Nigel Taylor
New York City
THE EDITORS REPLY: Numerous readers reacted to Graffin’s assertion by sending us great examples of science songs. In addition to Monty Python’s immortal song, others include “Mammals” by the band They Might Be Giants, John Boswell’s album “Science Is the Poetry of Reality” and many songs by Tom Lehrer. Presumably none of the songs satisfies Graffin’s taste to qualify as “good.”
DARK AND STILL
In “Dark Worlds,” Jonathan Feng and Mark Trodden explain that the dark matter candidates called super-WIMPs interact only through gravity. That means they cannot undergo the type of collisions that dissipate energy (or hardly any collisions at all) the way ordinary particles do, primarily turning kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy, in the form of photons.
“When created, super-WIMPs would have been moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light,” the authors write, adding that “they would have taken time to come to rest.” In purely gravitational interactions, energy is nearly conserved. The only possible mechanism for individual super-WIMPs to lose kinetic energy is to convert a tiny bit of it into gravitational radiation. If super-WIMPs essentially cannot interact, how can they come to rest?
Van Snyder
La Crescenta, Calif.
FENG AND TRODDEN REPLY: If the universe were not expanding, super-WIMPs would indeed have no way of slowing down. In an expanding universe, however, all matter comes to rest eventually, meaning that its motion ultimately is owed entirely to the expansion of the universe (technically, this means that it comes to rest in co-moving coordinates, which expand with the expansion of the universe). Thus, this is the sense in which super-WIMPs slow down. Incidentally, the same principle applies to the slowdown of WIMPs. The weak interactions that WIMPs possess (and super-WIMPs lack) do not have any appreciable impact on how long they take to come to rest or how well they seed galaxy formation.
HUMANS AND PARASITES
I read with interest in Mary Carmichael’s “Halting the World’s Most Lethal Parasite” the idea of vaccinating mosquitoes by using a human carrier to pass the vaccine on to the mosquito. Couldn’t you use other mammals such as livestock instead, thereby eliminating the ethical dilemma of vaccinating people who will not directly benefit?
Paul Sidhu
Smethwick, U.K.
CARMICHAEL REPLIES: Vaccinating animals is an intriguing idea and one that is clearly more applicable for vector-borne diseases with nonhuman reservoirs (for example, vaccinating dogs to control both canine and human visceral leishmaniasis transmission). Still, the two major human malaria parasite species, Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax, are restricted in their “choice” of vertebrate host. Also, to reiterate one of the points made in the article, a vaccination campaign using only a malaria-transmission blocking vaccine (TBV) would indeed confer direct benefit to the immunized individual. The benefit is not immediate but simply delayed. No one is envisioning using TBV alone, however. It would most likely be used in combination with antimalarials and other vaccines.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentI am grateful to be in a more generous category than denier, as skeptic certainly seems to better fit the bill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does this skeptic believe? What do I doubt? Well, I think that the oceans probably have risen about 3 mm per year in recent decades. Who knows where that will end? Will Florida disappear? Will Floridians have to build dikes like the Dutch to hold back the one meter rise expected by the dawn of the 22nd century?
I do not doubt that the globe has slightly warmed over the last half century. I do doubt that ALL possible climate change factors except AGW have been rigorously ruled out, leaving only the greenhouse effect as the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Frankly, I think that clouds and a changing albedo effect affected mightily by human and natural particulate emissions (your basic dust)are the real gorilla in the room. Carbon dioxide is the chimp trying to hide behind the sofa so the big guy doesn't see him.
My thesis can be tested by keeping an eye on the weather, which does after all inevitably become climate in the long run. In particular, I believe we are in for a sudden onset little ice age which is already leaving frost on my windshield in the mornings.
@mike cook, "I do doubt that ALL possible climate change factors except AGW have been rigorously ruled out", why do you doubt that? Is it because you have looked at all the science being done or is it because you are ill informed? Personally I have seen a great many potential causes for climate change be analysed and ruled out. AGW isn't the leading hypothesis because someone pulled it out of a hat and everyone else decided to go with it. AGW is the consensus because it is the best fit to the data. But please don't let me stop you, if you have some legitimate science that backs up another hypothesis please submit your paper for peer review. Until then, you're just an armchair quarterback blaming the ref because your team's loosing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Frankly, I think that clouds and a changing albedo effect affected mightily by human and natural particulate emissions (your basic dust)are the real gorilla in the room." this was likely the cause of the cooling we experienced during the middle part of last century, that is until it was overpowered by AGW. The fact that you don't know this indicates, as stated above, that you are poorly informed.
