Remember me
▼ Content

A New Theory of Global Warming



Page 1 of 212>
A New Theory of Global Warming30-11-2015 04:55
davidlaing
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
We (Peter Langdon Ward and David Bennett Laing) have just published a new theory of global warming that better accounts for temperature change over the past 100 years and throughout the Phanerozoic Eon than the currently favored greenhouse warming theory. In view of the extreme difficulty in getting peer-reviewed journals to publish papers that run counter to greenhouse theory, we decided to present our concept in a semi-popular book, "What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?". The book is available in hardback, paperback, and ebook versions on amazon.com (search for "what really causes"), and in most bookstores.

In brief, we find that major temperature changes throughout Phanerozoic time can be fully explained with two different styles of volcanic eruption: effusive and explosive. It is well-known that aerosols from explosive volcanoes like Pinatubo reflect sunlight and cause global cooling. What we found is that all volcanoes emit chlorine and bromine (as HCl and HBr), which deplete the ozone layer, allowing increased irradiance of Earth by solar UV-B radiation, causing global warming. UV-B is 48 times more energy-rich than Earth's IR radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide.

In the case of explosive volcanoes, the aerosol cooling effect overwhelms the warming effect from ozone depletion, but since effusive volcanoes don't emit aerosols, warming prevails. Effusive eruptions are also much longer-lasting and can be extremely voluminous. Massive effusive eruptions in Iceland occurred precisely at the time when Earth warmed out of the last ice age. Less massive effusive eruptions coincided with every one of the numerous, enigmatic Dansgaard-Oeschger warming events during the ice age. Much more massive effusive eruptions accompanied extreme warming events during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the End-Permian Extinction, the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary, and many others throughout the Phanerozoic.

We view the dramatic warming event of the late 20th century as anthropogenic, but not due to carbon dioxide. The event coincided with the release of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases to the atmosphere, which became photodissociated to release chlorine, thus mimicking the ozone depleting and global warming effects of effusive volcanism. The Montreal Protocol ended CFC production and thereby ended global warming, thus explaining the enigmatic "global warming hiatus" that has prevailed since 1998. No other convincing explanation for the "hiatus" has been proposed or generally agreed upon. A warming effect from the massive effusive eruption of Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano in late 2014 and early 2015 will likely make 2015 the warmest year on record, but still nowhere near as warm as predicted by the greenhouse warming based climate models.

Global temperature has plateaued rather than fallen, and ice masses still continue to melt globally, because chlorine remains in the stratosphere and continues to destroy ozone catalytically. This will continue for several decades, and due to heat storage in the oceanic thermal reservoir, it is likely that eventual lowering of global temperature will have to depend on a series of explosive volcanic eruptions. Until (and if) these occur, it seems equally likely that we will simply have to adapt to a world that is about one Fahrenheit degree warmer than it was in the mid-20th century, but at least we shouldn't have to worry about "climate Armageddon" due to further warming, as long as we remain vigilant against further releases of existing CFC stockpiles.

In the book, we also discuss the failings of greenhouse warming in considerable detail on both theoretical and observational grounds. An exhaustive literature search revealed that only one actual experiment has ever been performed to test greenhouse warming theory. It was done by Knut Angstrom in 1900, and he concluded that any warming effect from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration was negligible. Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion. To date, he has had no takers.

We would welcome your thoughts on the foregoing, especially if they follow a careful reading of the book.

David Bennett Laing
30-11-2015 12:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Have you exposed this to a more aggressively scientifically aware forum?

I would like to see the reaction of such sites as Watts-up-with-that etc.

Edited on 30-11-2015 12:34
30-11-2015 15:48
davidlaing
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Not yet, but soon. We also have a website: whyclimatechanges.com.
30-11-2015 16:23
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
The science is explained in detail at WhyClimateChanges.com, the book at WhyClimateChanges.com/the-book/ and the challenge at WhyClimateChanges.com/challenge/. A good place to start is WhyClimateChanges.com/overview/.
30-11-2015 20:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
So it's back to the ozone layer again is it? There are few problems with this theory:

First, volcanoes only emit trace amounts of chlorine and bromine, what what it does emit is tied up in low energy compounds.

Second, the ozone layer destroys itself. Ozone is an unstable substance that returns to oxygen on it's own (in about 48 hours, if there were no sources of ozone, the layers would disappear completely.

Third, the ozone layer is rebuilt every day, completely restoring any lost ozone during the night, until it again reaches a level where absorption cuts available energy down from the sun to limit the production of more ozone (it's self regulating). As long as you have oxygen and a sun, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it. It is not 'depleted' and it never was. This has been verified by countless radiobeacon propogation measurements.

Fourth, the hole is a natural feature at the poles, caused by the long nights and poor angle from the sun. It moves and changes in size with the upper air currents.

Fifth, the ozone layers begin about 12 miles up. They extend upwards from there to about 26 miles up. Hawaii's Mauna Loa is only 2.5 miles up, typical for a volcano. Even Ojos del Salado, the highest volcano on the planet is only 4 miles up. Gases from these volcanoes typically reach the tropopause and spread out, like any storm. The tropopause is about 6 miles up. So...how do these gases get up there any more than any other source?

Sixth, the globe isn't warming. The various NOAA stations across the lower 48 of the United States show no increase in temperature or variation of precip patterns outside of normal ranges since 1890. Only the central NOAA website contains some kind of composite or fabrication that doesn't correlate with the actual stations independently logging it.
Edited on 30-11-2015 20:23
30-11-2015 20:44
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Much of what you say about ozone is quite correct. However, the greatest depletion of average annual total ozone ever observed in mid latitudes (At Arosa Switzerland since 1927) was in 1992 and 1993, after the June 1991 eruption of Pinatubo, the largest volcanic eruption since 1912 and it decayed back to normal in about 10 years. The second largest depletion followed the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, a much smaller eruption. This is all described in detail at ozonedepletiontheory.info/ozone-depletion.html. This page describes how ozone depletion is observed to follow most volcanic eruptions, even small ones. The average lifetime of a molecule of ozone is around 8 days. Ozone depletion means that something interrupted the Chapman cycle so that more ozone was destroyed than created. Molina and others show that one atom of Chlorine can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone.

