was on TV instead of wasting my hard-earned shekels on such nonsense at the theater. Science fiction I enjoy, fictional science, not so much. :)

    jeff: Are you seriously supporting the statement "This re-radiation bullshit is just that bullshit" regarding earth's energy balance? Re-radiation of energy away from earth is of no consequence regarding the average temperature of earth atmosphere at surface? That is such an incredibly dumb statement to make by an author of an article where the title inculdes "Cause of Recent Global Warming" as to be completely incomprehensible. I mean, I know you AGW sceptics simply ignore science at will, but to come straight out and admit it indicates brazen faith-based ignorance of even the basics of science.

    Especially when the entire premis of the article in question is based in an eroneous supposed calculation of earth's energy balance!

    (erroneous)

    I had been expecting to settle the issue of re-radiation as the first error in the article, but since that's being ignored, I may as well raise some of the other obvious errors in the article.

    1) The author, without reference, arbitrarily proposes that only the top 10 inches of earth soil participate in any warming due to external factors. Everyone in our area knows that a water pipe or building foundation must be burried to at least 1.5 meters (5 feet) depth to avoid being frozen in the short seasonal temperature changes common even at 45 deg. lat., proving that variations in atmospheric temperature rapidly affect earth surface down to at least that depth. Travel north to the border of the permafrost zone and that figue goes to well beyond two meters. Therefore, the author should have used at least 72 inches, not 10 inches, in his energy balance calculation.

    2) Same problem as above with ocean surface water. Claiming that only the top 10 inches of the ocean participate in affecting earth's average surface temperature over a long time period is almost certainly a very significant error.

    3) What basis figure does the author use to compute the specific heat of earth's surface (even to 10 inches)? Is it the specific heat of dry rock / soil? If so, then it understates the actual specific heat by the specific heat of the water content of that surface soil, which is sure to be much higher.

    In summary, the input energies the author calculates in order to raise earth's surface temperature a specific amount are far too low, and then presuming that raising earth's surface temperature will not cause an increase in re-radiation compounds that error. Whereas the author claims that the amount of additional energy captured by additional CFC's in the upper atmosphere are sufficient to explain recent increases in measured temperatures, in fact they probably only explain 10% of that variation, and that variation has been already accounted for in present climate models.

    Unfortunately for the author, venturing into areas of science where one is not qualified often result in such tragi-comic outcomes. Too bad he chose to make it such a public event.

    Len, you are seriously under-qualified to try and put words into my mouth. My question is something else entirely. Rather than try to deal with your apparently remedial knowledge of chemistry, physics and geology, I wanted to know your background better, to at least attempt you education on these subjects. You've proven already you don't understand the concept of the inverse square law, how are you going to understand Kirchhoff's Law? Or do you believe the planet earth is a hohlraum?

    Jeff: Please presnt something explicit to back up you claims on my understanding. You never know, you might be surprised.

    So Jeff: Quit avoiding the question. Do you or do you not, support Bob's contention that re-radiation is of no significance in calculating an energy balance for earth?

    Len, you are the one who claimed that an IR photon would take a "brownian walk from the earth's surface past the stratosphere" or was it 60,000 feet? I ask YOU again, what is YOUR background in physics, chemistry and so on? Either you are stupid or ignorant but not both.

    I'll let Bob deal with you himself if he is so inclined. I'm assuming you are still talking about the previous energy balance issue on his previous paper. Kirchhoff's law states the emissivity of a surface can not exceed one, and in REALITY there is no substance that achieves even that. You and the AGW crowd want to believe that the earth is this perfect black body emitter, that IR photons leave the earth and "brownian walk" their way past the few meters that Hug and others have shown they fully decay and somehow account for ALL the heating component of the missing values in the so-called heat balance that IPCC proposes. People that actually UNDERSTAND these issues find that about as amusing as I found the South Park episode on global warming.

    But I am serious, unless I have a better understanding of YOUR background and YOUR understanding I have no idea where to begin to explain these things to you. I am further handicapped by your repeated tendency to ignore all links I post. At least Jim is intellectually honest enough to give it the old college try, methinks college wasn't your strong suit.

    Such dodging, Jeff! Can't even commit to answering a single question when you know you're wrong to be supporting Bob.s nonsense.

    For Jeff, an AGW skeptic (not a denier...), it's all about personal ego. He says:

    "This is all about brains Jim and mark my words, will be the undoing of a lot of science respect in the next decade. I for one can proudly say 'I told you so' years before the fact, it will be interesting what you say then. 'I started to kinda suspect something but my nose kept getting in the way?' "

    If the debate (for some people) is about being able to say "I told you so", then they will logically avoid facts or information that does not support their position. They have too much ego investment in it at this point.

    It looks like both sides seem to talk past each other at this point. Bob's paper is not about the truth of AGW. It's about creating something that AGW skeptics can rally around, and point out to other skeptics. Whether Bob understands this or not, his paper (and even more so his previous paper) is not to be consumed by anyone trying to find the truth about AGW.

    Unfortunately, the same is true for much of the pro AGW information. Most of this stuff is too complicated for people to evaluate critically, at least it is for me. The best I can do (without investing inordinate amounts of time in this) is to notice that in my opinion, much of the AGW skeptic material is SHODDIER than the sometimes SHODDY pro-AGW material.

    The pro-AGW at least has a process to fix the big mistakes, like fixing the hockey stick. On the skeptic side, there is no such effort on this part, because it's not about truth for them, it's the creation of doubt. That's why Jeff (a smart guy) won't come out an SAY that Beck's paper or the "re-radiation is bullsh*t" comment is inane. He can't actually knowingly lie, but he can obfuscate to hide his silence.

    Len, again I should leave it up to Bob to defend his own statements more eloquently than I but it is apparent that you are misunderstanding things again, so I'll attempt to address your ignorance. If it is stupidity I have no answer.

    Ashworth stated 2nd bullet above that the UV wavelengths were what penetrated the troposphere "plus" 10 inches of the surface. Now let us remember our physics wherein we learned that higher frequencies have LESS ability to penetrate objects. For instance, your microwave oven at 2.54 Ghz heats by dielectric motion of the polar molecules, especially water. Put a glass of water in your microwave and heat on high for 1 minute and the water could be 90C. Now try it with an ice cube of the same weight. How long does the ice cube take? Is the difference strictly the difference in temperature or is something else at work here? Cumulative skin effect heating will of course migrate via conduction and convection following Navier-Stokes formulas eventually. However, the point remains that the higher the frequency, the more energetic the photons and the higher the likelihood they will "bounce off" the object. Long wave energy can penetrate solid objects, which is why you can hear an FM radio (10's of Mhz) signal inside a tunnel, but not your Ghz frequency cell phone.

    For some reason you want to argue about re-radiation. Yes it occurs, but since you don't understand the inverse square law, you don't understand why the effect has spatial and energy limitations. Throw a ball against a wall as hard as you can, measure the speed when it hits and when it returns. Do it in a hallway so it can bounce against the other wall (the narrow way). Note its speed and energy. What happens? Does the ball continue to bounce back and forth indefinitely with the same energy? Huygens shows us that the photon hitting an object becomes a new point source albeit diminished in energy. Add in the inverse square law and the energy falls off dramatically.

    Your little example from the building trades, while amusing has no application here. The issue with protecting plumbing from COLD is quite different from HEAT. You showed your ignorance by pointing out an example of COLD PENETRATION to back up your (erroneous) supposition of HEAT PENETRATION. Remember from Thermodynamics 101, the ground gets colder because the HEAT is LEAVING, not because the COLD is COMING. The absence of replacement heat in your wintertime is why the ground continues to get colder to what is called the frost line. All of this is irrelevant to Bob's paper. A refresher (at least) on thermodynamics may be in order here. ALL HEAT IS ENERGY, HEAT IS THE LOWEST FORM OF ENERGY.

    Jim, I was typing Len's response while you were posting yours. I'm not being silent, but respectful of the author. If he wishes to explain himself he should be the best one to do so. Something I learned long ago in computer science was it is easier to write my own program than to try and debug someone else's. Without understanding where they are going or why they were going there, I can't really step into their shoes. On the other hand, I'm more than capable of reading the same words and applying my understanding of English and the subject matter to correct those who have misinterpreted same.

    I've asked Len for his qualifications to discuss science because it would be helpful for me to understand his background to tailor my responses. If he had a degree in physics (beyond unlikely based on his posts) I'd be able to have a discussion at that level. If his degree is in political science instead I could dummy down my responses, for instance not referring to equations I don't believe he could understand. I've taken to doing that anyway because of his obvious reticence to 'fess' up about his background. Unfortunately since I am dummy'ing down my answers I could appear to someone else with superior background to have inferior knowledge. However, I can live with that, but it may cause some errors to creep into my dialogue that would not otherwise if I were able to talk at the higher level the subject deserves.