"My thesis can be tested by keeping an eye on the weather, which does after all inevitably become climate in the long run." How does watching local weather tell you about global climate? It is unbelievable how you think looking at your windshield will tell you the future climate of the planet. Are you really that ignorant? It is like standing in a river and looking at the water swirling around you and using only that to inform you of what the river capacity is, its direction of flow, temperature, etc. Again, you don't seem to understand the subject of which you think you are an expert. You don't seem to understand basic scientific principles or even the meaning of words like "global".
Why don't you consider for one moment that the reason you don't agree with the people who actually study this phenomenon is because you don't understand it. And the reason you don't understand it is because you have not taken the time to study it. So, given that you must be fully aware of how little you have invested in understanding this subject, how is it that you think you know more than those that have dedicated their lives to it? It is ironic that ignorance and arrogance seem to be the status quo for the deniers.
Mike- You have probably already figured this out for yourself, but, if you do not agree with rschmidt's narrow view of climate, then you are by definition (his), a denier. I don't think he allows for skeptics in his world. Thank you for thinking, ALL theories require skeptics and skeptics often end up proven right. Hopefully, in another decade or two, we will know better who is most correct on this one. Good day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Postman1, as the article indicates there is a difference between a skeptic and a denier. Skeptics leave room for other hypotheses based on the level of certainty. Deniers take a contrary stand regardless of the evidence. A skeptic is not someone who believes a hypothesis to be false until they have been provided with evidence which THEY find acceptable. A skeptic isn't someone, who through their own ignorance does not understand the hypothesis enough to accept it. A skeptic isn't someone who is irrational, dismissing logical arguments because they disagrees with their worldview. If you have actual evidence to support your position then we would love to hear it. If you have no clue what you are talking about but think you've got it all figured out, share it with your cat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I take it from your comment that you agree with Mike's statement that looking at the frost on his windshield is all he needs to predict the world's climate. Perhaps you can explain to me how that is a valid position? Perhaps you can also explain why Mike's opinion about climate should be considered scientifically valid, when he clearly does not understand key concepts? We've heard your tired B.S. here over and over. Whenever you are attacked for your trolling it is because, THEY have a narrow view, THEY are closed minded, closed minded being defined as not accepting your nonsense unconditionally. But I guess that is what deniers do, instead of addressing the facts they invent conspiracies and go on about how they are persecuted.
So yes, I guess I have a narrow view of climate and science in general. For a hypothesis to be valid it has to be rational and agree with the facts. I can see why that view would be too narrow for you.
I have a proposal for all our so called "skeptics". How about I list some of the most stupid arguments you lot makes and you tell me if you agree with the stupid. If you agree with me instead then I can call upon you to correct the Deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReady?
Stupid Argument Number #1:
Global Warming is completely natural! How can you explain that Pluto and Mars is warming at the same rate as the Earth is?
Reason Why This is a Stupid Argument:
Inverse Square Law. Agreed it is stupid? Yes? No?
I have lived all my life(57)by the sea. Know every rock in my vicinity, where I swim since I was a toddler, as well as know the tides. The fact that anyone may think that the sea will go up between 18cm and almost two feet in this century seems to me such an exaggeration that I would begg some reader to remind me how much the sea has gone up in the last 20 years, that is, since the end of the time when we thought the Earth was cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would greatly appreciate this data.
Thank-you,
Enrique
orange@netgate.com.uy
One of the reasons that I do not believe that all possible alternative explanations of recent global warming have been ruled out is because I sorta understand chaos theory, at least enough to know that sometimes factors or causes which may not individually be responsible for any effect can interact in strange ways with each other to produce an effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA good current example would be the way AGW proponents are being forced to change their tune on whether warming will produce more drought in the world, or more rainfall. We have heard for quite some time that it was going to be more drought. But now that extreme precipitation seems to be the order of the day, all of a sudden AGW advocates are saying that they really didn't mean drought as in lack of water falling out of the sky, but instead they meant extreme rain and snow events.
What is tying these clever people into a knot is that fact that a warmer world will cause more water to evaporate from all large bodies of water, which means more clouds. More clouds holding more water equals more precipitation. I am not out of my pay grade yet talking about this very basic science.
But more clouds equal more albedo effect, which means that less solar energy gets down to sea level to work the magic of evaporation. Our planet seems to have a strong self-correction mechanism in this regard. In fact, I think it has many self-correction mechanisms and all of them are dynamic. If Mongolia ever gets over its drought and the grass starts growing again, that means not only more C02 will be sucked out of the air into the biota cycle, but less dust will be going up into the atmosphere.