When the amount of ozone in the ozone "layer" is deceased, more ultraviolet-B radiation is observed to reach Earth, warming Earth and cooling the lower stratosphere. All the pieces fit very well together. Please look at the data very carefully described in the book WhyClimateChanges.com/the-book/ and on the website WhyClimateChanges.com.
30-11-2015 23:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Much of what you say about ozone is quite correct. However, the greatest depletion of average annual total ozone ever observed in mid latitudes (At Arosa Switzerland since 1927) was in 1992 and 1993, after the June 1991 eruption of Pinatubo, the largest volcanic eruption since 1912 and it decayed back to normal in about 10 years. The second largest depletion followed the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, a much smaller eruption. This is all described in detail at ozonedepletiontheory.info/ozone-depletion.html. This page describes how ozone depletion is observed to follow most volcanic eruptions, even small ones.

Since the Switzerland station is monitoring total column ozone (and so did the satelite, until it starting putting out garbage data in 2000), it is measuring ozone at all altitudes, including in the troposphere itself. This data does not truly show what is happening at the ozone layer itself. That is best measured by radiobeacon propogation data, and it has not changed.
peterlward wrote:
The average lifetime of a molecule of ozone is around 8 days.
The average half life of ozone at altitude is 8 days. That's not the average.
peterlward wrote:
Ozone depletion means that something interrupted the Chapman cycle so that more ozone was destroyed than created. Molina and others show that one atom of Chlorine can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone.
This experiment, too, is flawed. It fails to take into account the destructive nature of UV on chlorine in the presence of hydrogen.
peterlward wrote:

When the amount of ozone in the ozone "layer" is deceased, more ultraviolet-B radiation is observed to reach Earth, warming Earth and cooling the lower stratosphere. All the pieces fit very well together. Please look at the data very carefully described in the book WhyClimateChanges.com/the-book/ and on the website WhyClimateChanges.com.

No, they don't. The Earth surface temperatures show no warming, as measured across the United States by hundreds of stations, each keeping their own log. Plastics still decompose at the same rate. Skin cancers have only marginally gone up in the United States and down elsewhere, such as among the Polynesians.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2015 07:07
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Science depends on quality data, meticulously collected and carefully analyzed. Annual mean global surface temperatures have been analyzed by four different major groups: NOAA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hadley Centre, and Berkeley Earth. The Berkeley group set out as skeptics expecting to find errors with the other three, but ended up agreeing. All four analyses have their pluses and minuses, but all four show quite clearly that average surface temperatures were more or less statistically constant from 1945 to 1970, increased 0.6oC from 1970 to 1998. Remained relatively constant from 1998 through 2013, and have been increasing since. These are all summarized at ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped.html and in Chapter 3 of the book with explanations for why each of the changes occurred.

Total column ozone data are regularly supplemented by balloon borne observations showing change in concentration with altitude.

My website and book describe, in some detail, the best of the most relevant data available. Roll up your sleeves and look at the data. Enjoy doing science.
01-12-2015 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Science depends on quality data, meticulously collected and carefully analyzed. Annual mean global surface temperatures have been analyzed by four different major groups: NOAA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hadley Centre, and Berkeley Earth. The Berkeley group set out as skeptics expecting to find errors with the other three, but ended up agreeing. All four analyses have their pluses and minuses, but all four show quite clearly that average surface temperatures were more or less statistically constant from 1945 to 1970, increased 0.6oC from 1970 to 1998. Remained relatively constant from 1998 through 2013, and have been increasing since. These are all summarized at ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped.html and in Chapter 3 of the book with explanations for why each of the changes occurred.

Total column ozone data are regularly supplemented by balloon borne observations showing change in concentration with altitude.

My website and book describe, in some detail, the best of the most relevant data available. Roll up your sleeves and look at the data. Enjoy doing science.


There is no global temperature data. It is not possible to obtain such. There are no thermometers in most of the world. The satellite data is only recent and it has problems with the way the data from them is being collated and reported, not the least of which is the satellites cannot see everything.

[b]All four of these groups are fabricating data/[b] if they are reporting anything like a global temperature.

Total column ozone data and balloon observations give you the same thing. Of course they supplement each other. They also only give you only the data of a particular column, and this data is being used improperly here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-12-2015 21:35
02-12-2015 19:15
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Have you ever considered that being a Parrot Nurturer might be a more enjoyable and fulfilling role in life? Science is about evaluating likely possibilities to figure our what best fits the data.
02-12-2015 23:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Have you ever considered that being a Parrot Nurturer might be a more enjoyable and fulfilling role in life? Science is about evaluating likely possibilities to figure our what best fits the data.


A theory may be developed that way, but you can develop a theory absent any data at all and still have a valid theory!

Supporting data has no place in science per se. It's only role is in rhetoric, when you try to communicate that theory to someone else.

Invalidating data that is verifiable, or an invalidating argument that is without fallacy is enough to blow any theory away. These are part of science per se.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-12-2015 23:06
02-12-2015 23:30
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
The fundamental purpose of Science is to explain observed changes so that we can understand what causes those changes, what effect we can have on those changes, what changes to expect in the future, and how we can best adapt to or harness those changes. Quality observations are the closest thing to ground truth in Science. Theories become more widely accepted as they explain more and more observations better than alternative theories.
03-12-2015 00:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
The fundamental purpose of Science is to explain observed changes so that we can understand what causes those changes, what effect we can have on those changes, what changes to expect in the future, and how we can best adapt to or harness those changes. Quality observations are the closest thing to ground truth in Science. Theories become more widely accepted as they explain more and more observations better than alternative theories.