    My concern and the concerns of other skeptics revolves around the fact that AGW has circled around a single hypothesis TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS. That would be bad enough, but because of the political ramifications of having an ex-VP of the United States as a vigorous cheerleader, the "science" has received an imprimatur is has not earned "the debate is over", over before it ever began.

    My very first post on the subject was before I had researched it. I said we first needed to determine THAT it was really happening, then WHAT was truly causing it, and finally that HUMANS were the source. That was two years ago and nothing has happened to modify that three-legged stool. Any one of the legs not standing and the stool falls down. Well we haven't really gotten past THAT it was really happening, let alone WHAT is the cause and whether HUMANS are the culprits. The deeper I dig including researching the source AGW papers, the more convinced I am that they have put the cart before the horse. Clearly they picked CO2 as the culprit because if it were the sun, then HUMANS couldn't POSSIBLY be at fault and anthropogenic-castigating could not continue.

    Hiding evidence and refusing to divulge data and methods does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the conclusion reached. Let's try this a different way. Let's say I told you I had invented cold fusion, but I am not going to show you HOW I did it, but only let you look at computer simulations would you believe me? If I added a hundred scientists all doing the same thing would you believe me then? If I told you that you needed to curtail all your economies and give me a trillion dollars would you like that? Then what if I said after doing all that the odds that I could actually achieve anything were only on the order of .03%, how would you like it then?

    Len: The laws of thermodynamics are what I use, you and the IPCC must be using "Play Station" science - make it up as you go along and everyone nod their head in agreement. Re-radiation that promotes the silliness of heating up a warmer body from a cooler body is quite impossible and violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I sometimes feel like I am arguing with the wall. What should be obvious to any scientist or engineer is not for reason. I feel lijke Jeff, maybe you are neither a scientist or engineer.

    (OK, this will probably go badly...)

    1. Imagine a water tank painted black. I point a narrow laser beam at it. It heats up the tank. The temperature of the tank heats up until the radiative dissipation of the tank with the surrounding air matches the energy of the laser hitting it.

    2. Now imagine I put an insulating cover on the tank, but cut a small hole to allow the laser to still hit the tank. Now the temperature of the tank will reach a higher steady state temperature, because the dissipative radiation will be less effective.

    3. If I put on an even thicker cover, then the tank will get even hotter, again with the same laser beam.

    I don't think I violated any thermodynamic laws here. I don't think the so called "greenhouse effect" does either.

    Jim, see my post to Len above, look up this word (hohlraum) on Google. Laugh with me at what you described. Or did you already do this and now you're just playing along?

    Jeff "UV wavelengths were what penetrated the troposphere "plus" 10 inches of the surface" -- Given that the UV emitted by the sun can be blocked simply with a heavy shirt, I fail to see how Jeff thinks it might penetrate 10" of earth.

    Also Jeff seems to think there is a physical attribute "cold" which is entirely separate from "heat", and which can "penetrate" things. No further discussion, Jeff, your self-claimed vaunted capacity for science is non-existent.

    Bob: Your only remaining faint hope is to continue to delude any unwary readers who don't understand simple science. Since they, such as Jeff, are apparently unreachable with even the very simplest scientific discussion, I leave them to you, and may you enjoy your mutual incomprehension.

    Len, you should be a politician, since you are so expert at prevaricating. You have taken every point I was making about YOUR misunderstanding of COLD and HEAT and attributed them to me. That is laughable to the extreme. You might have gotten away with it, but anyone with an IQ over 100 can read the posts above and see the points I was attempting to drive through your thick skull. I'm afraid I can't dummy these concepts down anymore than I have, so you are SOL.

    As far as skin is concerned you won't burn from UV radiation wearing a shirt, but the heat effect is something else, something else you don't understand. On the human body there is an SAR formula you likewise won't comprehend? We ARE talking about heating here, not sunburns. Ten inches was indeed being generous, but until I straightened you out, you were complaining he hadn't made it 2 meters! Now what is it?

    It is so amusing how you pretend to be smart after the fact. Go back to physorg (or are they still laughing at you there?) and peddle your particular brand of BS. Your snarky comments need a little something more than chutzpa to back them up. I'd buy you a beer, but I'm afraid for your remaining brain cells.

    So Jeff, should changes in re-radiation from earth's surface, eg. when the temperature increases, be included as part of an earth energy balance as I contend, or not? Simple question, third or fourth time.

    Jim: You are talking about insulation, not the bogus "greenhouse effect" the IPCC is promoting. In my earlier EnergyPulse "No Evidence CO2 is Causing Global Warming" paper in May, in Figure 7, the IPCC shows a total of 168 watts/M^2 hitting earth. Then they show 102 Watts/M^2 being lost to thermals plus transpiration cooling from plants. That leaves 66 Watts/M^2. Then through the play station science of IPCC they show 390 Watts/M^2 radiating from the earth to the sky and 324 Watts/M^2 so they say everything is in balance. The problem is how did the earth heat up by 390 watts/M^2 when all you had was 66 Watts/M^2 left after the deduction of themals and evaporation. One watt/m^2 translates to 0.317 Btu/hr/ft^2. So say we add a net 1 Btu/hr to one square foot of surface. How is it now that it increases to (390/66) 5.9 Btu/hr?

    Len: What is your technical background? You keep dodging that question!

    Bob,

    You keep insisting that this re-radiation of 324 Watts/M^2 (from the GHGs in the sky to the earth) can't occur. Why should I believe you and not Prof. Lindzen or even Jeff?

    The gaps in the solar spectrum reaching the earth due to absorption by water vapor, CO2 and other gases are pretty well characterized. Water and CO2 are pretty good at absorbing most IR wavelengths, which is how heat is emitted.

    It is not hard for me to imagine the following scenario:

    1. Heat from a desert radiates to CO2 and water vapor in the air. Some of the heat is absorbed and heats the air.

    2. Cloud moves over the cooler ocean, allowing the heat to radiate back to the planet.

    I'm not an atmospheric researcher, but Lindzen is. You don't give any justification why I should trust you and not him (and 1000's of other atmospheric scientists....)

    Roger Arnold pointed out that you can't tip the applecart on something so fundamental and accepted without clear, compelling, and overwhelming evidence to support your claim. You have not done this.

    Jim, i agree with your point as another item left out of Bob's calculation. However, when I'm asking about "re-radiation as part of an earth energy balance", on which Bob's entire thesis is based, particularly on a precise energy balance calculation of "energy in (from increased UV capture) over given time period = sufficient to increase surface and atmosphere temperature by amount observed", I note that Bob fails to account for the increased energy re-radiated from the earth due to an increase in the "blackbody temperature" of earth.

    Set a planet up in front of a star in a vacuum, and it will heat up until the total energy re-radiated exactly equals the total energy absorbed from the star. Make some modification to the attributes of the planet which cause it to capture more energy from the star, it's surface temperature will rise resulting in increased re-radiation away from the planet until it again settles into a balance. THAT INCREASED ENERGY RADIATED AWAY is what Bob is not accounting for in his article. Temp goes up, re-radiation increases, Bob ignores it as an element of his energy balance.

    Ask Lindzen and Jeff where the added energy comes from. Not you nor Lindzen nor anyone else can tell me this. I have asked and am ingnored everytime. Lindzen should be ashamed of himself.

    Energy in must always equate to energy out. Anyone who has ever completed a mass and energy balance knows that. The ones who show this added energy have no clue! I can't believe that this is even a question that needs to be raised. All I can say is the blind are leading the blind. It just shows how little real science is taught anymore, even at MIT. I used to think MIT was a good engineering school, no more. I have also come to believe that atmospheric scientists have never taken a course in thermodynamics.

    Len, agreed.

    AGW skeptics can make very valid points about how much CO2 actually could affect warming. That's a very reasonable critique. But instead they go off on these wild rants such as questioning basic established phenomena. If even a portion of these claims were true, then all of atmospheric science would have to be re-written, not just stuff relating to AGW.

    And all this, by the way, is something that apparently slipped past the gaze of dedicated researchers over the past 50 years, only to be discovered by amateur researchers who just happen to be highly critical of AGW in general.

    The amateurs are the ones who believe in AGW from CO2. They never check their computer models against real data. Real measurements show the earth has cooled over the last ten years. Data analysis is also something else they know nothing about, yet try to lead us to believe they are scientists.

    One last thing, if any of you are building a house and the contractor tells you he is using a 120,000 Btu/hr furnace, tell him you only need a 20,000 Btu/hr furnace because you will get six times more energy out than you put in because of the re-radiation from the walls and ceilings. Then see how warm your house is in the winter. Oh another thing, vent the furnace into your home so the CO2 can create even more re-radiation. Sounds like a plan. All of the AGW supporters should do this to reduce their energy use. You would need a CO meter.

    "because you will get six times more energy out than you put in because of the re-radiation from the walls and ceilings. " -- Completely not relevant to the issue under discussion, which is an accurate energy balance for planet earth.