Wind blown dust from Asia joins industrial particulates from China, Japan, and Korea to be carried over the Bering Sea and that part of the Arctic Ocean now most ice free. Dust falling on the surface of glaciers and sea ice tends to accelerate the melting of same, as no less an authority than James Hanson of NASA recently verified in a paper he authored.
My point is that factors can not be ruled out individually, but must be understood in their complex relationships with each other.
I have friends from India who stay with us once a year and we talk over these matters. I asked them if India will give up some industrial progress and prosperity to prevent summer average highs from going from 93 F. to 98 F.
They said that the five degree rise is insignificant to their household, what matters is to be able to afford air conditioning in your car, house, and office. Sea level rise they will have to see first
@Enrique,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnrique Says: I would begg some reader to remind me how much the sea has gone up in the last 20 years...
Here you go: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html
Enrique Says: ...that is, since the end of the time when we thought the Earth was cooling.
Who is this we you speak of Enrique?
@Mike Cook:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike Cook Says: A good current example would be the way AGW proponents are being forced to change their tune on whether warming will produce more drought in the world, or more rainfall.A good current example would be the way AGW proponents are being forced to change their tune on whether warming will produce more drought in the world, or more rainfall.
False Dichotomy. This is not an either or choice. You will both happening in different places. You really should read what the scientist are saying themselves and not you are being told they say. E.G taking a look at what the IPCC said in 2007 about extreme precipitation events:
From IPCC Working Group I Chapter 10:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-6-1.html
"Associated with the risk of drying is a projected increase in the chance of intense precipitation and flooding. Although somewhat counter-intuitive, this is because precipitation is projected to be concentrated into more intense events, with longer periods of little precipitation in between. Therefore, intense and heavy episodic rainfall events with high runoff amounts are interspersed with longer relatively dry periods with increased evapotranspiration, particularly in the subtropics as discussed..."
See how that works Mike? I did not take your word for it. I went to the source and saw what they actually said. When will you learn to do like wise?
Mike Says: But more clouds equal more albedo effect, which means that less solar energy gets down to sea level to work the magic of evaporation. Our planet seems to have a strong self-correction mechanism in this regard.
Think about what you are saying. If that was true then the Earth would never ever experience climate change. Yet it has. It is also demonstratively false because the temperature has been rising and precipitation events have been increasing concomitant with the rise in water vapor.
It seems to me consensus is the weakest of all arguments proposed by those who support and promote alleged agw. The reason? There once existed the consensus that flies were generated by garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, Trent1492, the climate in very recent centuries has been remarkably stable, disregarding major but temporary perturbations like volcanoes. Volcanoes are noted noted climate coolers and human industrial or agricultural activity which throws up a lot of dust and particulates mimic volcanic activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not hear you claim that net precipitation for the world is up. Are you saying that net rain and snow are normal, but the bell curve has bifurcated into extreme precipitation peaks and droughts?
I do most of my reading at worldclimatereport.com, which is actually a skeptic and not a denier website. They list many studies in their convenient and plentiful index of thoroughly broad based and reputable reports that argue that there are NO extreme weather events going on, only the cultural artifact of today's sensationalist live storm chasing media doing a much better job of blowing average molehills into seeming mountains. In the past many, many hugely extreme weather events were scarcely reported or remembered, such as the 1812 hurricane that smacked Louisiana and the surrounding Gulf Coast much, much more severely than Katrina.
What really happens when the rising albedo effect of increasingly cloudy skies progresses from stability mechanism to extreme levels is that we get an Ice Age.
Once we have an Ice Age it is hard to make them go away.
I say we are on the edge of a new sudden onset Little Ice Age. I also assert that the Mississippi, Missouri, and Platte basins are going to flood like crazy this Spring because the snow dumped on North America has been unusually deep everywhere.
I also claim that Korea, China, Mongolia, and all the northward flowing rivers of Siberia are going to have the same massive flooding problem. So will Europe. Check it out, I ain't fibbing or doing too much Carl Sagan happy smoke.
To survive the coming Little Ice Age, run to Costco and buy pallets of the staples in sturdy packaging. They won't be that expensive. Also check out dailybread.com for long term storage survival food.