Quite wrong. Theories become more accepted because they have a solid foundation to them in some way, such as a description of the theory by using algebra and calculus (not statistics), or that the theory can be shown with an argument compelling logically, such as the science behind grafting two fruit trees to produce a hybrid.

Observations (quality or not) are not a ground truth in science at all. Logic and mathematics is. It is why science cannot explain everything, and never will. Science has it's limits. One of it's most severe limits is phenomenology, or the philosophy of how all observations are interpreted by the observer depending on preexisting models. It is the reason observations cannot be a ground truth in science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-12-2015 00:11
03-12-2015 00:29
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Try learning something on the Internet. Here are five definitions of Science:

Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation (Merriam-Webster).

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (New Oxford American Dictionary).

Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (Dictionary.com)

The systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms (Collins English Dictionary).

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary).
03-12-2015 02:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
peterlward wrote:
The fundamental purpose of Science is to explain observed changes so that we can understand what causes those changes,

Nope. I'm sorry but I'm going to jump in here.

The purpose of science is to predict nature. Humans want to know what will happen, whether the topic is the stock market, the weather, enemy intentions, natural events,etc...humans want to be able to predict and to control.

Explanations are not necessary, but are a bonus if included. We cannot explain gravity. We don't care. We just want to be able to successfully land the lunar lander, or get the rocket to escape velocity, etc...

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. If the model is not falsifiable, it isn't science. If the model isn't predicting nature, it isn't science.

peterlward wrote: what effect we can have on those changes,

Science is not a person; it is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Science is neither philanthropic nor is it evil. Science does not care about anything, and that includes what effects humans have on anything.

People care. Science does not. That means that science is not concerned with your pet project, your religion, your political causes or anything about which you care.

peterlward wrote: what changes to expect in the future,

This is where the Global Warming religion shows its true colors. There are no falsifiable Global Warming predictions, only vague, unfalsifiable Global Warming "prophesies" of doom. Nothing screams "religion" like a Global Warming "prediction."

peterlward wrote: Quality observations are the closest thing to ground truth in Science.

Supporting "evidence" of any kind (observations, data, measurements, other trivia, etc..) are simply not present in science, which is comprised solely of falsifiable models that predict nature. This is why in a physics class you learn g(m1*m2)/(d*d) instead of the long history of things falling to the ground. Once you have the model, and thus science, supporting "evidence" is simply not needed whatsoever.

You might want to read about science, maybe learn about science history and even maybe take a science class or two. You'll see that a falsifiable model is required to have science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 02:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Try learning something on the Internet. Here are five definitions of Science:

Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation (Merriam-Webster).

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (New Oxford American Dictionary).

Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (Dictionary.com)

The systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms (Collins English Dictionary).

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary).


Okay...I observe the sun rising every day and setting each night. It is scientific for me to say the great god Plugh is hauling the sun across the sky. Repeated observations for years and years have convinced me of it.

Obviously, these definitions are lacking something.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-12-2015 02:19
03-12-2015 02:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
IBdaMann wrote:
peterlward wrote:
The fundamental purpose of Science is to explain observed changes so that we can understand what causes those changes,

Nope. I'm sorry but I'm going to jump in here.

[/quote]

Thought you might jump into this one!



The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 02:25
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
IBdaMann wrote: There are no falsifiable Global Warming predictions, only vague, unfalsifiable Global Warming "prophesies" of doom.

On November 12, 2015, I issued The Climate Change Challenge directly to 2000 top climatologists and via the media to demonstrate experimentally that greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation actually can warm the air and the globe as predicted by greenhouse warming theory more than ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth when ozone is depleted . See http://whyclimatechanges.com/challenge/. I explain on my website and in my book why this is physically impossible. There is a direct test of greenhouse warming theory.
03-12-2015 03:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
peterlward wrote:On November 12, 2015, I issued The Climate Change Challenge directly to 2000 top climatologists and via the media to demonstrate experimentally that greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation actually can warm the air and the globe as predicted by greenhouse warming theory more than ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth when ozone is depleted . See http://whyclimatechanges.com/challenge/. I explain on my website and in my book why this is physically impossible. There is a direct test of greenhouse warming theory.

Did you have a point? UV-B from the sun is of much higher power than any equivalent band of IR.

What is the direct test of "greenhouse warming" theory...and which version of "greenhouse effect" is involved?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 04:17
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
If greenhouse gases actually get warmer when they absorb infrared radiation, you should be able to take two cylinders of air, one with twice the CO2 concentration as the other, irradiate both with infrared and measure the difference in temperature. Angstrom did something like this in 1900 and found little effect. (See OzoneDepletionTheory.info/Papers/Angstrom1900-English.pdf). Some care is needed to be sure infrared penetrates the cylinder wall (thus cannot be glass), being sure to control convection of air around the apparatus, and such. Climate sensitivity studies conclude the temperature difference will most likely be between 1.5 and 4.5 deg C because they assume all warming observed was caused by greenhouse gases. I show that most, if not all, was caused by ozone depletion. So what role do greenhouse gases play?
03-12-2015 05:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
peterlward wrote:If greenhouse gases actually get warmer when they absorb infrared radiation,

Whenever any substance absorbs a quantity of electromagnetic energy, that substance increases in exactly that quantity of thermal energy.

If a certain quantity of O3 absorbs 200 joules of UV-C, then that quantity of O3 will increase in thermal energy by 200 joules. That will, of course, increase its temperature and thus increase the rate and frequency of its thermal radiation.