    Bob,

    If you are performing a mass and energy calculation, it is of paramount important to define the boundaries of the system. In this case, the boundary seems to be a sphere around the Earth, which has 342 W/M^2 coming in and the same going out. I don't know where you think this 6X energy is coming from. But I have a suspicion.

    You seem to be concerned that this energy takes some twists and turns in getting out of the system. This is NOT a violation of thermodynamics, despite what you might think. This is just latency. If the sun suddenly stopped shining, it would still take several hours for the earth to cool significantly; an indication of this latency.

    The only analogy I can think of is a silly straw; a toy straw used by children. It's straight at the bottom, straight at the top, and shaped like a pretzel in the middle. When liquid is drawn up in the straw, it makes several bends and twists, going up and down, before finally leaving the straw. But the NET movement of liquid is still based only on the diameter of the straw and the velocity of the fluid. The only difference compared with a normal straw is the LATENCY of when the liquid finally exits the straw.

    I think you are confusing the vertical flows of energy (before it finally exits the system) with NET energy that leaves. They need not be the same.

    These balances of watts/M^2 are the same as Btu/hr/ft^2. There is a time component so all flows must be in accord with that time component. If the only source of energy input is 168 watts/M^2 entering from the sun and of that only 66 watts/M^2 are available to radiate from the earth how does the 66 watts/M^2 magically create 390 watts/m^2 which radiates to the sky and of which 324 watts/m^2 come back, so the graph balances. How do you ever get 390 watts/M^2 leaving the earth to the sky in the first place? This is my question. Why stop at 390, make it a million.

    The straw analogy doesn't work for radiant energy my friends, it travels in a straight line at the speed of light. Even so no stream could be greater than 66 watts/M^2.

    The back radiation does occur but heat transfer is always calculated from the warmer to cooler body, never vice versa. It they just had one stream radiating 66 watts/m^2 to outer space the graph would be fine. They do this back radiation shuffle to make people believe that CO2 is causing warming, which is bogus as you all should know by now. Ask any heat transfer engineer how he takes into account back radiation. I never ever heard of that until the IPCC and friends applied their "Play Station" science to global warming.

    The graph they use also makes no sense for the watts/m^2 that hits earth is some 1366 watts/m^2 (Figure 8 above) and this value varies based on the solar irradiance cycle. I think they must believe that IR is the only source of heat to the earth, visible and UV light supply much more energy to the earth than IR but they ignore that.

    Bob,

    I have reviewed the IPCC diagram and it does NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, Jim B. is absolutely correct.

    The net energy leaving the earth into outer space is the 107 W/m2 reflected incident solar radiation of all solar wavelengths, plus the 235 W/m2 escaping the upper atmosphere into space at largely at IR wavelengths. This totals the 342 W/m2 shown as incident solar radiation hitting the upper atmosphere, balancing the system’s energy transfer rates.

    The key in understanding the IPCC diagram is that W/m2 (Watts/square-meter) is a measure of rate of energy transfer density analogous to power flow measured in watts in electrical circuits. Power flow however is not a measure of energy analogous to joules or watt-seconds (or kilowatt-hours) of energy consumed in electrical circuits. One must integrate power level over time to determine energy transferred.

    The problem you apparently have with IPCC’s diagram is between the earth's surface and the lower levels of the atmosphere showing the earth emitting IR at 350 W/m2 and the atmosphere radiating 324 W/m2 back to earth. You ask how can these two numbers be higher than those above. The answer is commonly referred to as latent heat or heat storage that is being re-circulated within the system back and forth between the earth and the atmosphere. That circulating heat is transferring at larger rates than the numbers entering and leaving the system above. If you remove the incident sunlight altogether, the energy that leaks into outer space at 235 W/m2 would eventually deplete the re-circulating energy and the earth is seen to gradually cool down.

    A simple analogy is a spring. You transfer energy to a spring by compressing it, and get energy out when the spring is expands. If permitted by the system the spring can oscillate back and forth at its resonant frequency, which can build up to a very large amplitude. More importantly the oscillation will be maintained at high amplitude as long as just enough energy is transferred to the spring from outside to match the rate of energy escaping or lost to the outside. Think of a man on a pogo stick for example. This resonance behavior is analogous to the re-circulating energy between the earth and atmosphere at higher transfer rates than the incident sunlight energy or the energy leaking back out into space from the upper atmosphere.

    Another similar analogy Bob is a thermos bottle. If you put hot coffee into a thermos, its walls trap the heat inside for a very long time, i.e. the amount of energy leaking out per minute is tiny compared to what is stored inside. And guess what, the energy is constantly radiated by the coffee at the inner wall of the thermos, and the silver-coated wall reflects almost all of it back inside to the coffee.

    Everyone knows someone up here in polar bear country Canada whose original furnace will run much less often in winter after they upgrade their home's insulation. There are even transparent film products you can stick to the insides of windows that function like the silver coating on the inside of a thermos bottle, trapping more heat in by reducing the rate of heat escaping through the windows. But the film is completely transparent to visible light wavelengths. Greenhouse gases can be considered much like these window films in the atmosphere.

    However I do really think you are onto something about ozone depletion having a much greater climate impact than first thought however, especially at the poles. But I don't think you can simply dismiss all other so-called greenhouse gases until it is proven their contribution is miniscule to climate change.

    If greenhouse gases have miniscule affects on climate, consider how simple air temperature and water vapor profiles versus altitude can affect local climates. Classics are how a temperature inversion layer over a large urban area can trap smog and other air pollutants from mixing and being carried away, or the substantially colder temperatures reached on a crystal clear night sky as compared with cloudy nights. I find it tough to believe that any man-made emissions on a world-wide scale are not significantly contributing to climate pattern changes.

    Mr Ashworth: You determination to be in error and to remain so despite having contradicting facts pointed out to you repeatedly indicate that you are arguing from a pre-determined conclusion and simply grasping for shreds of ideas which might temporarily confuse casual non-scientific readers. Or you may actually believe the nonsense you present despite being repeatedly shown your errors, which I find very highly doubtfull but stranger things have happened.

    To the casual non-scientific readers who are your target, I would simply recommend that you reserve your decisions until you've scanned the work of the true climate scientists who have put enormous efforts into resolving these issues over long time periods, with many scientific reviews and endless nonsense attacks such as this, all refuted.

    If even 1/10th of the stuff the "sceptics" put out were actually scientific fact, there is no way the UN could ever drag the US administration into a second round of treaty negotiations.

    Guys: Although this is no reason to believe me, I have done mass and energy balances my whole life. I had never run into a back radiation phenomena until the IPCC and others made it up. The only radiant energy equation I know of is the overall net radiant energy heat transfer:

    qgs = 0.173*es*[egg*(Tg/100)^4 - egs*(Ts/100)^4] (Hottel and Egbert)

    Where qgs = rate of heat transfer of radiant energy
    A = Area of surface absobing heat
    es = surface emissivity
    egg = emissivity of the gas at Tg
    egs = emissivity of the gas at Ts

    This would be used in a furnace to calculate the heat transfer to the refractory walls from the flame.

    As you can see you can only calculate net heat transfer from the hotter to cooler body and not vice versa or you get negative heat transfer.

    Also radiation is near instantaneous, no time to bounce around and even if it does the temperature of the surface could never be hotter than the amount of watts/M^2 that hit it in the first place. It could never reach a temperature where it radiated some six times more than was available to radiate.

    Why is this not obvious to you? Maybe it is because the mind always want to think
    everything is more complex than it actually is.

    Len: Look at Figure 1 above. These so-called true climate scientists of yours predict the earth is warming but real temperature measurements show just the opposite, around 0.7 degree C cooling in ten years. I think their accuracy is akin to the meterological models used to predict where hurricanes will hit. They couldn't predict where Hurricane Ike was going to hit until the last 24 hours and they missed where Hurricane Rita would hit in the last 24 hours. Apparently another garbage in - garbage out computer model but better than the IPCC models.

    qgs = 0.173*es*[egg*(Tg/100)^4 - egs*(Ts/100)^4] (Hottel and Egbert)

    In the above equation, T is always taken to the power of four, meaning that even a small increase in the temperature of the radiating body will greatly increase the amount of heat radiated. YET, in your article, Bob, in Tables 1 and 2, you compute that "Added UV light hitting earth accounts for observed warming from 1966 to 1998 (0.48 oC or 0.863 oR)"

    In your own words, you do an "energy balance" calculating that increased incoming UV radiation due to CFC increases over 32 years can provide sufficient energy to increase earth's surface temperature 0.48 degC when accounting for the specific heat of the lower atmosphere, ground and water surfaces to 10 in.

    HOWEVER, in THAT calculation, you IGNORE the effects on earth's thermal radiation of an average increase in temperature of 0.48 degC. Given the ^4 factor, and 32 years, that increased radiation will be sufficient to cause serious errors in your calculation as a result.

    Errors are also introduced by limiting the thermal interactions of earth's land and ocean surfaces to only 10 inches over 32 years, when we all know that earth's surface heats up and cools down to a depth of at least 6 feet even in just the 6 months of a winter / summer season.