My wife and I both inherited civil defense survival food items from the 1950's and much of it is still edible, although three decades past expiration date. The dogs eat the rest. Do remember to stock up pet food, but make sure it is good quality tasty stuff, because you may end up eating Fido first and then all his pantry.
Ice Ages are no picnic, but they are survivable and maybe even accelerators in an evolutionary sense.
Mike Cook Says: I did not hear you claim that net precipitation for the world is up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle is your friend, Mike.
Again from the 2007 IPCC report Chapter 10.
"Mean Precipitation
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-2-temperature-extremes.html#10-es-3-mean-precipitation
For a future warmer climate, the current generation of models indicates that precipitation generally increases in the areas of regional tropical precipitation maxima (such as the monsoon regimes) and over the tropical Pacific in particular, with general decreases in the subtropics, and increases at high latitudes as a consequence of a general intensification of the global hydrological cycle. Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase."
Why do you refuse to read what the science are saying? You could save yourself a lot of embarrassment if you did that. Your sources are letting you down.
Mike Cook Says: NO extreme weather events going on, only the cultural artifact of today's sensationalist live storm chasing media doing a much better job of blowing average molehills into seeming mountains.
Trent Says: We have means of measuring extreme precipitation events. Those events are not dependent on urban density or ill thought out development site but on measurable independent phenomena like rain fall. Matte of fact, Nature just published just such a study:
Human Contribution to More-Intense Precipitation Extremes: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html
The source you are relying upon is letting you down badly. Go see what the scientist are actually saying. Stop relying on the "interpreter of interpreters".
Mike Cook Says: What really happens when the rising albedo effect of increasingly cloudy skies progresses from stability mechanism to extreme levels is that we get an Ice Age.
But according to you earlier more cloudiness is a feedback from rising temperatures. Yet, now it causes ice ages. And yet here we are with rising temperatures. Do the facts matter to you Mike?
Once we have an Ice Age it is hard to make them go away.
Trent, I think the next several years will settle this. Clouds moderate the climate to a point, but too many clouds run away with us into an Ice Age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI claim we are looking a sudden onset little Ice Age right in the face. Sudden onset means real soon, like from now to 12-21-2012. If most world glaciers are not advancing again by then I will give up, contribute to greenpeace or other environmentalist wacko organization, and start my own foundation to put a 12 foot tall statue of Al Gore in every community in America.
Trent1492 is, in truth, the only Denialist on this website. He views it as his personal mission (well that, and taking out the garbage for his Mom on Tuesdays in exchange for free rent for living in her basement)to deny each and every anti-AGW question that is raised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Someone who has an answer for everything at their fingertips has very short fingers" - Shoshin
Don't bother responding to this Trent1492, I rarely check in any more. Now that the ECO-Nazi czars are being run out of the White House and the EPA, my job here is done.
@Mike Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sudden onset means real soon, like from now to 12-21-2012"
So what does the falsification of your hypothesis look like by 2012?
Let's say, from 12-21-2011 to 12-21-2012 there has not been any snowfall whatsoever in the states of Missouri and Tennessee. Or, during that same period, not any snowfall in China south of the 25th parallel. Or in Italy during that same period, south of Milano. Or in the Bering Strait, no sea ice as far south as Nome. Let's say any one of those occurences would falsify my hypothesis of a sudden onset little ice age being upon us even now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Mike Cook
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike Cook Says: Let's say, from 12-21-2011 to 12-21-2012 there has not been any snowfall whatsoever in the states of Missouri and Tennessee
That is not a sign of human induced climate change. You do know that warmer temperatures mean more water vapor in the air thus more precipitation. I am sorry but that is not a sign of human induced global warming.
Mike Cook Says: ...during that same period, not any snowfall in China south of the 25th parallel.
See above. You also need to learn the difference between weather and climate. One year tells you nothing about climate trends.
Mike Cook Says: in the Bering Strait, no sea ice as far south as Nome.
A. Nome is not very far South.
B. What is a more important tell is the Arctic Sea trend. That trend been in steady decline.
None of those "measurements" are falsification. Honestly, Mike, are you at all aware of the evidences for human induced climate change?
Challenge: Can anyone in this scientific – hopefully - audience explain the proposition that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, particularly that generated by mankind, will cause catastrophic heating of Planet Earth? (This is the AGW, Anthropgenic Global Warming, propostion).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I can tell, this AGW viewpoint can be summarised as:
1. Global average temperatures are rising.
2. Global CO2 levels are rising, from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to 380 ppm now
3. because man-made CO2 levels are rising.
4. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, ie the gas absorbs – traps – heat (infrared) energy being radiated away from Earth.