Do you have a point?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 07:04
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Temperature in matter is a function of a very broad continuum of frequencies (or wavelengths) shown by Planck's law. Greenhouse gases only absorb energy along many very narrow spectral lines within a few narrow bandwidths. Thus greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 absorb only small parts of the thermal energy radiated by Earth.

The reason for the spectral lines is that the energy is absorbed by resonance into the bonds that hold the molecule together, known as internal energy in thermodynamics. Each spectral line is related to a normal mode of oscillation of one of the degrees of freedom of one of the bonds. This is all very well documented by spectral physicists.

So the energy absorbed causes the normal modes of oscillation to increase in amplitude. But temperature of a gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy of all the molecules making up the gas and the kinetic energy is proportional to the translational velocity squared. It is assumed that myriads of collisions among molecules transfer the internal bond energy to translational kinetic energy, but this has never been quantified. Thus we do not know, actually, how much the temperature of a gas containing 0.04% CO2 is increased by absorbing infrared radiation and this has never been studied in the laboratory except by Angstrom.

Ozone depletion, on the other hand, is related to the photo-dissociation of oxygen and of ozone. When you dissociate a molecule, the pieces fly apart at high velocity, converting all of the existing energy in the bond and all of the new energy absorbed by the bond into velocity, which is quickly and efficiently shared with all the other molecules through collision, raising the temperature of the air. This is what heats the stratosphere and maintains temperatures in the stratosphere as much as 70 deg C warmer than at the tropopause.

But there is a bigger issue about what radiant energy is and how it is measured and calculated. All photochemists know that the chemical energy in radiation is equal to the frequency times the Planck constant (E=hv), the Planck-Einstein relation. And all of us know that visible light has enough energy to cause photosynthesis, ultraviolet radiation has enough energy to burn your skin. X-rays have enough energy to burn cancer cells. And very small doses of nuclear energy kill us. The higher the frequency, the more chemically active, the more damaging, the radiation becomes. The energy of ultraviolet-B radiation that reaches Earth when ozone is depleted, is 48 times more energetic, 48 times "hotter" than the energy of infrared radiation absorbed most strongly by CO2. Yet radiation subroutines used in climate models calculate that there is more energy in the infrared than in the ultraviolet. This is all explained carefully at whyclimatechanges.com and in my book "What Really Causes Climate Change?" available on Amazon and similar sites as well as autographed copies from my website.

I argue that it is physically impossible for greenhouse gases to be the primary cause of global warming and the Climate Challenge is a chance for scientists to prove me wrong at my expense. I do not expect to lose the money. The physics is actually quite clear, once people take the time to look at it carefully. And the climate challenge is a testable experiment.

I will have a booth (number 1138) set up in the exhibit hall at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 14 to 18 in San Francisco showing many of these details, selling books, and discussing the issues with lots of people. The booth name is "Science Is Never Settled" and we will be featuring the Climate Challenge. We did this at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting November 1 through 4 and had a lot of really good discussions. Drop by if you are one of the 24,000 scientists attending AGU. I am also giving a poster. In early January, I will be giving a talk at the American Meteorological Society meeting in New Orleans. See https://ams.confex.com/ams/96Annual/webprogram/Paper284695.html

As explained carefully in the book and on the website, ozone depletion caused by CFC gases and volcanism provides a very complete and straight-forward explanation for climate change throughout earth history and throughout the past 100 years. The role of greenhouse gases is less clear.
03-12-2015 09:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Temperature in matter is a function of a very broad continuum of frequencies (or wavelengths) shown by Planck's law.

You are backwards (and wrong). A certain frequency of light is emitted by matter at a certain temperature, not the other way around. You should study dependent and independent variables to understand why you cannot reverse the equation this way.
peterlward wrote:
Greenhouse gases only absorb energy along many very narrow spectral lines within a few narrow bandwidths. Thus greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 absorb only small parts of the thermal energy radiated by Earth.
They also absorb energy from the sun. There is no directionality of energy absorption.
peterlward wrote:
The reason for the spectral lines is that the energy is absorbed by resonance into the bonds that hold the molecule together, known as internal energy in thermodynamics. Each spectral line is related to a normal mode of oscillation of one of the degrees of freedom of one of the bonds. This is all very well documented by spectral physicists.

Spectral lines occur at the frequencies of light that resonate with the quantum states of the atom, not it's bonds with another atom.
peterlward wrote:
So the energy absorbed causes the normal modes of oscillation to increase in amplitude. But temperature of a gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy of all the molecules making up the gas and the kinetic energy is proportional to the translational velocity squared.
[quote]peterlward wrote:
It is assumed that myriads of collisions among molecules transfer the internal bond energy to translational kinetic energy, but this has never been quantified.
The bond energy is part of the translational kinetic energy. A vibrating bond is the same as any other movement of the molecule.
peterlward wrote:
Thus we do not know, actually, how much the temperature of a gas containing 0.04% CO2 is increased by absorbing infrared radiation and this has never been studied in the laboratory except by Angstrom.

