<![CDATA[Global Warming Skeptics

<![CDATA[Global Warming Skeptics - All Forums]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:23:36 -0600 MyBB <![CDATA[Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in UK]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-601.html Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:48:00 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-601.html
All in all it is pretty much a greenwash, IMO. It will be formally released on Wednesday 17 March.

Look out for it at:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA...tions.aspx

There were 939 complaints.

Needless to say, the IPCC was the dominant source. ASA "considered statements, current at the time the ads appeared ..." citing statements from numerous countries, including specifically, China, India, Russia, Japan and the USA. A variety of organisations are also mentioned. Copenhagen 2009 report was also referred.

Apparently "none of the national or international bodies with climate expertise disagreed" that there was extremely strong evidence for human induced climate change. ASA therefore concluded "it was reasonable and not misleading for DECC to have relied on that evidence at the time the ads appeared."

* DECC is Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Anyway, it looks as though some kind of response might be appropriate. There seems to be a number of issues.

It is interesting that the term 'at the time' is used repeatedly. This, no doubt, will be the get out clause.]]>
All in all it is pretty much a greenwash, IMO. It will be formally released on Wednesday 17 March.

Look out for it at:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA...tions.aspx

There were 939 complaints.

Needless to say, the IPCC was the dominant source. ASA "considered statements, current at the time the ads appeared ..." citing statements from numerous countries, including specifically, China, India, Russia, Japan and the USA. A variety of organisations are also mentioned. Copenhagen 2009 report was also referred.

Apparently "none of the national or international bodies with climate expertise disagreed" that there was extremely strong evidence for human induced climate change. ASA therefore concluded "it was reasonable and not misleading for DECC to have relied on that evidence at the time the ads appeared."

* DECC is Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Anyway, it looks as though some kind of response might be appropriate. There seems to be a number of issues.

It is interesting that the term 'at the time' is used repeatedly. This, no doubt, will be the get out clause.]]> <![CDATA[EU Emissions Cuts up from 20% to 30% by 2020]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-600.html Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:15:40 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-600.html

Quote:"The EU has a new Executive body in place - the Commission - which was voted into office in February by the parliament.

Initiatives are starting to emerge.

On Climate Change, the new Commissioner (who was the Danish Minister for the Environment and chaired the UN Copenhagen summit last December) has proposed how to reinvigorate world talks to deal with Climate Change. She proposes - rightly in my view - to raise the EU's own goals to cut back our emissions from 20% to 30% by 2020. Attached is the detailed document if you would like to read it."

If anyone wants the pdf of the document, I have a copy.]]>

Quote:"The EU has a new Executive body in place - the Commission - which was voted into office in February by the parliament.

Initiatives are starting to emerge.

On Climate Change, the new Commissioner (who was the Danish Minister for the Environment and chaired the UN Copenhagen summit last December) has proposed how to reinvigorate world talks to deal with Climate Change. She proposes - rightly in my view - to raise the EU's own goals to cut back our emissions from 20% to 30% by 2020. Attached is the detailed document if you would like to read it."

If anyone wants the pdf of the document, I have a copy.]]> <![CDATA[Ice age to warming - and back?]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-599.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:54:41 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-599.html
March 18, 2004

By Peter N. Spotts

EXCERPT:

The Little Ice Age and "the 8,200-year event" are not exactly household terms. Once only a handful of climate scientists puzzled over these episodes of abrupt climate change. Now, the topic is getting close scrutiny from the Pentagon, the halls of Congress, and even Hollywood - where a disaster movie set for release in May depicts a sudden deep freeze.

One reason for all the interest? While policymakers have worried long and hard about global warming, which might raise Earth's temperature 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C by century's end, a growing body of evidence suggests natural forces could just as easily plunge Earth's average temperatures downward. In the past, the planet's climate has changed 10 degrees in as little as 10 years.

LINK]]>
March 18, 2004

By Peter N. Spotts

EXCERPT:

The Little Ice Age and "the 8,200-year event" are not exactly household terms. Once only a handful of climate scientists puzzled over these episodes of abrupt climate change. Now, the topic is getting close scrutiny from the Pentagon, the halls of Congress, and even Hollywood - where a disaster movie set for release in May depicts a sudden deep freeze.

One reason for all the interest? While policymakers have worried long and hard about global warming, which might raise Earth's temperature 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C by century's end, a growing body of evidence suggests natural forces could just as easily plunge Earth's average temperatures downward. In the past, the planet's climate has changed 10 degrees in as little as 10 years.

LINK]]> <![CDATA[The Case against the "hockey stick"]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-598.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:48:42 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-598.html The Case Against the Hockey Stick

doesn't tell some of us anything new.

It is encouraging, however, that the book, Andrew Montford’s "The Hockey Stick Illusion", may get a wider audience.