    The fact that you refuse to acknowledge these errors indicates a non-scientific attitude.

    Len: I calculated the mass of earth-water that would be heated up, of course there is a gradient on earth, warmer on top coller further down but that was not germaine to the analysis. On earth water vs. land: 70.8% Water, 29.2% land. I used a specific heat of 1.0 Btu/lb/F for both land and water.

    I did not use the Hottel Egbert equation because I did not calculate the radiation hitting the earth, i measured the effect of increased radiation by using actual temperature measurements (novel concept to some).

    It takes 1 Btu to heat up water 1 degree F. The earth was heated up by 0.48C or 0.864 F. So the increase energy hitting earth based on total mass heated was 0.864 Btu/lb. This is real science Len, but I guess you are used to using real science since you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the garbage thrown out by the IPCC computer models.

    You're still not accounting in your energy balance calculation for the increased energy radiated from the earth due to its 0.48 degC increase in temperature over the period of 32 years (which must be provide from the source you propose, increased UV capture)

    And the claim that only 10" of surface participates in any temperature change must either be backed up with a credible reference or declared a wild guess, very likely far too low for a 32 year application of increased temperature, given what we know of earth surface's conduction of seasonal temperature variations over 1/2 year periods. And the heat sinking effect of the ocean surface over a 32 yar time period are likely a lot more than merely the top 10 inches.

    I'll sure take the IPCC's rational summarization of ALL relevant peer-reviewed science over such as this. If you want the hypothetically ignored effects of CFC's on earth's climate to be accepted by me, have the subject addressed by a genuine climatologist, then get some of their many computer models to incorporate whatever parts of it the don't already, then have the result peer reviewed BY OTHER CLIMATOLOGISTS, then publish. At that point, the IPCC will accept it, and I will stop harassing you.

    By the way, you and may others seem to missunderstand exactly what "the IPCC" is. Essentially, it is a volunteer organization of all practicing climate scientists the world over, with a small 5 to 10 person co-ordinating Secretariat for each of 4 working groups, and for the supervisory group.

    from IPCC Structure - clearly not the entity many think it is, including you who seem to think "the IPCC" runs climate models etc.

    [QUOTE]Thousand of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. Their work is supported by a central IPCC Secretariat, whose role is to plan, coordinate and oversee all IPCC activities and by the Technical Support Units. The Secretariat and the TSUs employ 5-10 people each.[/QUOTE]

    I also note, in the fourth IPCC assesment report - Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, on page 675, the six charts indicating the 5 main contributions to observed climate change (a to e) [QUOTE] Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a). [/QUOTE]

    Item d) covers ozone changes, which is likely what you are discussing. Note that the contribution is practically negligable.

    "...IPCC is ... organization of all practicing climate scientist the world over".

    Really?

    I believe that more properly, it is an organization of "some" climate scientists.

    I'm completely lost. Left town for a week, came back and see that I'm now with "Lindzen" on something, not sure what, but am interested that you're using a climate skeptic to back your AGW claims? Please elucidate for me. In a separate post I'll deal with your thermal mass (otherwise and more properly referred to as heat capacity) misunderstandings.

    Len, the IPCC is a POLITICAL GROUP. Always was, always will be. It is right there in the name the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Now if you wanted it to be a Scientific panel wouldn't you name it the InterSCIENTIFIC Panel on Climate Change??? LOL

    How it all started:

    Here is the summary, the scientists wrote for the 1995 IPCC Draft Report:
    1)
    None of the studies have shown any clear evidence of climate changes due to greenhouse gases.

    2)
    No study has positively attributed any climate change to anthropogenic causes.

    3)
    Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate are reduced

    This was not what the UN wanted! They removed all three of the quotes of the scientists, and UN politicians inserted the following Bold Face Lie in the final 1995 Summary Report for lawmakers:
    The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.
    Many of the IPCC scientists quit, and threatened the UN with a lawsuit in order to have their names removed from the IPCC final report.

    Because the majority of ETHICAL scientists quit after the 1995 debacle, the remainder have been less and less, shall we say honest(?) in their endeavors. Time and again on this site I've PROVEN that the IPCC and its climate researches have fabricated data, refused to divulge source information and generally behaved like spoiled children. In short they do NOT behave like real scientists would or should.

    How spin doctors sexed up global warming

    Further to the citation by Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, of a report by 123 lead authors and 516 contributing authors for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Letters, April 30), let us look at the IPCC's makeup. According to the CVs of its scientists, only a small proportion have conducted any considerable amount of original research. On the other hand, it did have some top grade members, who collectively produced some 200 peer-reviewed books and articles. They have left in disgust at the shenanigans at the panel - including the ad hominem attacks to force some members to produce "correct" answers.

    I have a copy of an original draft report. At the foot of each page is an instruction that the information must not be communicated to the media. Why so?

    When the scientists go home, along come the spin merchants to make the material easier for the public. My copy shows sentences scored out and new ones inserted. It shows alterations to words to produce the desired green effect.

    Research reveals that the calculation of previous CO2 densities has been faulty. Two years ago, it was shown that the density for the 19th century was 335 parts per million, not 290 as used by the IPCC. Some 9,600 years ago it was 348. In other words, we have not had such a huge increase as claimed.

    As for Lord Rees's so-called consensus of scientists, I can produce the names (in alphabetical order) of more than 19,000 scientists who disagree.

    Robert Pate, Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire


    Would you like more of the specifics on the REAL scientists who left the IPCC in disgust at the way it was and is politicized? How many links do you not want to read? Here's one you'll ignore, I could post hundreds more.

    A lot of claims there, Jeff, all impossible to substantiate.

    I, at least, assume the IPCC works more accurately than Bob Ashworthy.

    It's also somewhat amusing to see the sceptics accusing the IPCC of being politicised.

    Micheal: "I believe that more properly, it is an organization of "some" climate scientists. " -- Show me then, all the legitimate published peer-reviewed climate science which is not part of IPCC reports. Whether or not any particular scientist gets his nose out of joint because some other scientist makes an error in their area when speaking to a group of press, or not, and refuses to further contribute to the synthesis of the next report, doesn't mean that their completed published, peer reviewed scientific output gets left out of subsequent reports by other contributers. And Mr. Ashworthy doesn't qualify.

    You are right Len, it is impossible for me to substantiate ANYTHING to your satisfaction because you are a troglodyte who refuses to click on links I provide. However, as anyone ELSE reading this will be able to do so, your intransigence will be on display for all to see and judge accordingly. Here is just ONE example of many that substantiates what I just said. It of course has multiple MORE links you'll never read, so you can continue to plug your ears and close your eyes and pretend I have no evidence. This is REALLY getting old. How did you pass grade school?

    Criticize the worthy Bob Ashworth (Freudian slip on your part perhaps?_) all you like, he has demonstrated knowledge, experience and educational background that you clearly lack. Bob talks about SPECIFIC HEAT, which is NOT to be confused with THERMAL MASS or heat capacity. In fact thermal mass has been misunderstood and misused by snake oil salesmen for the past 50 yrs or so, primarily in the building trades. What no one bothers to calculate for you are the sheer BTU's needed to get that mass up to the requisite temperature, and the gradient temp is what determines whether it stays that way, for instance in the frigid north, where people who overpaid for "thermal mass" buildings shiver away in the winter while their house sucks all the heat out of the furnace.

    Bob tried to fix your misunderstanding about insulation but we have our other Bob (Amorosi) jumping in with his THERMOS example! Did IQ's go down substantially while I was gone, or just reading comprehension? I'll ask this a different way, does the earth's atmosphere act as an INSULATOR, meaning it is IRRELEVANT to temperature PRODUCTION? I leave the answer as an exercise for the student's cognitive dissonance.

    I haveNO understanding to be fixed by Bob. And I recommend you do a search above for "specific heat" . Only after I used the term half a dozen times in questions yet unanswered (first on 9.16.09) did Bob ever mention it. But that sort of error is pretty much what we've all come to expect from you Jeff. It's why I don;t often waste time following your links.

    Len Gould 9.23.09 I haveNO[sic] understanding

    You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just stopped there, it says it all.

    It was OBVIOUS to anyone trained even obliquely in science what Bob was ALWAYS talking about, that he has to spoon feed it to you says everything about your "understanding". I made no error, you did by conflating specific heat with thermal mass. Some people call thermal mass heat capacity, but they are NOT interchangeable concepts.

    Such elegant scientific arguments.

    For our amusement Jeff, how about computing and giving us the difference between the specific heat of the top 2 meters of earth's surface and the thermal mass of the top 2 meters of earth's surface, presuming as Bob does that its properties are identical with pure water. Oh, zero difference, you say? But we all knew that already. For other readers, presuming you will wimp, its so basic its Wiki material, as:

    "If the body consists of a homogeneous material with sufficiently known physical properties, the thermal mass is simply the amount of material present times the specific heat capacity of that material."

    edit "specific heat of the top 2 meters of earth's surface x its total mass", obviously.