5. Therefore(!!) man-made CO2 is causing global temperature to rise.
As no other cause has been identified, this is a default option.
However, there’s at least 2 holes in this argument. Therefore, is there any other argument in favour of AGW. (Note, I’m not debating whether Earth is heating or cooling, but its cause).
How sweet it is. The AGW crowd are on the run. You can tell by the increasingly shrill tones. For many of them, their livelihoods depend on it. Perhaps rational debate can at last proceed, where the extremists are at least muted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike- before you join Greenpeace, you might do well to read this first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2011/02/the-taming-of-a-radical-environmentalist
From someone who has been there and had enough.
@Cweed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere issome of the evidence for human induced global warming:
1. The stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms. This is a prediction first made in 1967.
2. Nights warming faster than days. This feature of AGW was predicted back in 1896.
3. The higher latitudes and particularly the Arctic region warming faster than the lower latitudes. Think about this people: Where does a good portion of the Sun shine consistently reach the Earth? That is right the Tropics. While the lowering of the albedo (snow and ice melt) and the lack of water vapor in the Arctic means that CO2's effect will be most pronounced here. A prediction made in again in 1896.
4. The observed decline in the amount of infra red heat escaping out to space at the wave lengths that CO2 captures and re-emits it. A decades long decline observed by satellites since the 70's.
5. Another prediction made back in 1989 was that the thermosphere should shrink and contract. Once again a prediction made and recently observed.
I am happy to provide peer reviewed reference for any of these predictions and observations.
While I am not a scientist myself, I've read Oxford Ph.D David Orrell's "The future of everything", which pretty much convinced me, that this whole prediction stuff (of climate change) is a load of ... I'd suggest some of you to do the same thing :) May clear some things out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492: I thank you for your reasoned reply. …. BUT ….
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI‘m not sure how your observations demonstrate that CO2 is involved let alone AGW, rather than simply warming, except for your point 4.
Your point 4.
I agree that the IR absorption in the CO2 wavelengths has been observed for decades by satellites; in fact the almost total absorption in those bands was observed pre-satellite and reported by Gebbie et al in 1951 (when the CO2 level was only about 300ppm). Their data show - although they did not mention this as they were looking at naval radar transmission windows - that CO2’s “greenhouse effect” was almost at its maximum even then, ie further additions of CO2 would have little further absorption, and therefore little extra heating is possible at those wavelengths. The absorption in 1951 was greater than 90%, and further additions of CO2 above 300ppm can only contribute a maximum of less than an extra 0.4C above 1951 temperatures.
[This info is in my paper describing what is actually causing the rise of CO2 levels and global warming. But, of course, publications are loathe to publish non-AGW. Any suggestions? I haven’t tried Scientific American: I’ve seen their contributions to the debate. ]
BTW, I‘m a physical chemist, and so I have some knowledge in this area.
RobertSchmidt & Trent—The IPCC did not take natural variability into account sufficiently in many of their conclusions. Many of the conclusions reached in their reports are based upon modeling that has subsequently been shown to be invalid. (Such as the models that forecast future rainfall in different regions- those models have been demonstrated to be very inaccurate)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn spite of that, let's believe for a minute that their reports were correct. Please try to identify any potential problem that you believe will be the result of additional AGW that can not be easily and cost effectively mitigated by proper infrastructure planning, construction, and maintenance. Feel free to use the IPCC report as your guide to identify problems.
The panicked “solutions” recommended by many simply do not make sense as they are unnecessary and not cost effective. You two like to rant, but really never seem to write much that is meaningful.
Cweed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may simply be that they are loathe to publish fatally flawed papers. It appears that you may be overlooking that the earth's emissions are not near 0 within the wavelengths around 15 microns; instead, they are what you would expect from a body at about 220 K. This is about about an average temperature for somewhere near the average height of the tropopause. As the partial density of CO2 increases two things happen, the 'wings' of its absorption around 15 microns get wider, and the mean altitude of radiative emissions increases. Follow the lapse rate down and you get a higher temperature at the surface. Just because CO2 is 'saturated' at sea level does not mean that it is saturated all the way to the top of the atmosphere; density decreases rapidly with altitude. Also, CO2 is relatively well-mixed from top to bottom; in contrast, water vapor diminishes disproportionately as altitude increases.
Suggestion? Keep your day job.
