The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World%u2019s Top Climate Scientists

The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

Science • April 2010 • Views: 899

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.
This issue will be addressed at length, along with theoretical model demonstrations, in our new research paper which has just been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

-2

Recent Pages by studentpatriot:
RW Spencer & Climate Sensitivity Over-estimations NYTimes: Rush to Use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears Global Warming (plus) Clouds = Dr. Spencer is writing again Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive Why 33 deg. C for the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect is Misleading

Jump to bottom

19 comments

studentpatriot Apr 20, 2010 9:59:51am

Keep an eye out for that paper in JGR!

Charles Johnson Apr 20, 2010 10:00:15am

Dr. Roy Spencer is a flat-out kook. In addition to being a climate change denier, he is a creationist.

It’s sad and tragic that anyone actually takes this guy as an “expert” on anything. And please don’t list his credentials — I’m well aware of his CV. It doesn’t change the fact that’s he’s stark raving nuts.

This is the kind of garbage that’s all over the right wing these days. Insanity.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 10:00:30am

Why look! It’s a book pimp to an arch denialist who has been debunked here many times.

studentpatriot Apr 20, 2010 10:03:26am

I’m reserving judgment until the paper is published, sticking to the science.

Remember, the head of the National Institute of Health is a born again Christian and may share in a future Nobel Prize for the Human Genome Project.

Charles Johnson Apr 20, 2010 10:04:24am

re: #4 studentpatriot

I’m reserving judgment until the paper is published, sticking to the science.

Remember, the head of the National Institute of Health is a born again Christian and may share in a future Nobel Prize for the Human Genome Project.

There is no “science” here. Spencer has been shown to be a complete charlatan over and over. But you go ahead and keep expecting him to pull out the grand proof that global warming is a hoax. Pathetic.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 10:06:10am

re: #2 Charles

“Dr. Rpoy Spencer is a flat-out kook. In addition to being a climate change denier, he is a young earth creationist.

It’s sad and tragic that anyone actually takes this guy as an “expert” on anything. And please don’t list his credentials — I’m well aware of his CV. It doesn’t change the fact that’s he’s stark raving nuts.

This is the kind of garbage that’s all over the right wing these days. Insanity.

It seems we posted at the same time.

For the record, Spencer is worse than a kook, he is an utter charlatan.

IIRC this is the Sinclair video that debunks him.

Youtube Video

studentpatriot Apr 20, 2010 10:10:13am

re: #5 Charles

There are a few more prestigious journals in which to publish climate science research, but it is definitely less than five. This paper has, according to the author, passed peer review and will soon be published. Based on peer review and the respect of the journal in the field, I am guessing that this won’t be a garbage paper.

But again, I am reserving judgment until I see the final product. I would advise others to do the same.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 10:15:41am

Permit me to point out a few glaring flaws in this link that will make it obvious to anyone that we are dealing with nonsense.

From your link:

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address the possibility that nature — that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide

Putting more CO2 is a good thing? The second you see the crock that somehow more CO2 is a good thing, this should be a red flag. Not only is this false, but one of the giant red flags that you are dealing with a bought and paid for loon.

So just to debunk that. CO2 must, because of quantum mechanics absorb IR light. The sun gives off a large percentage of its light in the IR. Energy is conserved. It is therefore inescapable that adding a higher CO2 concentration must lead to global heating. This is basic science that can not possibly be missed by any professional scientist or for that matter anyone who understands junior level physics.

We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it.

This is just blatantly false. If that were true, then we would not see the steady rise in CO2 concentrations that we do. Look at a Keeling curve, which is a direct observation made optically of the atmosphere.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 10:20:20am

re: #7 studentpatriot

There are a few more prestigious journals in which to publish climate science research, but it is definitely less than five. This paper has, according to the author, passed peer review and will soon be published. Based on peer review and the respect of the journal in the field, I am guessing that this won’t be a garbage paper.

But again, I am reserving judgment until I see the final product. I would advise others to do the same.

What journal is that which is so respected that he is going to be published in. Further, this is a book. Books are not published in journals. Journal articles are published in journals, and they are rarely over 40 pages and they never have long, chatty, non-technical discussions.

This is crap.

Wake up and see that this is crap.

What “respected journal” is publishing this?

I assure you it isn’t Nature or Science or Phys Rev or PRL.. I assure you it isn’t any of the second tier either.

studentpatriot Apr 20, 2010 10:48:39am

re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

What “respected journal” is publishing this?

From my description and the web page link:

This issue will be addressed at length, along with theoretical model demonstrations, in our new research paper which has just been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

I believe this journal is second tier, which isn’t half bad. Again, I haven’t read the paper and cannot vouch for it. But I will keep an eye out and everyone updated as to when/if it is published.

studentpatriot Apr 20, 2010 10:56:10am

re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

I assure you it isn’t Nature or Science or Phys Rev or PRL.. I assure you it isn’t any of the second tier either.