    It is interesting that you find that to be a significant and difficult concept in science, though.

    Hee hee, Len gets a point for that one.

    Thanks Jeff.

    Len and Bob : Here is what an analytical chemist friend of mine wrote, maybe he can get the point across better.

    A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said, "The UK has set out bold proposals for coal and CCS – they are a world first – and our ambitions remain firm," she said. "We're determined to drive the development of CCS as part of the transition to a low carbon economy."

    Is she aware that CCS also means needing to learn to live in a low oxygen economy? For every 1,000kg of carbon dioxide stored, a whopping 727kg of oxygen is stored, alongside a mere 273kg of carbon?

    Probably not.

    Neither is she probably aware that carbon dioxide does not have any means of affecting global temperatures or the climate, in any way whatsoever.

    Has she ever used a thermos flask? Then she'll know that despite the infra red energy bouncing around between the silvered glass walls and surrounded by a vacuum the contents of the flask do not get any hotter than when they were first introduced into the flask.

    Yet, in climate change circles, the bouncing around of infra red energy within the atmosphere due to a few extra molecules of carbon dioxide is supposed to increase the atmosphere's temperature. A view supported by many a skeptical scientist as well."

    Len and Bob. How do you answer the thermos bottle analysis? Does the thermos get hotter with time or does it gradually cool off. Just answer this question truthfully and straight forward if you can.

    Bob,

    No, a thermos does not get hotter with time.

    But that's not the same as what is going on in the atmosphere. Non IR-light from the sun hits the earth warming it. The earth emits IR-light, some of which is reflected back by GHG layers to cooler parts of the earth. With increased GHGs, more of this light can be reflected back, and less directly escapes to space.

    I'm not necessarily a fan of CCS either. As a nuclear engineer put it. "You only need to store nuclear waste for a few thousand years, but CO2 you need to store forever."

    Bob, the thermos bottle example would indeed get hotter inside if one were to add more energy to it at a rate greater than the rate it is leaking out. This is what is happening to the earth when the sun is shining, as illustrated in the IPCC diagram. I am not a climatologist but I was taught basics of thermodynamics in engineering, and can explain the IPCC diagram as follows.

    Daytime: the earth's surface receives168 W/m2 incident solar energy plus 324 being radiated back to the earth's surface by the atmosphere totaling 492. This is much greater than the 390 leaving the earth's surface, so the surface temperature obviously rises. The atmosphere receives at a minimum 67 from incident solar plus 350 from the earth's surface totaling 417, but only 235 leaks out to outer space, so the atmosphere temperature must also rise.

    At Night: the 168 incident solar disappears, and the 390 leaving the earth's surface is now greater than the 324 incident on it, and so it obviously cools. The atmosphere similarly has 67 incident disappearing, but it will continue to rise in temperature as long as the 350 from the earth's surface continues. As the earth's surface cools however the value of 350 leaving the earth’s surface must decrease over time, so eventually the atmosphere will start to cool as well given the other values remain unchanged.

    The key here is the 324 value being radiated back to the earth’s surface from the atmosphere because greenhouse gases probably increase this number on average around the globe, resulting in a marginally slower cooling rate at the earth's surface at night, and a marginally greater heating rate during the day.

    Also Bob, in my opinion, this article also presents evidence that at the very least the value 168 of incident solar radiation on the earth’s surface has increased marginally due to ozone depletion, especially at the poles. So again on average across the globe, the rate of heating during the day is marginally higher as a result.

    Jim and Len: Please give us the equations you use to calculate this back radiation effect.

    Isn't it true that as the sky density increases, less energy will hit earth because there is more energy input to the earth than what radiates away, therefore it will create a cooling rather than warming effect.

    Back in 1971 here was the contention of John Holden, current Obama energy czar). He said, "There is reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about 0.2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by 0.8°C. (They haven't blamed increased could cover on CO2 yet have they?) We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants (So if we burn more biomas that has a higher H/C ratio than coal we increase water vapor - how is this helpful. Also, water vapor acts similarly to CO2 reagarding radiation absorption and emission, so why do we need to do this again? )

    Holdren now says the opposite. He argued one way and now the other. He was more scientific before he became politicized by Gore and Company. He helped make the charts and graphs for Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth" I call it a Convenient Lie!

    However, always watch out for alarmists, know that they always have hidden agendas and it always translates to someone making more money!

    One last point, there is no need to store CO2, Mother Nature already does that with increased plant growth. The IPCC stated that 98.5% of the CO2 produced is absorbed by nature. Pretty efficient process I would say.

    Len,
    I merely pointed out your assertion that "... IPCC is an organization of ... all practising climate scientists" is false. Your reply was not germane to my point.

    You appear to have difficulty separating fact from fiction and conjecture while being prone to exageration.

    Bob,

    I assume by increased sky density you mean "optical" density, or optical opaqueness. Increased cloud cover or volcanic ash or dust and smoke from air pollution I agree completely could very easily have larger cooling effects than GHGs are having warming. Just ask the owner of a real greenhouse who must strive keep the glass panels on it clean if he wants the maximum interior warming effect from sunlight.

    Volcanic ash and dust from air pollution however tend to dissipate and fall back to earth far faster than GHGs disappear from the atmosphere. So GHG warming effects don't go away as fast and get masked temporarily as pointed out in your article when there were some years the data you present were heavily weighted in favor of effects by major volcanic eruptions.

    Bob: Where does the added energy come from when the only energy input cited is from the sun and is 168 watts/M^2. There is core earth energy I think that amounts to around 3% of the total heat but they don't show that. Also, as I wrote before, what equations do you use to calculate back radiation. Did they just make those up.

    The only equations I know of calculate the net energy flow from the hotter to cooler surface. The NASA temperature versus altitude shows 30C at sea level decreasing linearly to around -70C at 17,000 meters then increasing approximately linearly from 17,000 meters to -20C at around 38,000 meters and then it starts dropping again.

    Since heat transfer is always from the hotter to cooler body using the T^4 differences there is no way the sky can heat the land and oceans. It is always the other way around.

    Also the higher up you go the lower the atmospheric density so less mass to radiate energy.

    Bob,

    I didn't calculate any of the numbers to explain the IPCC diagram, I only understand what they are trying to illustrate. I am not a physicist or climatologist, or chemist for that matter. My admittedly simplistic interpretation of the diagram is based on several analogies I am familiar with.

    The earth and atmosphere essentially act like an IR energy storage shell around the earth, where IR energy radiates back and forth inside that shell between the earth's surface and the atmosphere. A certain level of solar energy enters this shell from incident solar on the daylight side of the earth, but a lesser level leaks into outer space on both sides of the earth. Surely if there were no leakage back into space, the temperature in the shell would continually rise, and the levels of energy radiating back and forth between the atmosphere and earth's surface would continually grow to far exceed the incident solar level coming into it.

    Picture your car engine - the engine block stores heat input from the combustion process, and without a radiator to exhaust heat energy at a high rate into the air, the engine will overheat while it runs in spite of some heat leakage radiating from the block directly into the air. The latter cools the engine’s temperature albeit slowly when engine combustion (and the water pump) are shut off.

    So to answer your question, there is no added energy input to the system other than incident solar, but that doesn't exclude greater levels of energy flowing, and higher temperatures achieved inside the system due to heat storage.

    Bob Ashworth's nonsense doesn't merit response. He clearly has not even a beginning of an understanding of the actual carbon cycle on earth.

    I'll reply to Micheal Keller: When I stated that "the IPCC" consists of "all practicing climate scientists the world over", I was referencing that fact that no matter who publishes legitimate science relevant to global warming, the many selected report writers will include their results in IPCC reports. You may or may not choose to contribute to the drafting or editing of those reports when asked, for a broad variety of reasons including grandstanding PR attempts, but if the science you publish is correct and relevant it will be included (and if it is not it will not), thus "all practicing climate scientists the world over" is accurate.

    Bob,

    A photon HAS NO TEMPERATURE!!! It only has a frequency. Photons from the sun are emitted with a spectral distribution close to that of a black body of about 5800 K.

    Since the "hotter surface" is 5800K, there is quite a bit of 'upside' to the current temperature of the earth, at least in theory.

    Note how ordinary sunlight can be concentrated using a parabolic mirror to reach a temperature that can boil water or even melt iron. This is with NO enclosed surfaces (actual greenhouse) that limits cooling by convection.

    If what you are suggesting is true, then there would be no way one could boil water with sunlight and a parabolic mirror, or even burn paper with a magnifying glass. But both of these activities can be readily performed.

    Jim,

    Simple but highly effective examples that any casual reader understands, nicely put. You would make a good teacher because good teachers are the ones that can put complex things into easy-to-understand words for their students.

    To add, a photon has no temperature although its frequency is a direct measure of the energy that it carries. i.e. UV photons carry more energy than IR photons do.