Actually we do, if we know how much infrared radiation is being applied. The problem is, it is not possible to determine how much infrared atmospheric CO2 is receiving. It will vary depending on the cloud cover, the water vapor density, and the altitude of the particle.
peterlward wrote:
Ozone depletion, on the other hand, is related to the photo-dissociation of oxygen and of ozone.
Ozone is self destructive. Adding energy to ozone is not the primary method of destroying ozone. Lack of energy and a little time is.
peterlward wrote:
When you dissociate a molecule, the pieces fly apart at high velocity,
Why? There's no reason that should happen.
peterlward wrote:
converting all of the existing energy in the bond and all of the new energy absorbed by the bond into velocity, which is quickly and efficiently shared with all the other molecules through collision, raising the temperature of the air.
Lack of energy does not raise the temperature of the air.
peterlward wrote:
This is what heats the stratosphere and maintains temperatures in the stratosphere as much as 70 deg C warmer than at the tropopause.
Wrong. Ozone absorption is what heats the stratosphere, not ozone destruction. Remember that ozone is a molecule too, and can show a temperature just the same as any other.
peterlward wrote:

But there is a bigger issue about what radiant energy is and how it is measured and calculated. All photochemists know that the chemical energy in radiation is equal to the frequency times the Planck constant (E=hv), the Planck-Einstein relation. And all of us know that visible light has enough energy to cause photosynthesis, ultraviolet radiation has enough energy to burn your skin. X-rays have enough energy to burn cancer cells.

The frequency of light is not the cause of these effects. Resonance is. Low levels of x rays do not burn cancer cells. Low levels of ultraviolet B does not cause sunburn. Microwaves are very low in frequency yet they can boil water and sterilize people with sufficient power.
You can cook a hot dog by plugging the ends of an electrical cord into either end of the dog and plugging it into the wall (don't try this at home). That's 60Hz. It's about power, not the frequency, which only makes up part of the equation.
peterlward wrote:
And very small doses of nuclear energy kill us.
Nuclear energy is not light. It's not even electromagnetic energy. It can produce electromagnetic energy, however (ah...that nice cool blue...)
peterlward wrote:
The higher the frequency, the more chemically active, the more damaging, the radiation becomes.
Nuclear energy does not have a frequency either, other than the temperature of the material, like any other.
peterlward wrote:
The energy of ultraviolet-B radiation that reaches Earth when ozone is depleted, is 48 times more energetic, 48 times "hotter" than the energy of infrared radiation absorbed most strongly by CO2.
You are comparing a potato to an orange. Yeah, they're both round and they're both edible, that's about it it.

peterlward wrote:
Yet radiation subroutines used in climate models calculate that there is more energy in the infrared than in the ultraviolet.
There is. Energy counted in this way is not just a single frequency. It is all the energy in a frequency band. The infrared band is so much wider than the ultraviolet band that most of the energy hitting the Earth is not visible, but infrared (just slightly more than visible light energy). Ultraviolet energy is filtered out by oxygen and ozone. First, by creating the ozone, second, by heating the ozone.
peterlward wrote:
This is all explained carefully at whyclimatechanges.com and in my book "What Really Causes Climate Change?" available on Amazon and similar sites as well as autographed copies from my website.

I argue that it is physically impossible for greenhouse gases to be the primary cause of global warming and the Climate Challenge is a chance for scientists to prove me wrong at my expense. I do not expect to lose the money. The physics is actually quite clear, once people take the time to look at it carefully. And the climate challenge is a testable experiment.
[quote]peterlward wrote:
I will have a booth (number 1138) set up in the exhibit hall at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 14 to 18 in San Francisco showing many of these details, selling books, and discussing the issues with lots of people. The booth name is "Science Is Never Settled" and we will be featuring the Climate Challenge. We did this at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting November 1 through 4 and had a lot of really good discussions. Drop by if you are one of the 24,000 scientists attending AGU. I am also giving a poster. In early January, I will be giving a talk at the American Meteorological Society meeting in New Orleans. See https://ams.confex.com/ams/96Annual/webprogram/Paper284695.html

As explained carefully in the book and on the website, ozone depletion caused by CFC gases and volcanism provides a very complete and straight-forward explanation for climate change throughout earth history and throughout the past 100 years. The role of greenhouse gases is less clear.

Before you go too far into your dialogues with people, consider:

You cannot make energy out of nothing. Neither can you make it out of a non-energy substance. Neither can the energy in that substance create additional energy.

You make ozone by shoving energy into oxygen. Ozone destroys itself after a period of time, releasing the energy it took to create it. At the tropopause, this takes about 8 hours. At 70 deg F, it takes a couple of minutes.

The ozone layer begins at such a high altitude, volcanoes or any other surface event will not affect it. Convection generally stops at the tropopause.

There is no indication the globe is warming at all. There is certainly no way to measure it if it was. There is no global 'thermometer', either real or composite. Temperature information collected from monitoring stations in the United States don't show any warming taking place since 1890. There is certainly no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. Neither is there any correlation between ozone levels and temperatures, other than the daily cycle.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-12-2015 09:27
03-12-2015 10:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Hilarious seeing 3 'greenhouse' effect deniers (aka Sky Dragon Slayers) who clearly have never even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry or the thousands of research papers on the subject, having a 'mass debate' about their different wacky versions of junk 'science'.

Edited on 03-12-2015 10:16
03-12-2015 11:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It's like watching three Baldricks in action:

Deny Everything
03-12-2015 12:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:There is no indication the globe is warming at all. There is certainly no way to measure it if it was. There is no global 'thermometer', either real or composite. Temperature information collected from monitoring stations in the United States don't show any warming taking place since 1890. There is certainly no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. Neither is there any correlation between ozone levels and temperatures, other than the daily cycle.


There are certainly methods of measuring the global temperature.

The degree to which they are accurate is questionable even given the range of precision they use.

This range of precision is not talked about enough. It is larger than the supposed temperature change often.

The extent to which the numbers are than adjusted is also highly questionable and oddly done.
03-12-2015 13:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Ceist wrote:
Hilarious seeing 3 'greenhouse' effect deniers (aka Sky Dragon Slayers) who clearly have never even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry or the thousands of research papers on the subject, having a 'mass debate' about their different wacky versions of junk 'science'.


@ Into the Night - every forum has a "litesong."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 13:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tim the plumber wrote:
[color=blue]There are certainly methods of measuring the global temperature.

The degree to which they are accurate is questionable even given the range of precision they use.

