Skip to comments.A view of climate “on the ground” from a reporter who was there at the beginning
Posted on 03/10/2012 7:09:08 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Elevated from a comment Theodore White says: March 8, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Lets clarify a few things on another of Anthonys excellent posts, like this one Hey Hansen! Wheres the Beef !?
Its lengthy, but gives the view of a person who was there on the ground, covering climate science and global warming in the late 1980s years before the AGW mania took off.
I worked as a journalist in the late 1980s in Colorado, home state of Senator Tim Wirth. I had interviewed him several times on other topics. As part of my general assignment beat, I also covered science, climate and weather, regularly at NOAA, NCAR and other federal science agencies headquarted in Colorado.
I clearly remember the tone of articles on global warming during the 1980s. Most of the concern came out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on the ozone layer. By the way, this was during the new era of climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling.
The problem with NCARs interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earths ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Suns effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.
When news editors assigned stories on the climate back then it was usually spurred by press releases out of places like NCAR, NWS, NOAA, etc., which usually featured a talk, lecture, or findings that were sent to the media. Global warming, in the mid-to-late 1980s was not the AGW ideological era that it is today.
In fact, climate scientists were not in any agreement if the earth was warming in the 1980s though it was true. Many scientists would roll their eyes at the mention of global warming but many changed their tune in the 1990s just as major federal dollars were being directed to man-made global warming which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.
But I digress in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.
NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earths ozones IS the Sun.
There is no other source of radiation that can effectively destroy the earths ozone layer. But what was curious (and unbelievable) is that there were obvious determined efforts (in the mid-to-late 1980s) to blame mankind for something it could not do on a planetary level and that is to change the climate.
Only the Sun can do that.
What I noticed about Sen. Wirth and Hansen back in the late 1980s, is that there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy. This was a prepatory assault that was planned out.
When Al Gore rose to the vice-presidency by 1993 Wirth and Hansen were already well out in front of the man-made global warming pack extending the man-made ideology to other federal agencies and the university-level climate community with federal dollars.
Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present you may find some amazing numbers.
Incredible amounts increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology all at the publics great expense.
But the media was not on board. Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science. I was fortunate in that I was not, so my editors passed on to me the great amount of work and I was busy enough as it was a police reporter as it was! Since my beat included covering the climate science community in the heart of it in Colorado, I was well-attuned to how events were shaping up by 1989.
Since the mid-1980s, what I saw were articles like the one Anthony posted from 1986 were becoming more common. What I observed as professional reporter was that the ozone-layer press releases from NOAA and NCAR and other climate centers were beginning to use the same talking points in their different releases to news desks. Sometimes, these went out on the wire which were then placed into newspapers across the country without the resources to assign reporters to cover the climate.
I did not have that problem since this was part of my beat. In interviews with the particular scientists (including Hansen) what I observed was that they were heavy on the ideology, yet not sure if it was strong enough because the global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.
Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone remains in effect to this very day.
Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirths office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing man-made global warming on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.
My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.
Events have since proven that I was right.
All this while AGW ideologists reaped untold profits convincing populations that carbon (the very stuff we are made of) is bad and so we all have to pay for carbon to a global mafia.
In short, the careerist climate AGW scientists and their political insiders conspired to convince the world that humans had to pay dearly for exhaling the carbon gases that the natural world and our trees inhales to flourish.
Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Suns activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not and never has been a threat to the Earth.
Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.
Like I said, I may be wrong. I don't quite see the correlation and he certainly didn't provide any. I gave it my best shot.
The Earth can only 'retain' so much heat, and the ozone holes might have an influence on that retention variable, and they are controlled solely by the output of the Sun. Too much, they get smaller, too little they get bigger. Self-regulating and not based on CO2.
So, like you, IMHO the effects of CO2 are insignificant compared to the changes in energy from the Sun, and the self-regulating operation of the ozone holes, and the movement of moisture from the ground to air to ground caused by... the Sun.
...and then they went and did the exact opposite.
Some things could, can. Again, what are they? Water Vapor and.... well, that's about it.
And if there is, what does that have to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
I only had one answer, and it sucked, so...
Oh great. Now everyone's gonna know. Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag.
Well, yes, but it would have to be really, really big, and it would cost an awful lot.
Do we produce CO2 is sufficient quantities so as to significantly cause the planet to retain heat better and therefore raise our base temperature a few degrees?
CO2 doesn't help anything retain heat. Actually, it pretty much does the opposite.
But to author of the thread, the Second Law seems to be proof that CO2 cannot affect the earth's temperature. I still find that a puzzling opinion.
Rush saw this coming out of the radial Environmentalist movement, especially in Europe, back in the early 90s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He said the Green Movement was the new home of the Communists. He was right. That's why folks call them 'watermelons'; Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
Um, make that the RADICAL Environmentalist Movement.
The fact the envirowackos and gubmint banned a component used in making insulation on the space shuttle led to the death of the crew of Columbia because it was destroying the climate, is relative.
Just a reminder.
I am definitely not a Global Warming believer. However, I need help understanding why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is proof that this scam is a scam.
I am only a civil engineer and I was LOUSY at Thermodynamics, so I am just going to have to guess.
I am going to guess he means that the heat being stored in the CO2 in the atmosphere can’t be higher than the heat from the solar radiation that came into the atmosphere. So in short, all of the heating the earth experiences has to be from what comes in from the sun, and not from what bounces around the planet and is trapped inside due to greenhouse gases.