    Len,

    Bob Ashworth is clearly passionately against CO2 causing global warming, and I disagree with him on that. But my subtle point is we all must face that the atmosphere has both increased CO2 and ozone depletion happening, and the result we see in the earth's climate is caused by both. It is likely impossible to separate the effects of each through empirical observation, the question is how much is each contributing relative to each other I suppose.

    It is amazing how you guys never answer my questions. I ask you questions and get irrelevance back. My nonsense doesn't deserve an answer Len because you have no answer.
    Show me the equation for back radiation, any of you. Why doesn’t this deserve an answer. That is what you based your whole greenhouse effect on. If you can’t provide the equation then you are not qualified to say it is there.

    Methinks there is none. If there is none how did the IPCC come up with its nonsense of how much back radiation was occurring from a cooler sky to a warmer earth and how could you accept such nonsense without proving to yourself it was there?

    Incomprehensible!

    BobA,

    I'm pretty sure I'd be the teacher that the kids would get big laughs at in imitating... :)

    To add to your point to Len, another issue has been the decrease in particulates in the air since the 60's (due to improved air pollution laws and cleaner diesel engines) that has allowed more light to reach the earth and thus warmed it further. Some believe that this had been masking some of the GW that had occurred in the decades before the 90's. So maybe we need to crank up those diesels...

    I typed this up yesterday, thought I'd hit the submit button and went on to other things. Now I see it didn't post but nothing of substance has occurred in the meantime so here's my response to Len. BTW I wouldn't have to be talking at this level if I didn't believe I had a remedial student on the other end, I wouldn't need to spend time clarifying obvious scientific principles. Len was so smart he only needed 2 weeks and 3 posts to get his "hee hee point".

    Hmm, let me try this one more time. Thermal mass and heat capacity are sometimes used interchangeably. Therefore you are telling me something I already told you. However, and English fails us here, SPECIFIC heat capacity DOES NOT EQUAL heat capacity. To really do this right, which no one here has the time or inclination to do, one would need to determine the specific heat capacities of ALL the earth's surfaces then multiply them by the mass furthermore accounting for any albedo effect. However, since over 70% of the earth's surface is water one can get close enough for government work (and IPCC work IS government work) by just using ITS specific heat capacity, which Bob did. Also the albedo of water is substantially lower than most earth surfaces, so the EFFECTIVELY heated percentage on the basis of solar radiation is obviously higher than even 70%

    And to finally put your re-radiation argument to the bed it so richly deserves, let us ask ourselves how much WARMER the earth is because of all the tremendous energy re-radiating from the MOON onto our planet. Let's see, moon vacuum, intervening space, vacuum, MUST be warming us up no? Since we all know the earth ISN'T warmed by the moon, so-called re-radiation cannot be much of an effect no?

    Now if you want to say the atmosphere acts as an insulator, that's fine with me, but will fail your AGW argument rather quickly.

    One more point, this whole greenhouse bullshit is based on there being a greenhouse signature in the atmosphere where it is hotter up 8-12 km than it is on earth.

    The only problem is that once again the IPCC computer program that predicted this was flat wrong. See Figure 6 in my paper that was on Energypulse in May under emissions and environmental. The IPCC predicts a hot spot but there is none. Look at the IPCC graph compared to the actual temperature profile that is there. They predicted the temperature of the earth would go up with increased CO2, it went down. They predicted a hot zone in the atmosphere. There is none.

    This is data analysis. You nor they check their predictions with the actual data and in both cases here their predictions were proven to be bogus. You wouldn't let me get away with such crap so why do you let them. It is because you want desparately to believe them for some strange reason and will not let facts get in your way.

    From Piers Corbyn:

    Climate Change - "The only tipping point to come is the tipping point of public opinion against the alarmist falsity of Climate Change Policy" says climate scientist

    "Obama's speech to the UN's Global Warming Summit on 22 Sept was a shameful pack of alarmist falsity. The integrity of the so-called science he espouses is as low as that preached by scientists under the thumb of totalitarian regimes or certain tobacco companies in the past" said Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction long range forecasters.

    "But haven't we been here before? Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war?

    UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-539350/From-WMD-Stop-The-War-The-disastrous-claims-launched-Iraq-invasion-historic-stand-war.html

    "The purpose of the Global Warming campaign of falsity here is clear - control by the West of world development and energy supply - imposing unnecessary technology to solve problems that don't exist and thereby imprison the developing world into reliance on a new green bubble of false value created by the West. It is rather like how GM crops can imprison poor farmers and Microsoft imprisons us all in their lorry loads of software when a spoonful would do. Its purpose in the West is as a Weapon of Mass Taxation - to back the new bubble of false value.

    "If they had evidence of their Global Warming claims surely world leaders would show it to the world. Yet the UN still haven't replied to the letter from 'The gang of 13' scientists in July 2008 asking for simple evidence of the UN claims on Global Warming - http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf .

    "I suggest the UN appoint an Inspector of Global Warming to look for evidence and report back but do it before the tragedies instead of too late which was the case when Hans Blix finally reported back that there were no WMDs in Iraq - after the Iraq war began and after Dr David Kelly died.

    "It is incumbent on all who care about the integrity of science to fight for the truth and perhaps the truth is slowly getting through. The only tipping point to come in Climate Change is the tipping point of public opinion on Climate Change Policy. We will discuss how to get to this, along with advances in the Solar Weather Technique of long range weather and climate forecasting at our Climate Fools Day conference in London on October 28th* "

    Can someone explain the IPCC diagram's back radiation from atomosphere to earth because I don't know the physics well enough to do it.

    Bob,

    If as you claim there is no greenhouse effect presented by the earth's atmosphere whatsoever, and all the debate on it is pure passionate BS, answer this one for us....Why does the moon which has practically no atmosphere have the coldest place in the universe on its night-time side at one of its poles, as reported just recently in the news media. After all, the moon is for all practical purposes the same distance from the sun as we are, and therefore receives virtually the same solar energy flux in watts/m^2 on its daylight side as the earth does.

    Jeff,

    Actually a full moon DOES warm the earth a little bit. Who'd a thunk it?

    Moon warms the earth

    Kind of amazing, given the R^2 factor in play with that re-radiation....

    You buy that hook, line and sinker don't you? No wonder you'll believe AGW.

    I'll leave you a day to think about it, then I will show you where you are completely wrong. I had to double check to make sure you hadn't sent me something from the Onion.

    Jeff,

    Yes, those scientists are all part of my personal cabal. I hand picked them to write the research, which was then fed to the "Science" editors, also of course under my control. And I did this all 14 years ago, because like any good conspiracy, the AGW conspiracy has been going on for decades and includes millions of conspirators. Not YOU of course.... (add evil laugh here)

    (This note is dripping with sarcasm, just so everyone is clear.)



    ------------------------------
    In a paper being published today in the journal Science, researchers at Arizona State University at Tempe present evidence that the full Moon raises the temperature of Earth's lower troposphere by more than 0.03 of one degree Fahrenheit. This region of the troposphere extends from the ground to an altitude of about three and a half miles.

    Polar-orbiting satellites have furnished daily tropospheric temperature measurements spanning the world since 1979, said the scientists, Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. and Dr. Randall S. Cerveny. Their analysis of 15 years of these measurements has turned up the surprising conclusion that a very slight but statistically significant warming reaches a peak coinciding with the full Moon.

    I'm not saying they didn't reach a conclusion, I'm saying their conclusion reached was WRONG, just like AGW. There IS a reason, but they missed it, this is why Bob wants to see your math, math shows this clearly. The moon's re-radiation can be computed several ways, and its heating effect likewise defined. Tomorrow I will show you.

    Appeal to authority (Woo hoo, SCIENCE MAGAZINE_) leaves me blank. They have to print something to keep the presses running, doesn't mean everything they print is RIGHT.

    Hi Bob Amorosi. "the question is how much is each contributing relative to each other I suppose. " -- I believe that information is in the IPCC document which I linked above, 9.23.09, (though its a multi-megabyte document I'm not willing to load at this site, what I concluded at that time was that Item d) covers ozone changes, which is likely what you(Mr Ashworth) is discussing. Note that the contribution is practically negligable.

    fourth IPCC assesment report - Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, on page 675, the six charts indicating the 5 main contributions to observed climate change (a to e) [QUOTE] Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a). [/QUOTE]

    Cheers Jim: regarding "the decrease in particulates in the air since the 60's (due to improved air pollution laws and cleaner diesel engines)" -- i believe the graph set which I link above also addresses that, in item (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing, also not terribly significant compared to GHG's.

    Jeff: In the 9.24.09 discussion where you try to skate around your difficulty with spec heat, you introduce a discussion of albedo, which I assume is simply a further attempt to snog the unwary, as it has no relevance at all to my strong criticisms of Mr Ashworth's article. Admit it, the article is way off the mark, as I saw immediately and pointed out.