Matt Ridley's review is worth a read, too.]]> The Case Against the Hockey Stick

doesn't tell some of us anything new.

It is encouraging, however, that the book, Andrew Montford’s "The Hockey Stick Illusion", may get a wider audience.

Matt Ridley's review is worth a read, too.]]> <![CDATA[More on myBB version 1.6]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-597.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:39:40 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-597.html
1.6 Feature list]]>
1.6 Feature list]]> <![CDATA[What Dave and his chum Barack don't want you to know about green jobs and green energ]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-594.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:40:23 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-594.html
March 6th, 2010

By James Delingpole

EXCERPT:

Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.

We also know that alternative energy is a fraud – only viable through enormous government (ie taxpayer subsidy) and utterly incapable of answering anything more than a fraction of our energy needs. As Shannon Love puts it here:

LINK
=====================================================
Politicians lie and deceive people?]]>
March 6th, 2010

By James Delingpole

EXCERPT:

Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.

We also know that alternative energy is a fraud – only viable through enormous government (ie taxpayer subsidy) and utterly incapable of answering anything more than a fraction of our energy needs. As Shannon Love puts it here:

LINK
=====================================================
Politicians lie and deceive people?]]> <![CDATA[THE AMERICAN ROOTS OF FASCISM]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-593.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:20:42 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-593.html
Saturday, May 20, 2006

By John Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)

EXCERPT:

"Hayek's challenge was to argue that German Nazism was not an aberrant "right-wing" perversion growing out of the "contradictions" of capitalism. Instead, the Nazi movement had developed out of the "enlightened" and "progressive" socialist and collectivist ideas of the pre-World War I era, which many intellectuals in England and the United States had praised and propagandized for in their own countries."

This article aims to give a brief review of the ideas that Hayek was referring to in the above quotation. Note also these words: "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal". What Ronald Reagan was referring to in 1976 when he said that will become very clear below.

"Fascism" is a term that was originally coined by the Italian dictator Mussolini to describe his adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Italy after World War I. Lenin in Russia made somewhat different adaptations of Marxism to the conditions in Russia during the same period and his adaptations came to be called Marxism/Leninism. Mussolini stayed closer to Marx in that he felt that Italy had to go through a capitalist stage before it could reach socialism whereas Lenin attempted to push Russia straight from semi-feudalism into socialism. Mussolini's principal modification of Marxism was his rejection of the notion of class war, something that put him decisively at odds with Lenin's "Reds".

If the term "Fascism" means anything of itself it means "Groupism" -- as the fasci of Italy at the time were simply groups of political activists. The fasces of ancient Roman times were of course the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the great strength of the organized Roman people. The idea again was that people were stronger in groups than as individuals.

LINK]]>
Saturday, May 20, 2006

By John Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)

EXCERPT:

"Hayek's challenge was to argue that German Nazism was not an aberrant "right-wing" perversion growing out of the "contradictions" of capitalism. Instead, the Nazi movement had developed out of the "enlightened" and "progressive" socialist and collectivist ideas of the pre-World War I era, which many intellectuals in England and the United States had praised and propagandized for in their own countries."

This article aims to give a brief review of the ideas that Hayek was referring to in the above quotation. Note also these words: "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal". What Ronald Reagan was referring to in 1976 when he said that will become very clear below.

"Fascism" is a term that was originally coined by the Italian dictator Mussolini to describe his adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Italy after World War I. Lenin in Russia made somewhat different adaptations of Marxism to the conditions in Russia during the same period and his adaptations came to be called Marxism/Leninism. Mussolini stayed closer to Marx in that he felt that Italy had to go through a capitalist stage before it could reach socialism whereas Lenin attempted to push Russia straight from semi-feudalism into socialism. Mussolini's principal modification of Marxism was his rejection of the notion of class war, something that put him decisively at odds with Lenin's "Reds".

If the term "Fascism" means anything of itself it means "Groupism" -- as the fasci of Italy at the time were simply groups of political activists. The fasces of ancient Roman times were of course the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the great strength of the organized Roman people. The idea again was that people were stronger in groups than as individuals.

LINK]]> <![CDATA[Ice Cores and soo much more.]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-592.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:51:37 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-592.html I have to apologise first, I MISSED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS.
http://earth.myfastforum.org/about56.html

But, Andre has popped up at the Climategate Country Club.
http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/ph..._com_photo
In short, if I've understood correctly, many variables vary in a natural system, so
to only interpret any measured variation as only one variable changing is patently absurb.
Very similar as to why tree rings are such a poor temperature proxy, but
it may also strongly apply to ocean sediments, etc, etc, etc..
This questions ALL paleoclimatic "records".

Where I remembered,
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Ques...m5m1_1.htm
Questioning_Climate suggests a way to correct CO2 reconstructions from ice cores, a somewhat more "positive" approach than Andre's.
But both seem worthy of further discussion / consideration.