Accuracy is the main point. There is no way for us to produce/calculate/generate a global temperature value that is within any usable accuracy. This is why warmazombies never present a complete package of raw data, math and margin of error. All we get are announcements that we just had the warmest day/week/month/ season/year ever, or "of the instrument record" which are aimed at the world's gullible.

If you ever want to identify gullible people, just let them identify themselves the next time there is some very cold weather somewhere. They will be the ones reposting the announcements of how it was nonetheless "the warmest globally."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no indication the globe is warming at all. There is certainly no way to measure it if it was. There is no global 'thermometer', either real or composite. Temperature information collected from monitoring stations in the United States don't show any warming taking place since 1890. There is certainly no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. Neither is there any correlation between ozone levels and temperatures, other than the daily cycle.


There are certainly methods of measuring the global temperature.

The degree to which they are accurate is questionable even given the range of precision they use.

This range of precision is not talked about enough. It is larger than the supposed temperature change often.

The extent to which the numbers are than adjusted is also highly questionable and oddly done.


May I ask how? We don't have a uniform set of thermometers everywhere, we don't have control over most of those thermometers so we don't know how accurate (or if they even exist!) are. Satellites can't see everything, they only see what they orbit over, and the data they produce does not have a calibration standard that is verifiable (no calibrations once in space, for there is nothing to calibrate to), plus they only have produced recent data.

What is the global temperature right now?

What was the global temperature last Halloween?

What was the global temperature on Jan 1st, 2015?

Numbers by themselves are no good. Show me where you get them from and how they were produced.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Hilarious seeing 3 'greenhouse' effect deniers (aka Sky Dragon Slayers) who clearly have never even read a textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry or the thousands of research papers on the subject, having a 'mass debate' about their different wacky versions of junk 'science'.


@ Into the Night - every forum has a "litesong."

.

Every forum has jerks like you and me, too.



The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 21:36
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Gentlemen,
Your categorical denial of things that are quite well known in Science says more about your lack of knowledge and understanding than about supporting your position.

I have been a geophysicist for more than 50 years. I have published widely, managed a large group of scientists, worked on a committee for Vice President Gore, Chaired a committee at the White House, testified twice before Congress, and been featured on Good Morning America. In the last 9 years working full time in retirement, I have consulted more than 10,000 papers on climate, all the IPCC reports, and shelves of books and textbooks. I have some experience and a solid scientific basis for my views explained clearly at WhyClimateChanges.com and in my book "What Really Causes Global Warming?" I am not 100% right; no one is. Yet I have come to understand some very important things about climate because I have questioned many things taken for granted by most climatologists. It turns out that some of these widespread assumptions cannot be supported.

Even more important, I have allowed ideas to fester in my mind rather than dismissing them as unimportant or already understood. Some have grown to be very valuable; some were ultimately discarded. Daniel Boorstin said "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." And Galileo Galilei stated it clearly in 1615: "In my opinion no one ... should close the road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things, as if everything had already been discovered and revealed with certainty. Nor should it be considered rash not to be satisfied with those opinions which have become common. No one should be scorned in physical disputes for not holding to the opinions which happen to please other people best." Science is never settled!

All the best temperature data available in the world, at land and at sea, analyzed by four highly credible groups, averaged within and over boxes of latitude and longitude, agree that the world warmed about one degree Fahrenheit between 1970 and 1998. To deny these careful observations and analyses is to deny the scientific method. To be credible, you need to show where these analyses went wrong. A substantial amount of data and analysis show pretty clearly that the world did warm from 1970 to 1998.

Now the question is whether man caused this warming? There are two methods on the table by which man has been proposed to have caused the warming: greenhouse gases and/or ozone depletion caused by manufactured CFC gases, both of which increased significantly from 1970 to 1996. Current climate models dismiss ozone depletion as being quantitatively unimportant, but I argue with a great deal of evidence that current climate models have it exactly backwards.

From 1998 thru 2013 temperatures remained statistically constant as shown by all four major temperature data sets. Meanwhile CO2 concentrations continued to increase at increasing rates. There is no credible explanation based on greenhouse gases for why temperatures did not increase from 1945 to 1970, why they began increasing around 1970, why they stopped increasing in 1998, and why they began to increase again in 2014, making 2015 the hottest year on record. On my website, you will find a list of more than 50 published papers that try to explain the Global Warming Hiatus in terms of greenhouse gases. Ozone depletion provides a clear and credible explanation for each of these changes. I am not going to restate everything here. The details are all laid out for you to read, understand, and then question.

The single most important observation of periods of warming throughout geologic history is that they start suddenly and end slowly. Greenhouse gases do not change suddenly. Depletion of ozone by volcanic eruptions explains the sudden onset and in most cases we can put our hand on the volcanic rocks dated at the time of the sudden change.

As for ozone, here are some words from my book:
"In 1930, Sydney Chapman outlined a cycle whereby ozone is continually created and destroyed, and it is known today as the Chapman Cycle. The ozone "layer" is not a layer of static gas. It is a dynamic region in the atmosphere where there is sufficient ultraviolet solar radiation and other physical conditions that promote the Chapman cycle. It is the Chapman cycle that gets degraded when humans release CFC gases into the atmosphere, causing ozone depletion.

"Ozone (O3) is created when an oxygen molecule (O2) absorbs sufficient ultraviolet-C radiation with frequencies high enough to split (photodissociate) the oxygen molecule (O2; see Figure 4.4 on page 95), forming two oxygen atoms (O; see number 1 in Figure 6.2). This process proceeds at a relatively slow rate. Each oxygen atom (O) can then recombine quickly with an oxygen molecule (O2) to form an ozone molecule (O3)."

When ozone absorbs ultraviolet-B radiation, it is dissociated back into atomic and molecular oxygen.