    Jeff: Again, 9.24.09 "Since we all know the earth ISN'T warmed by the moon, so-called re-radiation cannot be much of an effect no?" -- No, Jeff. You're wrong again. It is very easy to experience back radiation, from earth's atmosphere. Go to a dry climate at Lat 55 and spend a month walking out each night. You'll VERY rapidly experience the large temp. swings which happen between a clear day and night versus the much milder swings between a cloudy day and night, given that the daytime temperature max would be the same on both days, about -10 degC. That difference happens because the clouds and increased atmospheric H2O on the cloudy days intercept much of the infra-red radiation from earth's surface and RE-RADIATE it in random directions, a large part BACK to earth's surface.

    And I at least hope you're aware enough to realise that it's NOT due to any (presumeably conductive) insulation effect, as Mr Ashworth appears to claim.

    That is "Go to a dry climate at Lat 55 in January"

    Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction" -- That is the most DISGRACEFULL piece of #$%^ revisionist history I have ever heard. Keep up that sort of crap and I might actually get angry.

    From here on, EVERY time you publish or post ANYTHING here I will do my best to immediately follow it with the above quote and an explanation of how you tried to use it.

    Mr Ashworth's use of a revisionist and lying historical reference, in comment near end dated 9.24.09 starting From Piers Corbyn:

    Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction"

    You clearly and knowingly are using a reference who is flat lying about how the 2003 (war on/illegal invasion of) Iraq got started. For a long period prior, Mr. Blix had convinced the Security Council that there were no WMD in Iraq. However, the US Government did a brainwash media blitz on their own people, including the President lying (probably knowingly) in a state of the union address to congress, and topped it off with a publicly broadcast presentation by Colin Powell to the UN in which Mr. Powell explicitly lied to the council members (likely due to false information provided to him by the intelligence bodies not under his control). It ruined his reputation and his excellent chances of going further in public service, though it has been clearly documented that he and his staff were blocked in their many attempts at accessing backup data beforehand, no doubt because it didn't exist. The moves ruined worldwide trust in accuracy of US staff abroad permanently, and rightly so.

    =========== Above is a sample of what I am now posting to every open thread to which Mr Ashworth has posted.

    I agree with Len on this one. One can accuse the UN of many things, but starting the Iraq war is not one of them. In that case, they turned out to be the voice of reason which unfortunately did not prevail.

    Although no expert, in my opinion, the worst UN moment in recent memory was their failure to protect innocent civilians (preferring instead to protect their own soldiers) at Srebrenica. Allowing this massacre to happen helped to increase the strained relations between the Islamic nations as the West. Not something particularly desirable.....

    I think the UN could have acted better in Rwanda as well, though so could the U.S.

    Time and time again, when evidence presented by skeptics of AGW is challenged, the skeptics resort to tactics of obfuscation and the presentation of even less credible claims. But accusing the UN of fomenting the Iraq War is probably the lowest of low points in this regard.

    Agreed Jim, UN should have acted better in those cases and many others. They're hamstrung by the limitations of their structure, too many national vetos, undemocratic representation, inability to enforce dues payments etc. etc.

    But trying to discredit the IPCC by blaming the Iraq war on the UN is just a mind-boggling exercise in flat-out lying.

    Len, BOB didn't do the so-called lying here so why are you so freaked out? Because someone he quoted said it? If you have an argument take it up with Corbyn, but leave this forum to its own topic if you are capable that is. The UN is a political organization, peopled by political operatives and the UN has a VERY heavy thumbprint on the IPCC. Your posturing is completely irrelevant to what happened AT THE TIME, you are the one invoking revisionist history. I don't think your intellect is capable of making the distinction however.

    The US (and 40 others) went into Iraq because they were in clear violation of sanctions and because Saddam was playing a VERY dangerous game of high stakes poker. The fact that he was bluffing was irrelevant to the "call" that occurred. But all your superior intellect can come up with is to wait until AFTER THE FACT and pretend you knew it all along? I'll make a prediction, when the AGW fiasco is brought to its knees utterly and completely, you'll pretend you knew THAT all along too. You'll point to your post about the "other" sources of heating referenced on page 695 or whatever and pretend that was your stance. Unfortunately hundreds of YOUR posts will state otherwise, but you'll excuse them away, and/or simply disappear from the blogsphere.

    Bob: The atmosphere is an insulator and averages out the day to night time temperature variations, cooling in the day from reflection of the suns heat back to space and keeping us warmer at night by providing an insulating layer around the earth. There is not back radiation of energy as the IPCC describes it, there is just less heat loss due to the insulating effect. The AGW proponents have no way of calculating back radiation yet they willy-nilly assigned values to it that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

    Len: This was Piers argument to show you cannot accept at face value what the UN and our governments tell us.

    Jim, the answer is the earth's barycenter caused wobble, which brings it closer to the sun during full moon cycles.



    If you run the numbers on the moon's re-radiation, it comes down to about .00015 Kelvin. BTW the moon's albedo is barely better than water's, essentially like grey asphalt.
    This is why I'm more than a little skeptical of taking things at face value. I honestly thank my lucky stars I was taught critical thought by the Jesuits, clearly it is missing in today's curriculum.

    Jeff: Now you're revising history as well.

    1)"The US (and 40 others) went into Iraq because they were in clear violation of sanctions " -- Not true and you know it. Saddam's government did everything they could to prove to everyone they were in compliance with all UN requirements. I clearly recall them even publicly on television cutting up their arsenal of short-range military rockets (I recall thinking at the time what a foolish move that was militarily, since everyone knew that the US was going to invade regardless). At the time of the US invasion, they were in compliance with every UN demanded requirement. The fact that the US military could find no WMD proves their claim true.

    2) The "and 40 others" is utter nonsense. It was a US + lapdog Britain operation start to finish. The MINUTE the basis for the original coalition was proved to be a lie, the "coalition of 40" you claim collapsed to a grand aliance of US, UK, Georgia and Poland and maybe a few other non-entities who were promised money to stay and penalties if they left. Again, revisionism.

    But what's the use arguing with you, to whom facts are to be revised to suit the desired outcome? Like your later claim that changes in distance moon-to-sun due to it's orbit about the centre of the earth-moon centre of mass. That's ridiculous. For every hour the moon spend further than earth from the sun, it spends another hour closer to the sun for exactly the same reason.

    But what's the point of arguing with you hacks to whom facts mean nothing, only pre-determined conclusions?

    Bob Ashworth: "Len: This was Piers argument to show you cannot accept at face value what the UN and our governments tell us. " -- The only thing proved in the runup to the second Iraq invasion is that one cannot trust anything the US GOVERNMENT tells them.

    ( If it is run by republicans)

    Wikipedia - 2003 invasion of Iraq

    [QUOTE]Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, based on sourcing that was wrong and in some cases "deliberately misleading."[72][73][74]

    The Bush administration asserted that the Hussein government had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.[75] On March 7, 2003, the US submitted intelligence documents as evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency. These documents were dismissed by the IAEA as forgeries, with the concurrence in that judgment of outside experts. At the time, a US official claimed that the evidence was submitted to the IAEA without knowledge of its provenance, and characterized any mistakes as "more likely due to incompetence not malice".[/QUOTE] Of course it was neither incompetence or malice, but a cold tactic to try to grab control of Iraq's oil resources.

    Len, blah blah blah. Go someplace else to argue history/politics. This is Energy Central, and I know you can't help yourself, but try to keep to the topic at hand. Can't you get a girlfriend, or a life? I don't blame you for wanting to argue revisionist history, you get to get all emotional and don't have to deal with objective facts but rather subjective opinions. Physics on the other hand is entirely objective with repeatable experiments, formulas and so on to back it up. No wonder you don't want to argue physics with me, not only are you unqualified but it is difficult to get passionate about electrons.

    If you want to put your total faith in the august body of the United Nations, so be it, I'm not going to join you in your delusions. My only correction to my previous post is that there were 39 other countries, not 40. Oops, off the top of my head and all.

    Len: Strangely enough you and I agree on why we went to war in Iraq. Jeff has a valid point about sanctions but I believe it was all about the oil.

    Something else that led me in this direction is that three steel structure buildings collapsed at gravity speed on 9/11 and WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. Never in the history of steel structure buildings have they collapsed that way unless demolition explosives were used to take out the supports first. Not a mention of this by the 9-11 Commission. In addition, in the analysis of floor collapse the 47 large vertical steel supports in WTC 1 and 2 were not taken into consideration. Also Rodriquez, the last man out of WTC 1, said there was an explosion in the basement before the plane hit (the 911 Commission paid no attention to his statement). I analyzed this ad nauseum as well and got little sleep for around three months after I heard Dr. Roger Jones ( a physicist at BYU) analysis of thermite exposives being used. It was very hard to accept but I finally concluded he was right. So why didn't our government find what he found?

    Why - This is the answer gentlemen - work out the question! The same deviousness now being put out about CO2 causing global warming so they can increase taxes on us.