JGR

AGU Journals Among Most Cited Publications in Climate Change Research

Geophysical Research Letters and Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres both ranked among the top 10 of the most highly cited research publications on climate change over the past decade…

mkelly Apr 20, 2010 10:58:15am

LudwigVanQuixote: So just to debunk that. CO2 must, because of quantum mechanics absorb IR light. The sun gives off a large percentage of its light in the IR. Energy is conserved. It is therefore inescapable that adding a higher CO2 concentration must lead to global heating. This is basic science that can not possibly be missed by any professional scientist or for that matter anyone who understands junior level physics.

The % of light the sun gives off in IR is roughly 46% give or take.

LVQ the sun gives off IR in the less than 4 micro range. CO2 only has one absorbtion line in that range at about 2.5 micro. The others are 4.7 and 15. O2 has an absorbtion line in that range also I believe.

So you dispute the absorbtion graphs we all see showing CO2 IR line at 15 micro? Is it your contention that CO2 absorbs at any wavelength?

There is no IR “hole” that shows up in the W/m2 budget graphs?

Please be somewhat clearer.

Charles Johnson Apr 20, 2010 10:59:55am

re: #12 mkelly

Are you aware that you’re spouting pseudo-scientific gobbledegook, or are you just repeating nonsense you picked up elsewhere?

Because nonsense is exactly what you just posted.

MKelly Apr 20, 2010 11:36:43am

Charles be specific. Do you disagree with LVQ that the sun gives off a larger percentage of IR light than visible? I just put a number to it.

Do you disagree that the absorbtion lines for CO2 in spectrographs are 2.5, 4.7 and 15 micro? If you disagree what are they?

Do you not know that Trenberth’s budget has a “hole” he calls an “Atmospheric window” thru which 40 W/m2 are allowed to freely exit?

Now please be specific. If you disagree show me I am wrong.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 12:46:28pm

re: #14 MKelly

Charles be specific. Do you disagree with LVQ that the sun gives off a larger percentage of IR light than visible? I just put a number to it.

Do you disagree that the absorbtion lines for CO2 in spectrographs are 2.5, 4.7 and 15 micro? If you disagree what are they?

Do you not know that Trenberth’s budget has a “hole” he calls an “Atmospheric window” thru which 40 W/m2 are allowed to freely exit?

Now please be specific. If you disagree show me I am wrong.

Umm I never said that the sun gives off more visible than IR. I said a large percentage of its light is in the IR.

Since you don’t understand how a thermos works you are in no position at all to discuss this topic. However, I shall point out some flaws in your stupidity.

As to your garbage about the spectra of CO2, why not look at page 4 of this step by step guide to the greenhouse effect.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 12:48:03pm

re: #11 studentpatriot

AGU is a respectable journal. It is very unlikely they will publish this crap. If they do wait another month after to see the shit storm of debunking articles and calls for the editor to resign.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Apr 20, 2010 12:49:08pm

re: #12 mkelly

And also, that was incoherent even for you.

claire Apr 20, 2010 1:12:21pm

re: #12 mkelly

It doesn’t matter the ratio of visible to IR. Who cares. Of course there are IR “holes”- if there weren’t any, ALL outgoing energy would radiate back to earth and it would be hotter than hell. Duh. But the holes get smaller as the fraction of CO2 increases up to saturation, which hasn’t happened yet. What’s yer point?

mkelly Apr 20, 2010 1:48:58pm

“Do you disagree with LVQ that the sun gives off a larger percentage of IR light than visible? I just put a number to it.”

LVQ please read again I agreed with you. The largest percent of the light coming to earth from the sun is in the IR about 46%, 10% UV and 44% roughly visible light.

You did not answer the questions. You said that “CO2 must, because of quantum mechanics absorb IR light.” OK. At what wavelengths or frequencies? I said the graphs show three as did your link. Do you disagree with the three?

Actually I do know how a thermos works. What you failed to grasp as I said before it was an idealized version of a thermos. And by the way you were totally wrong about the hairdryer. It is an example of gases dissipating heat. The heating element has forced convection from the blower motor.

Claire you are correct in the ratio doesn’t matter. LVQ brought it up. I was just putting a number to it. The “hole” has nothing to do with saturation or CO2.

But what does matter is the absorbtion lines. If we only have three for CO2 then what is the big deal.

Anyway the one line at 15 micro using Wein’s Law is at 200K. So the energy any photon carries is related to that temperture so cannot heat anything hotter than 200K. The others at 2.5 and 4.7 are at almost zero percent so very little energy is available at those wavelengths. Those would be 1200K and 650K roughly.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!