No one seems to mention the models used to date the deeper ice core samples, due to modelled ice flows,
BUT, there does seem to be some very concerning observational evidence regarding
an American bomber that crashed in central Greenland in the second world war.
It was found in the late 1980s, under 260 years of ice.......
Now I have to go and find a You Tube video I recently saw...
Back soon.

I have found three relevant ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_pj4IM5Zkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNEmGaAplgI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icg7TEiDl1A]]> I have to apologise first, I MISSED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS.
http://earth.myfastforum.org/about56.html

But, Andre has popped up at the Climategate Country Club.
http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/ph..._com_photo
In short, if I've understood correctly, many variables vary in a natural system, so
to only interpret any measured variation as only one variable changing is patently absurb.
Very similar as to why tree rings are such a poor temperature proxy, but
it may also strongly apply to ocean sediments, etc, etc, etc..
This questions ALL paleoclimatic "records".

Where I remembered,
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Ques...m5m1_1.htm
Questioning_Climate suggests a way to correct CO2 reconstructions from ice cores, a somewhat more "positive" approach than Andre's.
But both seem worthy of further discussion / consideration.

No one seems to mention the models used to date the deeper ice core samples, due to modelled ice flows,
BUT, there does seem to be some very concerning observational evidence regarding
an American bomber that crashed in central Greenland in the second world war.
It was found in the late 1980s, under 260 years of ice.......
Now I have to go and find a You Tube video I recently saw...
Back soon.

I have found three relevant ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_pj4IM5Zkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNEmGaAplgI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icg7TEiDl1A]]> <![CDATA[Atmospheric heat pipes - THE global temp governors.]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-589.html Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:24:18 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-589.html I came across this page explaining heat pipes,

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html

and also read,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/th...ypothesis/

The sun's eye view is a real eye opener isn't it..

[Image: willis_image1jpeg.jpg]

Naturally followed by,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/se...nsitivity/

[Image: sensitivity_from_changing_insolatio.jpg]

Apparently convection is an order of magnitude larger (at least) than the cooling effects of radiation (heat) movements.......

Funny isn't it, how seemingly IR budgets do not take into account latent heat movements associated with water vapour and it's convection. ?

[Image: OstrichAGW.jpg]

]]> I came across this page explaining heat pipes,

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html

and also read,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/th...ypothesis/

The sun's eye view is a real eye opener isn't it..

[Image: willis_image1jpeg.jpg]

Naturally followed by,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/se...nsitivity/

[Image: sensitivity_from_changing_insolatio.jpg]

]]> <![CDATA[Global Warming has no impact on Himalayas claims Wadia Director]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-587.html Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:40:00 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-587.html
Ashwani Maindola, Hindustan Times
Dehradun, March 06, 2010

EXCERPT:

Senior scientists at the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WITG) has rejected the Global Warming Theory and told that the Himalayas are quite safer zone on earth, where Global Warming has no role in controlling the conditions.

In an exclusive chat with HT, Director WIHG Dr AK Dubey has said that the conditions of Himalayas are controlled by the winter snowfall rather than external factors like much hyped Global Warming. He told that for a concrete result, at least 30 years of continuous research with steady outcome is needed to confirm the actual impact.

"According to a data for over 140 years available with a British weather observatory situated in Mukteswar (2311m) in Almora has actually revealed that temperature in that region witnessed a dip of .4 degrees," he said.

LINK
======================================================
Most of the glaciers are too high in elevation to melt much anyway.]]>
Ashwani Maindola, Hindustan Times
Dehradun, March 06, 2010

EXCERPT:

Senior scientists at the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WITG) has rejected the Global Warming Theory and told that the Himalayas are quite safer zone on earth, where Global Warming has no role in controlling the conditions.

In an exclusive chat with HT, Director WIHG Dr AK Dubey has said that the conditions of Himalayas are controlled by the winter snowfall rather than external factors like much hyped Global Warming. He told that for a concrete result, at least 30 years of continuous research with steady outcome is needed to confirm the actual impact.

"According to a data for over 140 years available with a British weather observatory situated in Mukteswar (2311m) in Almora has actually revealed that temperature in that region witnessed a dip of .4 degrees," he said.

LINK
======================================================
Most of the glaciers are too high in elevation to melt much anyway.]]> <![CDATA[Are we "all" right for the wrong reasons, or]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-586.html Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:54:27 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-586.html wrong for the right reasons...

OK, I have to admit it, I have been following a line of thought (since Autumn 2009) that suggests there is no greenhouse effect at all.
I'm wrong, there is a greenhouse effect of sorts.
Mind you the greenhouse effect as such is wrongly named as there is no roof stopping convection, so I'm right really...

I have recently been relooking at the physics of CO2, just at a general overview level,
and several misconceptions and misunderstandings have been put in different lights so to speak.
1) I had understood that space is cold. No it isn't.
How can nothing have a temperature. ?
Yes, anything in space can emit IR (heat) thermal radiation,
untill it has nothing left to emit, ie, absolute zero, but
space enables that to happen (by offering no resistence), not causes it.
Space has no temperature itself, and does not know the temperature of anything in it,
space is temperature "neutral".
This "bombshell" to me at least, lead me to realise that the earth merely radiates IR according to it's temperature,
which is completely different to earth being insulated from cold space by the greenhouse effect.
The understanding that space is cold, and the greenhouse effect insulates the earth,
implies that increasing the insulation, ie greenhouse gases, would raise earth's temperature as it looses less heat. - WRONG..

GHGs may well effect earth's temperature to some degree or other, but,
that this will raise earth's temperature is a completely different idea.
If space is temperature neutral then rasiing earth's temperature will
raise the amount of IR it emits, so increasing the losses.

2) GHG's trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. - WRONG (except for water),
and is actually physically impossible for CO2.
Yes, GHGs temperature is increased by absorbing IR, but,
almost all GHGs loose this by either / or / and conduction to other atmospheric constituents, or emit IR cooling them again.
In no way is the heat trapped in GHGs, at absolute best it's movement is merely slightly delayed,
but trapped or retained - never.

Water vapour is different it has changes of state in the atmosphere and on the earth's surface
at temperatures and pressures found upon the earth, no other GHG does this.
The changes of state involves latent heat and whilst no change of state occurs this latent heat IS trapped by water vapour.
ie, evapouration requires heat, it cools where the water evapourates from (endothermic),
and condensation releases heat (exothermic).
From evapouration to condensation water vapour (gas) has trapped the latent heat required for the change of state,
this also happens similarly for the change of state from (liquid) water to (solid) ice.
Water apparently on average takes about 11 days in the water cycle, so
the absolute longest on average any heat can be trapped by water vapour in the atmosphere is less than 11 days.

3) Given the above (starting understanding of) points it is easy to follow on to the idea there is no so called (wrongly) "greenhouse effect" all.
For example it would be easy to confuse yourself that CO2 has a lower specific heat content and capacity
than either nitrogen or oxygen (ie almost all the atmosphere) if you read these figures.
Heat Capacity.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesif...ity-gases-
cp
(kJ/kg K)

Carbon dioxide...... CO2........0.844
Nitrogen................N2........1.04
Oxygen.................O2........0.919

Thermal Conductivity.
Thermal conductivity (10 x Btu/Hr-.Ft.-F)

C02 = 8.62 Carbon Dioxide

N2 = 13.93 Nitrogen

02 = 14.05 Oxygen

Given these figures you might also think as I did that it follows that,

1) CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than N2 and O2.
ie, CO2 tends to recieve heat from the 2,500 N2 and O2 molecules to it's 1.

2) CO2 has a lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.
ie, CO2 looses it's heat (because it can radiate IR) faster than N2 and O2 becuase of it's lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.

This would seem to suggest that -
N2 and O2 conduct heat to CO2, and CO2 looses the heat from N2 and O2 by IR,
because of the combination of CO2's physical properties as discussed, namely, lower thermal conductivity and lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.

1) CO2,
i) Slows the rate of heating of the atmosphere.
ii) AND increases the rate of cooling of the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a powerful heat entropy catalyst within the atmosphere.

3) IR emitted by CO2 has a specific frequency, in the atmosphere the IR of this frequency is NOT neccesarilly,
or even at all above the initial saturation level of CO2 (about 30 metres some suggest) "back radiation".
BUT, you'd be WRONG, as I was.
Why. ?

The devil is in the detail, the above figures compare the heat capacities / conductivity for the same weights of gases.
Given the atomic weights of the gases,
http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/circpdffol...5thru8.pdf
C = 12, O = 16, and N = 14, then,
CO2 = 44, N2 = 28, and O2 = 32, the same weights of gases compared have
very differing numbers of molecules in them. When worked out on a per molecule (molar) basis
CO2 does actually have the larger heat capacity, and lower thermal conductivity,
the exact opposite of the original figures impression.

This sort of thing can lead to a real sense of fustration when trying to find things out, or
just trying to understand what the heck people are talking about in all things climate....

The above has lead me to realise that there is some sort of greenhouse gas effect,
but is it a major influence upon climate, remembering that CO2 is only 1 part in 2,500 in the atmosphere. ?
It seems at such levels CO2 puts new meaning on the term a "hard worker".....

4) I have also been trying to understand IR radiation budgets, with little success..
The main "quantity" used in IR budgets is W / m2, or watts (of energy) per metre squared.
Using this W / m2 "quantity" IR budgets have flows going all over the place, up, down, sideways, etc, etc.
But what do they mean, well the heat goes from here to there in that amount seems to be the implied impression.
Errr, not in reality it don't, not in that manner.
Atmospheric GHG "Back radiation" is the best example that springs to mind,
apparently it suggests that CO2 and water vapour radiate heat back to the earth's surface warming it more than the sun could do on it's own.
One rather massive and obvious problem with this suggestion, the atmosphere is cooler than the earth's surface,
so the back radiation is cooler than the earth's surface.
We all know and see in every day life around us that cooler things DO NOT warm warmer things,
so how can back radiation from the atmosphere warm the earth's surface. It simply can not.
Furthermore the IR budgets do not take into account the relative tmeperatures of the energy flows they supposedly describe,
surely this omision on it's own invalidates ALL IR budgets. ?

The other obvious problem with IR budgets is that they should have
great big inbalances in them from latent heat movements.
Where water evapourates, there is an energy loss, and where it condenses there is a great big energy input,
but yet the IR budgets seem to balance...........
I can only suggest that IR budgets do not take into acount latent heat movements.
Is this possibly important. ?
Apparently latent heat movements are an order of magnitude LARGER at least than radiation heat movements.
How has this been missed, it beggars belief, unless again the devil is in the detail and I am about to find out..

I would suggest from the above brief descriptions that there are many more examples we have all come across,
where what does not seem right, is not right, but we have been informed in such a way, or
our knowledge is at a level that it is not immediately apparent,
how, what, where or why....
Wrong for the right reasons, or right for the wrong reasons you might say.

Other examples invited please.]]> wrong for the right reasons...

OK, I have to admit it, I have been following a line of thought (since Autumn 2009) that suggests there is no greenhouse effect at all.
I'm wrong, there is a greenhouse effect of sorts.
Mind you the greenhouse effect as such is wrongly named as there is no roof stopping convection, so I'm right really...

I have recently been relooking at the physics of CO2, just at a general overview level,
and several misconceptions and misunderstandings have been put in different lights so to speak.
1) I had understood that space is cold. No it isn't.
How can nothing have a temperature. ?
Yes, anything in space can emit IR (heat) thermal radiation,
untill it has nothing left to emit, ie, absolute zero, but
space enables that to happen (by offering no resistence), not causes it.
Space has no temperature itself, and does not know the temperature of anything in it,
space is temperature "neutral".
This "bombshell" to me at least, lead me to realise that the earth merely radiates IR according to it's temperature,
which is completely different to earth being insulated from cold space by the greenhouse effect.
The understanding that space is cold, and the greenhouse effect insulates the earth,
implies that increasing the insulation, ie greenhouse gases, would raise earth's temperature as it looses less heat. - WRONG..

GHGs may well effect earth's temperature to some degree or other, but,
that this will raise earth's temperature is a completely different idea.
If space is temperature neutral then rasiing earth's temperature will
raise the amount of IR it emits, so increasing the losses.

2) GHG's trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. - WRONG (except for water),
and is actually physically impossible for CO2.
Yes, GHGs temperature is increased by absorbing IR, but,
almost all GHGs loose this by either / or / and conduction to other atmospheric constituents, or emit IR cooling them again.
In no way is the heat trapped in GHGs, at absolute best it's movement is merely slightly delayed,
but trapped or retained - never.

Water vapour is different it has changes of state in the atmosphere and on the earth's surface
at temperatures and pressures found upon the earth, no other GHG does this.
The changes of state involves latent heat and whilst no change of state occurs this latent heat IS trapped by water vapour.
ie, evapouration requires heat, it cools where the water evapourates from (endothermic),
and condensation releases heat (exothermic).
From evapouration to condensation water vapour (gas) has trapped the latent heat required for the change of state,
this also happens similarly for the change of state from (liquid) water to (solid) ice.
Water apparently on average takes about 11 days in the water cycle, so
the absolute longest on average any heat can be trapped by water vapour in the atmosphere is less than 11 days.

3) Given the above (starting understanding of) points it is easy to follow on to the idea there is no so called (wrongly) "greenhouse effect" all.
For example it would be easy to confuse yourself that CO2 has a lower specific heat content and capacity
than either nitrogen or oxygen (ie almost all the atmosphere) if you read these figures.
Heat Capacity.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesif...ity-gases-
cp
(kJ/kg K)

Carbon dioxide...... CO2........0.844
Nitrogen................N2........1.04
Oxygen.................O2........0.919

Thermal Conductivity.
Thermal conductivity (10 x Btu/Hr-.Ft.-F)

C02 = 8.62 Carbon Dioxide

N2 = 13.93 Nitrogen

02 = 14.05 Oxygen

Given these figures you might also think as I did that it follows that,

1) CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than N2 and O2.
ie, CO2 tends to recieve heat from the 2,500 N2 and O2 molecules to it's 1.

2) CO2 has a lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.
ie, CO2 looses it's heat (because it can radiate IR) faster than N2 and O2 becuase of it's lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.

This would seem to suggest that -
N2 and O2 conduct heat to CO2, and CO2 looses the heat from N2 and O2 by IR,
because of the combination of CO2's physical properties as discussed, namely, lower thermal conductivity and lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.

1) CO2,
i) Slows the rate of heating of the atmosphere.
ii) AND increases the rate of cooling of the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a powerful heat entropy catalyst within the atmosphere.

3) IR emitted by CO2 has a specific frequency, in the atmosphere the IR of this frequency is NOT neccesarilly,
or even at all above the initial saturation level of CO2 (about 30 metres some suggest) "back radiation".
BUT, you'd be WRONG, as I was.
Why. ?

The devil is in the detail, the above figures compare the heat capacities / conductivity for the same weights of gases.
Given the atomic weights of the gases,
http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/circpdffol...5thru8.pdf
C = 12, O = 16, and N = 14, then,
CO2 = 44, N2 = 28, and O2 = 32, the same weights of gases compared have
very differing numbers of molecules in them. When worked out on a per molecule (molar) basis
CO2 does actually have the larger heat capacity, and lower thermal conductivity,
the exact opposite of the original figures impression.

This sort of thing can lead to a real sense of fustration when trying to find things out, or
just trying to understand what the heck people are talking about in all things climate....

The above has lead me to realise that there is some sort of greenhouse gas effect,
but is it a major influence upon climate, remembering that CO2 is only 1 part in 2,500 in the atmosphere. ?
It seems at such levels CO2 puts new meaning on the term a "hard worker".....

4) I have also been trying to understand IR radiation budgets, with little success..
The main "quantity" used in IR budgets is W / m2, or watts (of energy) per metre squared.
Using this W / m2 "quantity" IR budgets have flows going all over the place, up, down, sideways, etc, etc.
But what do they mean, well the heat goes from here to there in that amount seems to be the implied impression.
Errr, not in reality it don't, not in that manner.
Atmospheric GHG "Back radiation" is the best example that springs to mind,
apparently it suggests that CO2 and water vapour radiate heat back to the earth's surface warming it more than the sun could do on it's own.
One rather massive and obvious problem with this suggestion, the atmosphere is cooler than the earth's surface,
so the back radiation is cooler than the earth's surface.
We all know and see in every day life around us that cooler things DO NOT warm warmer things,
so how can back radiation from the atmosphere warm the earth's surface. It simply can not.
Furthermore the IR budgets do not take into account the relative tmeperatures of the energy flows they supposedly describe,
surely this omision on it's own invalidates ALL IR budgets. ?

The other obvious problem with IR budgets is that they should have
great big inbalances in them from latent heat movements.
Where water evapourates, there is an energy loss, and where it condenses there is a great big energy input,
but yet the IR budgets seem to balance...........
I can only suggest that IR budgets do not take into acount latent heat movements.
Is this possibly important. ?
Apparently latent heat movements are an order of magnitude LARGER at least than radiation heat movements.
How has this been missed, it beggars belief, unless again the devil is in the detail and I am about to find out..

I would suggest from the above brief descriptions that there are many more examples we have all come across,
where what does not seem right, is not right, but we have been informed in such a way, or
our knowledge is at a level that it is not immediately apparent,
how, what, where or why....
Wrong for the right reasons, or right for the wrong reasons you might say.

Other examples invited please.]]> <![CDATA[In Denial]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-585.html Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:23:53 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-585.html
BY Steven F. Hayward
March 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 25

EXCERPT:

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work and facing calls for a serious shakeup. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the self-serving coalition of environmentalists and big business hoping to create a carbon cartel, is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress. Meanwhile, the climate campaign’s fallback plan to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the cumbersome Clean Air Act is generating bipartisan opposition. The British media—even the left-leaning, climate alarmists of the Guardian and BBC—are turning on the climate campaign with a vengeance. The somnolent American media, which have done as poor a job reporting about climate change as they did on John Edwards, have largely averted their gaze from the inconvenient meltdown of the climate campaign, but the rock solid edifice in the newsrooms is cracking. Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress.

9 page presentation]]>
BY Steven F. Hayward
March 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 25

EXCERPT:

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work and facing calls for a serious shakeup. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the self-serving coalition of environmentalists and big business hoping to create a carbon cartel, is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress. Meanwhile, the climate campaign’s fallback plan to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the cumbersome Clean Air Act is generating bipartisan opposition. The British media—even the left-leaning, climate alarmists of the Guardian and BBC—are turning on the climate campaign with a vengeance. The somnolent American media, which have done as poor a job reporting about climate change as they did on John Edwards, have largely averted their gaze from the inconvenient meltdown of the climate campaign, but the rock solid edifice in the newsrooms is cracking. Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress.

9 page presentation]]> <![CDATA[50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-583.html Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:32:14 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-583.html
January 1st, 2009

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

EXCERPT:

(Jan. 10 update: A few people seem to have missed the point of this satirical post. It is a counterpoint to Al Gore’s use of “millions of tons” when talking about CO2 emissions. I’m pointing out that relative to the total atmosphere, millions of tons of CO2 is miniscule. And even a 50% increase in a very small number [the CO2 content of the atmosphere] is still a very small number.)

Now that there have been 50 full years of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration monitoring at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, I thought January1, 2009 would be an appropriate time to take a nostalgic look back.

LINK FOR THE REVEALING CHARTS
=====================================================
He he what an effective way to cut down the CO2 molecule to where it belongs.]]>
January 1st, 2009

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

EXCERPT:

(Jan. 10 update: A few people seem to have missed the point of this satirical post. It is a counterpoint to Al Gore’s use of “millions of tons” when talking about CO2 emissions. I’m pointing out that relative to the total atmosphere, millions of tons of CO2 is miniscule. And even a 50% increase in a very small number [the CO2 content of the atmosphere] is still a very small number.)

Now that there have been 50 full years of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration monitoring at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, I thought January1, 2009 would be an appropriate time to take a nostalgic look back.

LINK FOR THE REVEALING CHARTS
=====================================================
He he what an effective way to cut down the CO2 molecule to where it belongs.]]> <![CDATA["Climategate Country Club"?]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-582.html Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:03:58 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-582.html
Climategate Country Club]]>
Climategate Country Club]]> <![CDATA[How will David Cameron keep the lights on?]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-580.html Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:02:01 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-580.html
By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:11PM GMT 06 Mar 2010

EXCERPT:

Neither of the main parties seems to have any idea how we are to meet the looming shortfall in power, warns Christopher Booker.

As the election approaches, two issues should transcend all others.

One, obviously, is what the parties propose to do about the £178 billion deficit in government spending. But another, equally terrifying – as this column has warned for years – is what is to be done to avert the fast-looming crisis in Britain’s electricity supplies. With 40 per cent of our generating capacity due to disappear in the next few years, as 14 of our major nuclear and coal-fired power stations are forced to close, how do the parties propose to keep Britain’s lights on and our computer-dependent economy functioning?

LINK
========================================================
This is what happens when they are all Eco-morons.]]>
By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:11PM GMT 06 Mar 2010

EXCERPT:

Neither of the main parties seems to have any idea how we are to meet the looming shortfall in power, warns Christopher Booker.

As the election approaches, two issues should transcend all others.

One, obviously, is what the parties propose to do about the £178 billion deficit in government spending. But another, equally terrifying – as this column has warned for years – is what is to be done to avert the fast-looming crisis in Britain’s electricity supplies. With 40 per cent of our generating capacity due to disappear in the next few years, as 14 of our major nuclear and coal-fired power stations are forced to close, how do the parties propose to keep Britain’s lights on and our computer-dependent economy functioning?

LINK
========================================================
This is what happens when they are all Eco-morons.]]> <![CDATA[Scientists find signs of ‘snowball Earth’]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-579.html Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:44:52 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-579.html
March 4, 2010
Steve Bradt
Harvard Staff Writer

EXCERPT:

Geologists have found evidence that sea ice extended to the equator 716.5 million years ago, bringing new precision to a “snowball Earth” event long suspected of occurring around that time.

Led by scientists at Harvard, the team reports on its work in the latest edition of the journal Science . The new findings — based on an analysis of ancient tropical rocks in remote northwestern Canada — bolster the theory that the planet has, at times in the past, been covered with ice at all latitudes.

LINK]]>
March 4, 2010
Steve Bradt
Harvard Staff Writer

EXCERPT:

Geologists have found evidence that sea ice extended to the equator 716.5 million years ago, bringing new precision to a “snowball Earth” event long suspected of occurring around that time.

Led by scientists at Harvard, the team reports on its work in the latest edition of the journal Science . The new findings — based on an analysis of ancient tropical rocks in remote northwestern Canada — bolster the theory that the planet has, at times in the past, been covered with ice at all latitudes.

LINK]]> <![CDATA[New Study Says Global Warming May Be Signal Of Impending Ice Age]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-578.html Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:39:43 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-578.html
Wednesday, March 3, 2010

EXCERPT:

Back in the 1970s before people were screaming about global warming, scientists were warning us that the next ice age may be just around the corner. The big freeze scare was eventually pushed aside by the great man-made global warming hoax. Now a new study has been released that global warming may be just the Earth's warning that a new Ice Age is near.

In the Earth's history thus far, there have been periods where glaciers covered much of Europe, each lasting about 100,000 years. These are separated by warmer interglacial periods lasting around 10,000 years. We are currently at the end of an interglacial era called the Holocene.

LINK ]]>
Wednesday, March 3, 2010

EXCERPT:

Back in the 1970s before people were screaming about global warming, scientists were warning us that the next ice age may be just around the corner. The big freeze scare was eventually pushed aside by the great man-made global warming hoax. Now a new study has been released that global warming may be just the Earth's warning that a new Ice Age is near.

In the Earth's history thus far, there have been periods where glaciers covered much of Europe, each lasting about 100,000 years. These are separated by warmer interglacial periods lasting around 10,000 years. We are currently at the end of an interglacial era called the Holocene.

LINK ]]> <![CDATA[New Research: CO2 Contribution To Global Warming Is Dropping Like A Rock. Will CO2 Co]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-577.html Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:38:07 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-577.html
March 03, 2010

EXCERPT:

Read here. In a previous post, we discussed the World Climate Report analysis of global warming since 1950. As the latest research has discovered, the 2007 IPCC report's attribution of 100% of global warming to CO2 (greenhouse gases) is drastically wrong. The newest and best research indicates multiple factors are responsible for the 0.702°C increase of global temperatures since 1950.

Below, is a visual representation of the latest scientific estimates of contribution to global warming. Each factor/influence to global warming is identified, including estimated contributions (%). Note that we've added a natural component to Bar #3, which only represents 5% of warming since 1950. Prior to 1950, 100% of the global warming is considered to be natural by most scientists.

As climate research advances, as more scientific evidence is gathered and is analyzed, the GHG contribution to global warming will again be reduced. Within three years, it is highly probable that scientists will reduce the GHG warming contribution to less than 10%. (click on image to enlarge)

LINK TO THE REVEALING CHART]]>
March 03, 2010

EXCERPT:

Read here. In a previous post, we discussed the World Climate Report analysis of global warming since 1950. As the latest research has discovered, the 2007 IPCC report's attribution of 100% of global warming to CO2 (greenhouse gases) is drastically wrong. The newest and best research indicates multiple factors are responsible for the 0.702°C increase of global temperatures since 1950.

Below, is a visual representation of the latest scientific estimates of contribution to global warming. Each factor/influence to global warming is identified, including estimated contributions (%). Note that we've added a natural component to Bar #3, which only represents 5% of warming since 1950. Prior to 1950, 100% of the global warming is considered to be natural by most scientists.

As climate research advances, as more scientific evidence is gathered and is analyzed, the GHG contribution to global warming will again be reduced. Within three years, it is highly probable that scientists will reduce the GHG warming contribution to less than 10%. (click on image to enlarge)

LINK TO THE REVEALING CHART]]> <![CDATA[Ice Ages]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-576.html Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:54:00 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-576.html
EXCERPT:

When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface.

LINK WITH FLASH CHART]]>
EXCERPT:

When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface.

LINK WITH FLASH CHART]]> <![CDATA[Al Gore's Personality Disorder]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-575.html Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:49:27 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-575.html
Henry I. Miller, 03.01.10, 04:21 PM EST

EXCERPT:

Is the former vice president not-so-secretly a narcissistic, shameless phony?

Just when we thought that--finally--we wouldn't have Al Gore to kick around any more, he resurfaces with a characteristically apocalyptic, know-it-all New York Times op-ed about global warming, "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

How awful a calamity? "The displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases." Sounds almost as bad as a Gore presidency.

LINK
========================================================
I really despise Al $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Gore.

When he was Vice President,he visited a city park I was responsible in maintaining.He was at the city water supply intake area at the Columbia River,pontificating on something.How I wished that load on two feet fell off that spot,a 35 foot drop into the water.

I was pissed off at being kept out of the area,despite that I was driving a city truck and had no advanced warming of this imbecile's visit.

I will never forget how I felt being near that pile of ****!]]>
Henry I. Miller, 03.01.10, 04:21 PM EST

EXCERPT:

Is the former vice president not-so-secretly a narcissistic, shameless phony?

Just when we thought that--finally--we wouldn't have Al Gore to kick around any more, he resurfaces with a characteristically apocalyptic, know-it-all New York Times op-ed about global warming, "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

How awful a calamity? "The displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases." Sounds almost as bad as a Gore presidency.

LINK
========================================================
I really despise Al $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Gore.

When he was Vice President,he visited a city park I was responsible in maintaining.He was at the city water supply intake area at the Columbia River,pontificating on something.How I wished that load on two feet fell off that spot,a 35 foot drop into the water.

I was pissed off at being kept out of the area,despite that I was driving a city truck and had no advanced warming of this imbecile's visit.

I will never forget how I felt being near that pile of ****!]]>