I think it all comes down to:
How does a greenhouse work and does the earth’s atmosphere work the same way?
The AGW alarmists want us to believe that the earth’s atmosphere heats the earth in identical manner to a greenhouse heating a hothouse.
Two things happen in a hothouse.
First, solar radiation that enters and tries to reflect back out into the atmosphere, is re-reflected off the windows of the greenhouse and back into the hothouse.
Secondly, the enclosed hothouse prevents cooler air from entering and hotter air from leaving.
Even if the 1st thing happens in our atmosphere — even if greenhouse gases re-reflect solar radiation back toward earth causing some additional heating — there is no enclosure of the earth to prevent hot air escaping the system. Or put it another way, there is nothing to prevent hot air from rising and giving off heat into space as it rises.
So there is no proof that the Earth’s atmosphere really contains heat in the same manner that a hothouses greenhouse contains heat.
Back to the 2nd law of Thermo. Since heat can only be used once, any new heat the earth experiences has to come from some outside source, that source being the sun, or perhaps heat trapped below the crust that leaks out such as volcanoes.
But warm solar radiation that loses heat to the atmosphere, can’t bounce off clouds or get sucked up into CO2 and warm and warm and warm. It is spent. It shot it’s wad. It is done. And it does not matter how it lost it’s heat to Earth.
So since each beam of solar radiation can only transfer it’s heat to Earth one time, there can’t be any rise of heating due to the old rays that hit Earth, only from the new rays.
That’s my guess, but I’m sure we have physicists here who can explain it much better or correct me.
I would remind everyone man-made global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.
...reminds me of the belief of everyone I know under 30. They think AGW theory is a proven fact, when it is not even a sound theory. How do you even begin to enlighten someone who KNOWS just KNOWS that AGW is a proven fact. PROVEN fact. Where do you start? You can't. It is like a Christian and a Jew trying to convince each other on their belief of Christ. It is an impossible thing. The schools have been thorough in greenwashing an entire generation of vegetarian wiccans.
And you shouldn't bother trying.
"Only a fool argues with a fool." - Chinese proverb
This is certainly an interesting comment:
March 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
While nonscientific assertions by William Connolley are regurgitated to no avail, more and more people now recognize that CO2 has no effect on climate, the rate at which a body of matter loses energy is determines by its molecular density, the emission wavelength of an emitting molecule or body is determined by its temperature, can my FiveGuys burger emit at a wavelength incident to 350 degreesF? No. The Oceans lose energy at a much slower rate vs the atmosphere for this reason, and it is why the contain so much more energy than the atmosphere.
CO2 in the cold upper atmosphere cannot warm or slow energy loss from the higher density lower atmosphere by more than a few trillions of a degreeF because the wavelength quantified as backradiation is saturated in a warmer body, reducing LW release in the CO2 spectrum will simply result in more LW leaving the planet in other wavelengths, but to a barely noticable exent. The 33C warming above the S-B threshold DOES NOT REQUIRE A GHE! You have the oceans and atmosphere which will NOT lose all of their energy overnight WITH OR WITHOUT GHGes! Hence the next day youre warmer to begin the daily heating cycle, still far from solar equilibrium.
When I cover my body with a blanket at night, the reason the air in between my body and the blanket warms is because the blanket has a higher density than the air in between it and my body, hence a higher retainement threshold. Changing the amount of CO2 in under the blanket will do nothing to effect the temperature. My body is the warmest source in this case, and it is LW radiation from my body, UNLIKE SW radiation from the Sun which cannot be applied in the same sense because it has a vector in relation to the atmospheric LW value which has no vector, and does not travel at the same rate nor has the same perturbational value.
This example should do it
If the GHE theory were correct, then if I put a cold gellpack on my head, I should expect my head to warm because my head is warming the gellpack while my body remains at 98.6 degreesF! It is so very IMPOSSIBLE!
The comment below speaks to my own guess that the earth’s atmosphere may not work like a hothouse greenhouse since we don’t have a physical barrier trapping air beneath it. The air in our atmosphere has nothing preventing it or slowing it down from releasing it’s heat into space as it rises. I say “space” but of course I mean giving up its heat to cooler air above until that heat over decades or centuries, is eventually given off into space.
The comment that speaks to my guess is below:
The debunking of man made warming disproves the fallacy of AGW that says there exists a mechanism where carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal forcing effect on the warmer surface below.
That violates the First AND Second Laws of Thermodynamics. There is no glass roof on the Earth that traps excess heat as it escapes upward and out into space. Remember, the deeper the ocean the colder the water and remember that heat rises it does not fall.
What AGW proponents seem to forget is that the mechanism of warming in a real greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming of the Earths atmosphere it is not a greenhouse effect not even close.
More commentary along the lines of my guess:
They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earths climate. The German scientists show how greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to calculate the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a closed system while the Earth works as an OPEN system. Moreover, the term atmospheric greenhouse effect does NOT occur in any fundamental work involving Thermodynamics, Physical kinetics or Radiation theory.
“Changing the amount of CO2 in under the blanket will do nothing to effect the temperature.”
However, changing the amount of CH4 in under the blanket will do something to effect the temperature. The ex used to complain about that!
Romney’s statements on Global Warming aren’t any different than George Bush’s. Or Newt Gingrich’s. Or John McCain’s. Or Rick Santorum’s. Or...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.