There are lots more details and figures showing data in the book and on the website. Do some homework, rather than just categorically denying everything you semi understand. Then we can have a good scientific discussion.
03-12-2015 22:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Gentlemen,
Your categorical denial of things that are quite well known in Science says more about your lack of knowledge and understanding than about supporting your position.

Back atcha, dude. It is you that is misusing formulas, and violating established laws of thermodynamics and chemistry.
peterlward wrote:
I have been a geophysicist for more than 50 years. I have published widely, managed a large group of scientists, worked on a committee for Vice President Gore, Chaired a committee at the White House, testified twice before Congress, and been featured on Good Morning America. In the last 9 years working full time in retirement, I have consulted more than 10,000 papers on climate, all the IPCC reports, and shelves of books and textbooks. I have some experience and a solid scientific basis for my views explained clearly at WhyClimateChanges.com and in my book "What Really Causes Global Warming?"

Which makes it more embarrassing for you to make these kinds of statements. I suppose this helps to explain why Al Gore is so screwed up.
peterlward wrote:
I am not 100% right; no one is.
Are you attempting to deny the whole reason you brought up this resume of yours?
peterlward wrote:
Yet I have come to understand some very important things about climate because I have questioned many things taken for granted by most climatologists. It turns out that some of these widespread assumptions cannot be supported.
Here we at least agree.
peterlward wrote:
Even more important, I have allowed ideas to fester in my mind rather than dismissing them as unimportant or already understood. Some have grown to be very valuable; some were ultimately discarded. Daniel Boorstin said "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." And Galileo Galilei stated it clearly in 1615: "In my opinion no one ... should close the road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things, as if everything had already been discovered and revealed with certainty. Nor should it be considered rash not to be satisfied with those opinions which have become common. No one should be scorned in physical disputes for not holding to the opinions which happen to please other people best." Science is never settled!
Here you deny your own argument.
peterlward wrote:
All the best temperature data available in the world, at land and at sea, analyzed by four highly credible groups, averaged within and over boxes of latitude and longitude, agree that the world warmed about one degree Fahrenheit between 1970 and 1998. To deny these careful observations and analyses is to deny the scientific method. To be credible, you need to show where these analyses went wrong. A substantial amount of data and analysis show pretty clearly that the world did warm from 1970 to 1998.

An appeal to authority. Not even a named one. Sad.

I have already shown where these analysis went wrong. Composited, fudged, or fabricated data is not data. At best, it is only someone's interpretation of data. Raw data from US monitoring stations show me there is no warming at all since 1890. Raw data from US hurricane data shows no increase or decrease in hurricane activity. Raw data from stations actually on the ice sheet in Antarctica show no reduction in ice. Indeed, they show an expansion of ice over many decades. Same with stations on the Greenland ice sheet.

There is no way to measure global temperatures, not even with satellites. It it ridiculous to say the world warmed, cooled, or stayed the same. To make such a claim is to use fabricated data.
peterlward wrote:
Now the question is whether man caused this warming? There are two methods on the table by which man has been proposed to have caused the warming: greenhouse gases and/or ozone depletion caused by manufactured CFC gases, both of which increased significantly from 1970 to 1996. Current climate models dismiss ozone depletion as being quantitatively unimportant, but I argue with a great deal of evidence that current climate models have it exactly backwards.
Ozone depletion did not occur due to CFC gases. These gases do not have that power. If they did, we would have no ozone at all in the first place, for chlorine sources are everywhere, and the amount of all the CFC's we've ever produced is not even a drop in that bucket. The 'hole' is a natural phenomenon. I have already described the mechanism by which it forms.
peterlward wrote:
From 1998 thru 2013 temperatures remained statistically constant as shown by all four major temperature data sets. Meanwhile CO2 concentrations continued to increase at increasing rates. There is no credible explanation based on greenhouse gases for why temperatures did not increase from 1945 to 1970, why they began increasing around 1970, why they stopped increasing in 1998, and why they began to increase again in 2014, making 2015 the hottest year on record. On my website, you will find a list of more than 50 published papers that try to explain the Global Warming Hiatus in terms of greenhouse gases.
The temperatures didn't follow this pattern. See the raw data available at hundreds of NOAA monitoring stations across the U.S.
peterlward wrote:
Ozone depletion provides a clear and credible explanation for each of these changes. I am not going to restate everything here. The details are all laid out for you to read, understand, and then question.
Ozone is not depleting. It never did. We do not have the power to destroy it, even if we wanted to.
peterlward wrote:
The single most important observation of periods of warming throughout geologic history is that they start suddenly and end slowly. Greenhouse gases do not change suddenly. Depletion of ozone by volcanic eruptions explains the sudden onset and in most cases we can put our hand on the volcanic rocks dated at the time of the sudden change.

Volcanoes are 2 miles up. The ozone layer begins at 15 miles up. Volcanoes do not contain chlorine except in trace amounts. There are much bigger sources of chlorine than volcanoes.
peterlward wrote:
As for ozone, here are some words from my book:
"In 1930, Sydney Chapman outlined a cycle whereby ozone is continually created and destroyed, and it is known today as the Chapman Cycle. The ozone "layer" is not a layer of static gas. It is a dynamic region in the atmosphere where there is sufficient ultraviolet solar radiation and other physical conditions that promote the Chapman cycle. It is the Chapman cycle that gets degraded when humans release CFC gases into the atmosphere, causing ozone depletion.
There is nothing degraded about Chapman or his work. Your statement fails to account for the destruction of free chlorine in the atmosphere, and denies the very cycle you claim.
peterlward wrote:
"Ozone (O3) is created when an oxygen molecule (O2) absorbs sufficient ultraviolet-C radiation with frequencies high enough to split (photodissociate) the oxygen molecule (O2; see Figure 4.4 on page 95), forming two oxygen atoms (O; see number 1 in Figure 6.2). This process proceeds at a relatively slow rate. Each oxygen atom (O) can then recombine quickly with an oxygen molecule (O2) to form an ozone molecule (O3)."
It does not proceed at a slow rate. Ozone absorbing UV does not destruct. It stays ozone. The Chapman cycle explains this. Ozone self destructs once energy is removed. The Chapman cycle explains this too. Massive amounts of ozone are lost each night, and recreated each day. We've known this since BBC radio engineers first noticed there WAS an ozone layer.
peterlward wrote:
When ozone absorbs ultraviolet-B radiation, it is dissociated back into atomic and molecular oxygen.
Wrong. The Chapman cycle you love to quote explains why.
peterlward wrote:
There are lots more details and figures showing data in the book and on the website. Do some homework, rather than just categorically denying everything you semi understand. Then we can have a good scientific discussion.