    One last thing to consider in reducing CO2 emissions, for every 1000 tons of CO2 man sequesters, 727 tons of oxygen are deprived from us, our children and pets but only 272 tons of carbon are sequestered. In addition, plant growth is reduced by 1042 tons, taking food away from the We the People

    Jeff,

    Point taken on the barycenter. Although the delta R is only about 0.001 percent. I don't know how much of a difference (the added solar flux) would make. Worth considering, though. Not horribly relevant to atmospheric reflection/re-radiation though, in any case.

    Bob,

    It's strains even my rather loose sense of credibility that the same evil force would mastermind BOTH 9/11 AND the Global Warming Conspiracy. If that's the case, then we shouldn't be bickering, as we are the least of each other's problems.....

    Jim:

    I just evaluate data, don't have a desire to promote conspiracy. However, things look fishy here in both cases. For 9-11 they paid no attention to Rodriquez and Jones and incredibly the FBI doesn't connect Bin Laden to 9-11 on their most wanted poster yet this is who was blamed. Here, even though real temperature measurements show cooling they don't recognize that and still promote CO2 global warming. In both of these cases there are money trails. I have come to the conclusion we need to watch our government very closely, but it probably won't happen because most people are afraid to speak out. If they do they are called all kind of names.

    However, Thomas Jefferson once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent!” He also said, "If the people are afraid of their government you will have Tyranny, but if the government is afraid of its people you will have Democracy!" A very wise man Jefferson; things must have always been like they are today.

    Anyway, follow your own heart and mind always. If something I have said doesn't fit through it away and forget about it.

    If anyone is still looking at this I thought this might be of interest.

    Hurricane Specialists

    These include Neil Frank (chief meteorologist for Houston’s Channel 11 and former head of the National Hurricane Center), and William Gray of Colorado State. Both believe there is something wrong with the warmers’ case: their reliance on computer models. Frank notes that the models used in weather forecasting can’t be relied on for a three-day forecast, but for global warming we are asked to rely on similar but simpler models, applied to a more complex task. Gray is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). In a speech in Houston he noted that “climate models, while surely useful, are far from perfect…but when modelers move out onto the climate area the complexity becomes too damn much.” Gray recently noted, “Nearly all my colleagues who have been around for 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global warming thing.”

    Other experts include James O’Brien of Florida State University, where he is a distinguished professor of meteorology/oceanography. O’Brien has served as state climatologist for Florida. He sees no correlation between hurricane intensity and global warming. Rather he sees a 30-year cycle, 15 building and 15 waning.

    The fourth hurricane specialist, Tad Murty, with a Ph.D. in oceanography/meteorology, has spent 27 years at Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and has been the director of the Australian National Tidal Facility. He has noted, “My colleagues in India and I put together a 200-year database. We found that the number of cyclones in the twentieth century is about half of that in the nineteenth.” Murty’s view about global warming: “This is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity.”

    As you know I completely agree with Murty.

    Bob and Jeff: You guys, diving off into false political arguments, then chiding me for pointing out your errors. If either of you two knew any physics, i'd be happy to argue physics with you.

    Len: I gave you the correlation one uses to calculate the net radiation heat transfer from a hotter to cooler body. I asked you several times to provide the correlations used for calculating back radiation, you have not. You are not alone, I have asked many others and each time I am ignored. Please for the umpteenth time where are the back radiation calculations that magically create more energy than was absorbed in the first place. If you cannot produce them then concede you are flat out wrong.

    Jeff: WTC #1 and #2 had 47 steel columns in the center of the buildings as well as the ekoskeletons. WTC #7 collapsed the same way. No mention of why it collapsed.

    You read the Popular Mechanics analysis. I guess they may have had someone on staff that had taken a technical course.

    Read Dr. Steven Jones analysis if you like:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

    On page 31 you can see where a support beam was cut at a 45 degree angle with thermite. I saw Dr. Jones (his first name is Steven, not Roger as I relayed before) on TV and his testimony caused me to investigate the collapses. I also called and talked with him a few yeasr ago while he was still at BYU. He was a very humble man. I never thought about it that much before I heard his analysis.

    Never let your fear of what someone will call you shut you up to what you believe to be the Truth. I have been called a lot of names over the years. This is the approach of small time politicians. If they can't debate you on an issue they call you names. When I wrote my helical travel of light paper a reviewer said I was "mad as a hatter". They couldn't prove me wrong so after 5 years of review the paper was finally published.

    Take care!

    Bob and Jeff,

    I don't think Bob is unbalanced, but it does make me question his common sense somewhat. The big problem with these conspiracy theories is that all the pieces only fit together if events played out as they did. What if one of the tower planes had been overcome by its passengers as happened with UA Flight 93? Then you'd have a perfectly fine tower wired to the nines with thermite. How would you remedy that??? What if the South (??) tower had fallen the other way, so that debris would not have hit WTC 7. Then you'd have a lightly damaged, non-burning building suddenly collapse. It's strains credibility.

    My comments are not ridiculous. Daniel Lewin, a graduate of Israel's elite commando unit, Sayeret Matkal, was on the AA Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower. He was killed by a hijacker long before the plane crashed. If he had succeeded, then the WTC tower might never have been hit. And why would conspirators, who presumably have such control over everything, even allow an Israeli commando on one of these flights?

    Jim:

    "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do (for WTC 7) is, is "Pull It", ahhh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" ---Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC buildings).

    This happened around 5:30 PM on 9-11. Videotape interview with Silverstein in the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002.

    "Pull it" is a demolition term. All three towers fell into their own footprints at gravity speed (~6-7 secs.) If the towers fell over it would be a different story but they all three collapsed into their own footprints and there was molten steel for a long time under all three buildings. Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction.

    To this old engineer it sounds like demoiltion had to be used. WTC 7 collapsed just like WTC 1 and 2 and no plane hit it. Even though impossible, if you say jet fuel melted the steel in WTC 1 & 2, no plane hit WTC 7, and molten steel was seen under all three.

    Bob,

    You just completely ignored my point. You are oblivious to facts which do not suit your pre-conceptions. If 9/11 was a "stunt", then there should be some building out there that is still wired up, as it was the target for UA Flt 93. What building is that???

    Look at Jeff's website. You can see clearly that the South Tower was not falling on its own footprint. The large top section disintegrated in mid-air as concrete would do when exposed to forces not planned for that configuration.

    And yes, this DOES give me pause to question your judgment on other issues, including AGW.

    Jim: WTC 7 was wired as I relayed. Didn't you see that? It would take weeks to set up such a demolition. That is the real reason they pulled it. It was ready for a plane hit. Did you see what Sileverstein said? I saw that interview shortly after it was put on TV. CBS reported that FEMA flew people into NY on 9/10. Just a coincidence?

    UA Flt 93 was shot down over PA according to what Rumsfeld relayed or was that just a slip of the tongue. Here's what Rumsfeld said to our troops in Iraq: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

    Did he get everything right except for the plane in PA or was that right too? I looked at that site too. They never found any bodies there and there were only small pieces of the plane lying around. i think he told the truth.

    Did you read Dr. Jones analysis compared to the Popular Mechanics article Jeff referred to?

    I am done arguing on this subject. What people think of me is of no concern, except for my wife. Americans need to scrutinize everything that happens if they want liberty. It it stinks, say it stinks! Everyone is too concenred with being politically correct. I am a fan of Truth myself. You always have the right to disagree.

    Bob,

    Now I feel like the lawyer in "The Caine Mutiny" getting Bogart to obsess about the strawberries.
    I am going to stop now too, as I don't like this feeling. At all.

    ClimateGate has uncovered the pseudo-scientist charlatans of the IPCC. I knew they were lying all along from evaluating actual climate data. Truth is God, and truth alone triumphs.,

    To get a engineering perspective of the 9-11 building collapses, please go to this site. It will explain away all the theory conspiracies that are afflicting the confused.

    http://www.debunking911.com

    And don't take this as a defense of the Bush admin. There's plenty of blame to go around between the Bush and Clinton admin.

    The problem is greed was the overall driving force of politico's overly influenced by special interest, especially bankers and financiers. Then there are the crusaders for the downtrodden, defending the poor in spite of the poor. Here, let us subsidize your property no matter if you deserve it or not, you deserve what the better off have. Never mind that it's not sustainable we have a printing press and a large taxpayer base with bottomless pockets. And the US is starting to become popular again with superstar BO so they will bail out the good ol USA.

    Perhaps if the government didn't have so many bail out programs for the underprivileged the US would not now be so dependent on foreign energy sources. Perhaps the US would have more people living within their means. No, the Dems started this fiasco by trying to spread the wealth and micromanage mirage crisises like AGW. it snowballed into our present crisi that threatens to bankrupt various counties, particularly the US. Keynesian economics just doesn't really work.

    Banyuwangi East Java Indonesia.
    January.11.th.2010

    Dear Sir.

    I am to day not to have have comment .Every thing is OK .
    And complete ..Thank you for your Job

    Sincerely

    Mas.Agus.Ferizal.Mas
    (HSE.Q)Dept

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1