What a lot of beating around the bush over an obvious fact of civilized life: we live beyond our means and do not want to change! Naturally, we have corrupted the environment and ourselves. we are not deniers: this is repression; we are liars. Speak plainly. We do not need proof of our affect upon the environment: we have to face reality -- or we do not have to face reality: reality will come to us soon enough. As for myself - over fity years ago my attention went to the exhaust of a car at the curb and in that moment knew there would be negative consequences. I have always enjoyed our modern perks, but with trepidation because common sense tells me our quest for a technological utopia is a fool's errand and that life in America is an illusion. I almost pity those who believe we are going to go on the way we are and that technology will somehow take us over the rainbow to that utopian pot of gold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to Chris G.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it about this topic that induces people to be abusive? Aren’t their facts sufficient?
Tempting as it is to reply to you in kind, it would be cruel to do so to one with such a fragile grip on logic.
Firstly, apart from me having a Ph.D in physical chemistry, my paper was reviewed by, among others, an emeritus professor of chemistry (ie ex head of department), plus a visiting professor of geology, before being sent to the journal concerned.
Secondly, the Earth’s IR emission at 15 micron is near zero, as I quote from the measurements of eg Gebbie (1951) 100ft above sea level; you do not quote your source. [And why you should focus on carbon dioxide’s relative low energy 15 micron wavelength rather than its 4.3 micron, although it is also near zero transmission, is odd.]
Thirdly, I’m not overly interested in what happens to heat near the tropopause; there aren’t many melting icebergs up there! As I’ve written in #23, the measurements show that Earth’s quota of emitted heat within CO2’s wavelength bands has already been absorbed at lower heights. Further additions of CO2 simply cannot absorb heat that is no longer there!
Cweed Says: Tempting as it is to reply to you in kind, it would be cruel to do so to one with such a fragile grip on logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: The hypocrisy of complaining about abusive language and then you engaging it.
Cweed Says: Secondly, the Earths IR emission at 15 micron is near zero, as I quote from the measurements of eg Gebbie (1951) 100ft above sea level.
That is of course bunk. As Chris alluded too and I will bluntly say. Water vapor is not an evenly dispersed gas where as CO2 is. I really want to know if you seriously contend that that water vapor is at the same at 30,000 feet as at 100 feet?
Cweed Says: [And why you should focus on carbon dioxides relative low energy 15 micron wavelength rather than its 4.3 micron, although it is also near zero transmission, is odd.]
Here are the empirically based observations for the decreased out going IR waves as observed by satellites.
Increases in Greenhouse Forcing Inferred From the Outgoing Longwave Radiation Spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
From the abstract:
"Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
And here
Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave
Data Between 1970 and Present
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no
From the abstract:
"Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June."
Now do you have an empirically based explanation for these decreases of long wave emissions as has been observed over the decades?
Yes or No. Arm waving is not acceptable
Cweed Says: Thirdly, Im not overly interested in what happens to heat near the tropopause; there arent many melting icebergs up there!
Trent Says: I am sorry but you lack of intellectual curiosity about relevant physical phenomena is not a satisfactory answer. Do you think that energy that is captured and re-emitted at the tropopause level that is headed downward ventures in to Never-Never Land? Inquiring minds want to know.
In the matter of slavish imitation, man is the monkey's superior all the time. The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving a opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor's opinion is and slavishly adopt it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Mark Twain's Autobiography
So What
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho Cares
What differance does it make
8/10 of 1 degree Centigrade in 200 years does not equate to AGW.
What cherry picked model of the week has demonstrated it is accurate or useful? Not from the 1990s, Not from 2000, and not from 2010.
Please enlighten us as to what model, where it can be read, and what predictions it has made!
Otherwise reread the post about slavish imitation.
(I know that I know nothing) Socrates
Is a better position than AGW is correct and anyone who is a heratic is wrong cause we is right and you is wrong!
Eric Says: So What
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Humans are changing the climate that is "what".
Eric Says: Who Cares
Trent Says: I do.
Eric Says: What differance does it make
Trent Says: It makes a difference to:
1. Global sea levels
2. Crop harvests
3. Precipitation patterns
4. Frequency of droughts
5. Frequency and intensity of precipitation events.
6. Increased frequency of heat waves.
7. The migration of invasive species into more northern latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and vice versa for the Southern Hemisphere.
8. Ocean Acidification.
9. Decreased crop yields
Do you see the difference it makes now?
Eric Says: What cherry picked model of the week has demonstrated it is accurate or useful? Not from the 1990s, Not from 2000, and not from 2010.
Trent Says: You really are ignorant of the evidence.