You have to have science to have a scientific discussion. Personally, I doubt your claim of 50 years as a scientist has taught you anything except how to scam money from government.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 23:19
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Try getting educated. Look at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/ and read
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/molina-lecture.html

Check out the real science of surface temperatures at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
http://berkeleyearth.org/

On what basis do you dismiss this careful work? These people at least publish their ideas using their real name.

In science, your opinions have no value unless you can back them up with data and quality reasoning.
03-12-2015 23:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Try getting educated. Look at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/ and read
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/molina-lecture.html

Check out the real science of surface temperatures at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
http://berkeleyearth.org/

On what basis do you dismiss this careful work? These people at least publish their ideas using their real name.

In science, your opinions have no value unless you can back them up with data and quality reasoning.

In science, my opinions and even theories do not necessarily require data at all. There are many theories perfectly acceptable that used no data at all.

I have shown you your faulty reasoning and why it's faulty. You are the last one to talk about quality of reasoning!

Nobel prizes are not data. Neither are they a statement of authority. Alfred Nobel is probably turning over in his grave at what's happened to the Nobel Prize.

This is not careful work. It is echoing and reechoing the same composited, fudged, and and sometimes outright fabricated data sets. I've already shown you why these are useless. They are not data. They are someone's interpretation of data at best.

You might start by going back through and searching out the Data Mine. Examine particularly the first article in that thread (I started it). Then examine the data in there I have presented, according to the rules I set up in there.
[url]http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-data-mine-d6-e745.php[url]


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 23:59
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Sorry but this is dellusional gibberish. Best wishes.
04-12-2015 00:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
peterlward wrote:Your categorical denial of things that are quite well known...

Not well known, but well believed.


peterlward wrote:... in Science says more about your lack of knowledge and understanding than about supporting your position.

I'm the one taking the science position and you are taking the dogmatic religious position. As such, you will embarass yourself every time.

peterlward wrote:I have been a geophysicist for more than 50 years.

All that tells me is that you really have no excuse for falling for the scam. Oh well, even scientists have a right to be religious.


peterlward wrote:worked on a committee for Vice President Gore,

That doesn't make you an authority on any matter in science. It establishes you as being politically motivated.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

peterlward wrote: . I have some experience and a solid scientific basis for my views

I dispute that assertion. It is patently obvious that you have nothing but your WACKY religious faith as a basis for your beliefs.

peterlward wrote: I am not 100% right;

You are completely wrong.

peterlward wrote: Yet I have come to understand some very important things about climate because I have questioned many things taken for granted by most climatologists. It turns out that some of these widespread assumptions cannot be supported.

What is a climatologist? What is "climate"? Do you believe that the dictionary is a science textbook?

...better yet,

Explain your "scientific basis" for how a gas increases temperature
without violating physics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2015 00:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
peterlward wrote:
Sorry but this is dellusional gibberish. Best wishes.


Sorry you are confused. To me, data is not data unless you can show where it came from, how it was collected, the instrumentation and calibration method used for it, and how the data relates to the argument at hand. It is this information that gives the number any meaning.

Tons of people quote numbers every day. There is nothing inherent about a number that makes it true or even relevant. Unless you can show how the number came to be, numbers are meaningless. They are worse than meaningless if the number is claimed as valid data to support an argument of any kind. They become destructive.

If you are going to claim your numbers and methodology as relevant, stay away from Las Vegas. There's an entire town built on bad math.

Oh...and stay away from timeshare salesmen too.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2015 02:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
peterlward wrote:
Try getting educated. Look at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/ and read
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/molina-lecture.html

Check out the real science of surface temperatures at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
http://berkeleyearth.org/

On what basis do you dismiss this careful work? These people at least publish their ideas using their real name.

In science, your opinions have no value unless you can back them up with data and quality reasoning.

Sorry, Dr. Ward, but times have changed since you were here last. Alternatives to the currently accepted theories of climate change cannot be accepted unless you deny everything.
Edited on 04-12-2015 02:33
04-12-2015 06:26
peterlward
★☆☆☆☆
(69)
Good video. Declarations of fact by people who do not understand science or even the scientific method and are unwilling to consider anything they do not think they know simply makes this site irrelevant. Too bad. Best wishes.
04-12-2015 06:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
peterlward wrote:
Good video. Declarations of fact by people who do not understand science or even the scientific method and are unwilling to consider anything they do not think they know simply makes this site irrelevant. Too bad. Best wishes.

Standard religious intellectual cowardice. You find people who don't believe as you do, who aren't as gullible as you, who recognize your crap for the crap it is,...and you pout like a baby.

Why can't you address science? Like all other warmizombies, you believe that a certain amount of credentials suffices for science.

You probably aren't even a scientist.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate A New Theory of Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?2731-01-2019 00:19
Why I doubt the Climate Theory? Plant food causes climate change?315-12-2018 20:20
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact