New Vent: Sen. James Inhofe: An inconvenient senator
posted at 8:37 am on September 14, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
For several years, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has led the fight against global warming alarmism. Michelle asked the senator where things stand now on the science and the politics of the warming of the earth. The senator also unmasks who or what is most responsible for global warming.
Here is part one of our interview with Sen. Inhofe.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Indeed, follow the money of the science fiction
PaKeystoner on September 14, 2007 at 8:52 AM
Michelle’s no help here, claiming it’s a “hoax.” As Inhofe said, the science is mixed, and we don’t really know much about what is causing the warming that appears to be happening, or what the effects will be. What we do know is that it’s not as bad as the alarmists say. Dismissing the whole think as a “hoax” is just as bad as predicting the end of the world.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 8:54 AM
It’s nice to know that some in the Senate are coming to their senses. I’d not heard much about Sen. Inhofe before, save the name (I missed the ealier video you guys posted of him). I’m impressed. I wish our Senators here in Indiana spoke as straighforward as that.
Jezla on September 14, 2007 at 9:01 AM
“Global warming” is simply another leftist wedge . . . when it loses its attraction they’ll generate another one.
rplat on September 14, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Some are telling us not to eat beaf because of all the cows passing gas, so I am cutting back a little. Instead, I’m eating more bison, a some what larger cow. (hence more tooting)
oakpack on September 14, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Interesting camerawork (is camera work one word or two?), filming the other camera as it is filming Imhofe. I like it.
p40tiger on September 14, 2007 at 9:19 AM
algore is a menace to society…
areseaoh on September 14, 2007 at 9:25 AM
You’re nuts. When says it’s a “hoax”, she’s paraphrasing Inhofe, who called it the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
Of course it’s a hoax. Not global warming, which seems to be well documented as a climatological fact, but the causation, the effects, many of the current conditions which have been (hilariously) attributed to global warming, the “consensus” of the scientific community — all are clearly part of a dishonest public disinformation campaign by the whackjob environmentalist left.
Your suggestion that “the science is mixed” flies in the face of everything that the GWH* crowd says.
(*Global Warming Hysteria)
Jaibones on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Hoax (noun)
“an act intended to trick people into believing something is real when it is not”
So, as you say, we don’t really know much about what is causing the warming that appears to be happening, saying that man is the cause is a hoax.
Michelle got it excatly right.
Danny B on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 AM
(When Michelle says…)
Jaibones on September 14, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Goodbye Global Warming, hello Global Cooling.
Maybe we could blame that on the Feminist Movement.
fogw on September 14, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Anyone here watch the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle? Beats the pants off An Inconvenient Crock of BS.
thejackal on September 14, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Didn’t these idiots change “global warming” to “climate change” after it was discovered that other planets were also heatin’ up? (Due, of course, to their own SUV overuse…)
JWS on September 14, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Well your just flat wrong Big S, man-made global warming is indeed a hoax. If you want to talk about “is the globe warming” and leave it in that context, then there is some truth to it. But the brand of man- mad global warming with all the predictions of doom that go with it, are nothing but fraud with intent to get into America’s pocket and limit our individual rights in order to “solve” a problem that does not exist. Where have you been on this issue? Have you not seen the wave of scientist backing away from the Al Gore scenario of man-made global warming?
Yes, the globe is warming but man has nothing to do with it, it’s simply a cycle of the sun’s irradiance that has occurred many times in the past and will occur undoubtedly occur many times again in the future, with or without any input from mankind.
You need to catch up on your reading on this issue Big S, because you are now far in the minority view when you continue to spout the type of fraud and hysteria we get from Al Gore.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I like Michelle and all, but I agree. Such a bold and confident claim is somewhat discredited by saying “anthropomorphic” rather than “anthropogenic”, and the whole thing ends up coming across as talking point recitation rather than a reasoned drawing of conclusions.
Climate change threads always bring out the overzealous extremists on both sides.
No. “Climate change” is just a more accurate term, and has been used for quite a while. Most observed changes have occurred in the northern hemisphere, and not all areas will warm. Some will experience changes in precipitation, some will cool, etc.
And why didn’t you just type “heating”?
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Response from Maxx:
Maxx, do you need me to tell you how irrational and knee-jerk you come across there? Take a pill or something.
It is absolutely not possible that man has “nothing to do with it”… simple physics tells us otherwise. The question is “how much?”, and “to what extent does the Earth correct things on its own?”. The alarmists have chosen to believe that anthropogenic CO2 forcing is just WICKED IMPORTANT and that the Earth is a fragile little Faberge egg floating in space that can’t handle a tiny bump in CO2. That’s absurd, but so is the idea that the laws of physics have been suspended and CO2 stopped absorbing longwave radiation reflected toward space.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 10:07 AM
important facts:
1) the global climate is not a static system, it is always changing
2) correlation is not causation
3) water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and alot more plentiful than CO2
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 14, 2007 at 10:09 AM
my thoughts exactly
ernesto on September 14, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Most Science Studies
Appear to Be Tainted
By Sloppy Analysis
From the WSJ (subscription)
kmcguire on September 14, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas and accounts for around 98% of all greenhouse gases. The climatologists can’t and don’t measure daily water vapor for the earth. How can they possibly know the causes or culprits of warming if they don’t measure the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
It may well be that the sun may have a small effect as well. Go figure, the sun MIGHT have something to do with the temperature of the earth.
Cinematicfilm on September 14, 2007 at 10:25 AM
I don’t claimm to be a scientist or an expert in the field, but given the fact Mother Earth has heated up and cooled down numerous times in it’s 5 billion-year life, and did so when mankind was non-existent or few in numbers, I would conclude man has very little to do with it. I would point the finger of culpability at that nuclear heat-generating fireball off in the distance.
That’s just my opinion.
fogw on September 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Al Gore, seems appropriate…
Mazztek on September 14, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Obviously, “climate change” has never been about the environment, and when this hoax cools down (which, to judge from this Vent, it thankfully is starting to) the Left will simply find some other hoax that they think will catapult them into the power they crave.
It would be soooo much easier if they could just come out and say “We’re Socialists!” Maybe that should be a new movement on the Right: helping Lefties drop their fear of using the S-word. It would make a world of difference if they felt they could be honest about their intentions. Let’s help them.
Halley on September 14, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I tend to agree with you, but what you just said is fallacious logic, a non sequitur. I agree with your assessment, but people on “our side” have a tendency to throw around one fallacy after another as “arguments”. A natural warming-cooling cycle and some recent anthropogenic warming are not mutually exclusive phenomena.
None of which are meaningful with respect to anthropogenic CO2 emmissions’ effect on climate. Once again… fallacy.
I reiterate… I’m pretty much on the “same side” as you guys, but the crappy arguments have to stop at some point.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 10:42 AM
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 10:07 AM
DaveS, let me tell you what is truly absurd. It is truly absurd to believe that the earth cools by losing heat to outer space. You have bought into the Al Gore theory of a cooling earth via IR radation. That’s simply not how it works. Here is a post I wrote some time ago to address how the earth cools, and it has nothing to do with IR radation as Al Gore wants you to believe.
============================================================
More fraud brought to you by the “Global Warmers” the US government and your tax dollars.
According to the EIA (Energy Information Administration) created by Congress in 1977, the way the earth cools is via infrared radiation into space.
The EIA is an adviser to the Energy Department and their official statement on how the earth cools is shown below. Simply put, the EIA is saying that nearly 100% of the heat sent to earth by the sun, is eventually transferred back into space via infrared radiation. Please see the EIA’s statement below:
The EIA’s explanation for how the earth cools is laughable, the statement is far beyond ridiculous and is clearly propaganda tailored to serve the exclusive interests of “Global Warming” advocates. Being that the EIA is a government agency, this constitutes a blatant fraud on the American people. Junkscience you say ? No sir ! Their statement cannot be elevated to that category, because junkscience always has some thread of plausibility, but their statement has none. Persons with only a passing interest in science could not possibly get it this wrong. Yet, the EIA might have a way out of this mess. I suppose they could claim it was a propagandized elementary school student chosen to write this particular statement.
So how ridiculous is it? Well.. if the earth’s only means of cooling was via infrared radiation into space, as the EIA states, then the earth would have incinerated long ago. The sun sends it’s full spectrum, high energy, white light to earth at a far greater rate than the earth’s low level infrared radiation signature could ever dissipate it.
Imagine trying to save a ship from sinking that was taking on water at the rate of a thousand gallons per minute by using a pump that was only capable of pumping one gallons per minute. That ship is going to sink, because the water is coming in at a much faster rate than the pump can move it overboard.
Just as the ship would sink, the earth would overheat, because the earth’s infrared radiation has nowhere near the heat transfer capacity that would be required to equal the rate of heat being sent to earth by the sun.
The sun sends us it’s heat and light via photons which are the full spectrum of white light and very high energy compared to earth’s infrared signature, thus infrared is not able to move heat away from the earth at anywhere near the rate the sun sends it to us.
Of course some negligible amount of heat is lost back into space due to infrared radiation. To get an idea of how much consider the three modes of heat transfer, thermal radiation is by far the LEAST efficient. The three modes of heat transfer are:
1) Conduction : Heat transfer through a solid.
2) Convection : Heat transfer through a liquid or gas.
3) Thermal Radiation : Heat transfer via electromagnetic (infrared) waves (photons).
While Conduction and Convection are efficient means of heat transfer, neither mode can transfer any heat into space because space is a vacuum. A vacuum is the perfect insulator because there is no solid, liquid or gas in a vacuum to allow heat transfer via conduction or convection. Therefore, thermal radiation is the only means by which the earth can lose heat into space.
So why can’t the earth radiate heat away from itself as quickly as the sun send it to us ? The simple answer is because the earth is not as hot as the sun. In other words, in order for the earth to be as efficient as the sun at transferring heat via thermal radiation, the earth would have to be at the same temperature as the sun. The cooler the object, the less efficient it is for the purpose of thermal radiation.
And we would not want the earth’s heat to be lost into space at nearly the same rate it is received, the result would be a frozen world, a dead planet. It would be like trying to heat your home in the dead of winter with all the doors and windows open, your home would freeze and so would you.
The fact is, the amount of heat dissipated from the earth via infrared radiation is so small as to be insignificant, probably far less than one percent. If this was not true, and most heat energy was radiated away from a body and back into space, as the EIA states above, then we should be able to feel the sun’s heat being radiated from the moon, but of course we cannot. Furthermore, astronauts in space should feel nearly the same amount of heat through their shuttle windows from the earth as they do the sun. Obviously, that is not true.
So the question becomes, if the earth does not cool via infrared radiation, then how does it cool ? I’m glad you ask that question.
Clearly, food contains energy. Engines can run on pure Ethanol, which is made from corn. We eat food and thereby extract the energy that our bodies need for life. Cows eat grass that supplies their energy needs. All plant life contains energy.
While plants draw nutrients from the soil, the conversion of those nutrients is not possible without the energy from the sun which drives the process of photosynthesis. Both sunlight and heat are required for photosynthesis to occur. The heat is absorbed or “used-up” to run the process.
This is one reason why vegetation is sparse to nonexistent in arctic areas, there is plenty of sunlight, but not enough heat for photosynthesis to occur for most types of plants. And of course, plant life located in area with four seasons normally go dormant during the winter months, not enough heat to run the growing process is why. Plants having adequate heat and sunlight are able to convert that energy to another form. Trees and plants grow by using the heat and light as an energy source which fuels their growth. The absorption of heat and sunlight by plants causes much of the earth’s cooling. Plant life is responsible for a great deal of cooling, this is why a forest is cooler than the desert.
But plant life is not the primary means by which the earth cools, overwhelmingly the earth cools because of a process called EVAPORATION. Evaporation is a process by which heat energy is converted into kinetic energy…. in the form of an expanded water molecule. Heat is absorbed in the process, thus cooling occurs.
Have you ever lifted a gallon of water? It’s heavy stuff, it weighs about eight pounds per gallon. Have you ever wondered what does all the heavy lifting to bring billions of gallons of water over land each year? Well here’s a shocker… it’s the sun !
The sun heats the oceans and other bodies of water, which causes evaporation, which expands the water molecule turning liquid water into water vapor. Water vapor rises into the air and forms clouds, wind currents carry the clouds over land and when the right atmospheric conditions are met, the clouds condense and rain falls. It’s the sun’s energy that lifts all those giga-tons of water, an enormous amount of heat is required and absorbed in the process.
It takes billions of joules of energy to perform this massive evaporative process each day, and all of that energy is provided by the sun. Even the wind’s energy is a component of the sun. Uneven heating of the air causes expansions of air in some areas, thus high barometric pressures, along with lesser heated air in other areas, which forms lower barometric areas, thus the wind blows. So in reality, windmills are capturing energy that originated from the sun.
Thus energy from the sun, heat and light are converted to other forms of energy, this energy does not leave the earth, it is “used-up” to run the earth’s natural processes.
And what about hydro-electric power, where does all of that energy come from ? It’s simple, the same clouds that carried the water to irrigate you crops and lawns and provide your fresh drinking water also carried the water that flows from “upstream” through the dam’s generators which produce electricity onto the power grid, which is supplying electricity to your computer right now. The original source of the power, was the sun.
This energy never leaves the earth, at some point it becomes mass, like dead vegetation that piles up to form top-soil. But the energy that comes in the form of heat is quickly transformed into some other type of energy, and the heat that was absorbed must be replaced by the sun every single day. If not, the process stops and the planet dies. The sun’s heat is not lost to space, it is used by the planet to warm it’s atmosphere, provide our fresh drinking water and produce our food along with many other earth processes.
The earth’s surface is two-thirds covered by water, the water acts as a kind of “thermostat” for the earth’s temperature. Provided the sun’s output does not dramatically increase, the earth cannot overheat. A slight increase in the sun’s output only causes evaporation to occur more quickly, and offsets the effects of more heat energy by running the natural processes at a faster rate.
The sun’s heat is our friend, the “global warmers” are not.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I agree with you absolutely no help…
She should have said a “left wing, democrat supported hoax”
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Say hello to my little friend…
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Maxx, that was a lengthy but worthy post. To which Dave S. will respond…”Huh?”
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 11:02 AM
How are those “crappy” arguments? If water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, then you throw in Methane, and then CO2, and finally man made CO2, you end up with a VERY small impact by humans, and a HUGE impact from natural causes. There is also evidence that rise in CO2 levels FOLLOW warming. (hence point number 2 by Canadian Imperialist Running Dog) If you are gonna call these “Crappy” arguments, you’re gonna have to state your case. They’re pretty powerful arguments if you ask me!
I’m all for being a good steward of what God gave us. Giving the UN power to tax the developed world is not being a good steward. “Global Warming” hysteria is mostly about giving power and money to the UN.
Ordinary1 on September 14, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I am beginning to get the feeling that you don’t really know much about the things you are discussing, but like to post things that you perceive as reinforcing your very black and white point of view.
I don’t think anyone said that loss of radiation into space is the only way that the earth’s temperature is kept in check. That is YET ANOTHER logical fallacy, a strawman. Of course inbound energy is used in any number of ways, but there is no question that a huge amount of energy is reflected. By pretending otherwise, you are doing exactly what you are trying to pretend the “other side” is doing.
Anyway, the absorption of particular wavelengths of energy by particular types of molecules is well-understood. Pretending that understanding such a thing requires “buying into Al Gore’s theory” reflects very, very poorly on you.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Thanks for your reference to the First law of thermodynamics Big S, now can you explain how that supports Al Gore’s doomsday theory of man-made global warming?
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 11:06 AM
I keep wondering what caused the arrival of the heat that allowed dinosaurs and the jungle-like climate over much of the earth way way back when. Not man.
Then, what caused the dinosaurs’ extinction. Not man. Can’t blame that little bit of climate change on man.
What about the last Ice Age? What caused all those glaciers to melt? Not man.
The elites (and the subversive anti-capitalists that hide behind them) are so full of hubris on top of everything else they’re full of. Who are they to decide that the climate of today, or ten years ago, or whenever, is the ultimate, absolute best climate EVUH and should never, oops nevuh, be allowed to change by one degree?
Qzsusy on September 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Here is a .pdf of Senator Inhofe’s “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism’, a booklet made from his Sentate speech.
I’ve watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle” online, but none of the links I found seemed to work, especially one to Google Video. Producer BBC4 derides the movie on the front page of the movie’s site. Might be more of “we don’t like it so it’s down the memory hole.”
eeyore on September 14, 2007 at 11:08 AM
The thing that bothers me most about global warming are all the woolly mammoths that we keep finding in the arctic. Perfectly preserved mammoths found with grass in their stomachs and often with grass in their mouths.
Since an obviously well fed mammoth that died suddenly (in mid-chew) and was frozen so quickly (sometimes while standing up) as to preserve it is a good indicator of both a naturally warm grassland in the arctic and damn near instant freezing.
So we have an Ice Age caused by some global catastrophe that changed the arctic into the frozen wasteland (with mammoths) that we know today.
Now we have “Global Warming” being trumpeted as a man-made assault on the earth. Isn’t that all backwards though? It seems to me that the worst argument one could make is that man is helping the earth return to normal.
Guardian on September 14, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Who said–even among the alarmists–that anthropogenic CO2 was nearly as significant as the natural gases? The Earth’s surface temperature is in the neighborhood of 280K due to entirely natural causes. Even the alarmists are only predicting an increase of 3-5K, a tiny fraction of that.
You’re putting forward yet another strawman argument… NOBODY said that anthropogenic CO2 approached the importance of naturally occurring gases.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Awesome! Thanx
Ordinary1 on September 14, 2007 at 11:10 AM
OK, so I’m just not understanding why you are “on our side,” but saying our arguments are wrong. I’m just wondering WHY you think that?
Ordinary1 on September 14, 2007 at 11:13 AM
DaveS, if you read what I posted at Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM you will see that I am not disputing any of that science, my point is that heat loss by the earth due to IR radiation is miniscule / negligible. But that’s a fact that Al Gore certainly does not want you to know. His entire theory hinges on people believing that the earth cools by losing heat into space, which is absurd.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Yet ANOTHER completely irrelevant and fallacious argument.
It got brighter in my living room yesterday morning. It got brighter in my living room the morning before that. It has even been getting brighter this morning. There is, therefore, no way that flipping on the light switch a moment ago could have contributed in any way to the brightness of my living room.
Does that make any sense?
That’s another non sequitur. You guys are full of them today… my whole point is that the fallacious arguments make us all look bad. I agree with you on the larger issue, especially the bit about the hubris of the outspoken climate scientists and the politicians they are cozy with.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:17 AM
No it doesn’t (and it isn’t “his theory”). The theory is that energy that would otherwise exit into space is trapped by artificially elevated levels of CO2.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I thought I had explained each of them in turn. Didn’t I just explain the problem with the “athro-Co2 is tiny” fallacy? Or are you asking why I agree on the larger issue?
I am on “your side” because I think the anthropogenic warming is poorly understood, is being overexaggerated by some, and that uncertainty is being played down by some. In short, I think that climate alarmists are guilty of all of the things that people have accused Bush of doing prior to the Iraq war with regards to poor intelligence, hiding uncertainty, and “sexing-up” evidence–except I don’t believe that he did so much of that, but that they unquestionably have.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Anybody think Thompson/Inhofe 2008 would work?
Seriously, this guy is worth a good long look for VP, the way he’s been doing the good work of pounding the left lately…
JDinSC on September 14, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Yes… that’s it. He wants you to believe that heat absorbed by CO2 is prevented from bleeding off into space. Absurd ! Heat cannot transfer into space by any means other than IR energy. That’s simply not the way the earth cools.
Besides, water vapor absorbs much more of this energy than CO2 because it thousands of times more prevalent in the atmosphere. CO2 is far less than 1% of the atmosphere’s composition.
Does Al Gore want to take all the water vapor out of the air as well ? That would mean no more rain you know. Not a good thing. And CO2 is necessary and beneficial to the planet, without it plants don’t grow.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 11:28 AM
My favorite part: where he calls An Inconvenient Truth a science-fiction movie. Beautiful.
I like how well-spoken and collected he is on camera. Hope more conservative politicians follow his lead. Voices of reason amongst “centrist” insanity.
Numenorean on September 14, 2007 at 11:30 AM
well dave,
sorry for not giving you a full multipage rundown of each of those points…
so how’s this for a start:
state the current theory of global warming, list the assumptions they use, and the evidence they provide to support the theory.
Then ask, what is the ratio of Carbon Dioxide to water vapor in the atmosphere? what effects does cloud formation have upon the global climate? how are you correcting your data for urbanization? what effect does urbanization have upon the global climate? how do you ensure the accuracy of temperature data, and how far back has that data been recorded using the same method? how many sites are used to measure the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? what is the location of those sites? are there any local factors that can affect those readings? are you measuring relative humidity or absolute humidity? how are you measuring the amount of energy provided by the sun? how much radiation is the CO2 actually absorbing? how much is the water vapor? how much is the other greenhouse gasses?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM
You don’t seem to understand… it has nothing to do with “how the earth cools”. And CO2 doesn’t “absorb heat”; to put it in simple terms, CO2 absorbs IR energy of particular wavelengths, which results in its conversion into heat energy.
And all (well, most) of those questions you asked are real and important questions. But, in the end, it is absolutely inescapable that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are necessarily having at least some effect on the climate. That effect could be immeasurably small or it could be catastrophic (not likely), but there will be some effect. Most of the questions you listed there have nothing to do with the viability of AGW theory, but, rather, with how accurately it can be measured.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Sorry, my last comment confused posters. The first paragraph was directed at Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 11:28 AM.
The second paragraph at Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM.
And I should respond to this also, by Maxx:
If you don’t recognize this recurring non sequitur by now, it’s probably not worth trying to explain it to you AGAIN, but one last try: yes, H20 is much more dominant than CO2. So?
And while CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, it represents as much as 25% of the “greenhouse” effect.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Your statement that the earth does not radiate energy into space is incorrect. That a “hot body” loses energy by radiation is required for what we normally call “sunlight” to reach the earth, for things like night vision goggles to work, and a whole host of other processes that we take for granted. The phenomenon, commonly known as “blackbody radiation” actually played an important role in the formulation of quantum mechanics. You seem to be invoking the mass-energy equivalence to explain the earth’s cooling, but that is not sufficient to explain the observed thermal equilibrium of the earth required by the first law of thermodynamics. The radiation of energy into space is well established, and ill-informed rants like yours above only serve to discredit via association those who would question the global warming alarmists on the smaller points of the theory, interpretation of data, and on the resulting policy arguments. Please, stop.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I think Planck’s law, etc., may just confuse things more in this thread. :-)
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Spot on.
Harpazo on September 14, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Heh. Probably not much more than they already are. By the way, are you a scientist, or just very well informed?
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Ordinary1, I just finished watching Batman Begins for the 2nd time. Great story. In short, two men believe in justice, but their arguments ultimately lead them to different conclusions. While both you and DaveS believe that global warming hysteria is wrong, your argument will lead to problems later. As Big S stated the 1st Law Of Thermo says we do affect the environment. While there is evidence to say the effect is minimal, it would be disastrous to our cause to say the effect is absolutely inconsequential. Dealing in absolutes will get you into trouble. Never say never.
Wow, did I just absent-mindedly use affect and effect correctly? Yay! I win the internets!
craig on September 14, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I’ve seen this statement made time and time again by the “global warmers” but common since dictates that a substance that is less than 1% of the air cannot be responsible for 25% of the air’s warmth. If that were true then a breeze would feel like sparks from a metal grinder. The air would not be evenly warm, but of course the air is evenly warm. So this claim is just more bunk from the “global warmers” much like the polar bears are dying and the oceans are rising and the glaciers are melting. Just more nonsense from a crowd that has done nothing but lie from the outset.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Well, I’m a computer scientist–I guess-if that counts. I put a heavy emphasis on physics in my education, though, and briefly considered doing a double major in either math or physics. I still may go back and do that one day.
Mostly, though, when somebody makes a claim, I go and try to corroborate it on my own to get past all of the crap.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Sadly, common sense does not apply.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Um… no it doesn’t, and “the air’s warmth” is a grotesque oversimplification of the mechanics of greenhouse forcing.
This isn’t directly related to climate stuff, but it is an exercise to demonstrate the fallacy of your claim above:
Imagine a container holding 1 L of pure white paint. Now, imagine that you drop in 1 mL or bright, pure RED paint. How much of the resulting red tint is that 1/1000th volume responsible for?
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM
For the LEFT, it never does.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yeah, CompSci counts, especially with the math/physics background. I’m a physical chemist, so although I rarely know what I’m talking about on other issues, hot air and its causes are an area in which I can claim at least a small amount of expertise. I’m not out to preach Planck’s gospel across the internet, but when people make statements such as denying that the earth emits radiation, I gotta speak up, especially when they’re nominally “on my side.”
Best,
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Imagine two clear balloons, one filled with normal air and the other filled with CO2. Put both in the sun for an hour then take there temperature. There will be little if any difference between them. And your theory of CO2 having the ability to absorb heat much more quickly than other gases will go out the window.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 12:34 PM
It has nothing to do with “absorbing heat”.
Look, no offense intended, but your example further illustrates that you just don’t get the physics involved. I explicitly stated that the paint example couldn’t directly be applied to the climate stuff, and yet you tried to turn it around and fallaciously applied it directly to the climate stuff.
All we’re asking is that you recognize that you don’t get the physics and quit making those sorts of arguments, which, as Big S so eloquently pointed out, discredits all of us by association.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Who said that the earth did not emit radiation Big S? It certainly wasn’t me.
That accusation is a bit disingenuous… don’t you think ?
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Has anyone done a study to show the ratio of man-made CO2 versus Naturally Occuring CO2?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 14, 2007 at 1:31 PM
The anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 3% of all emissions, last time I saw the number, but they represent almost all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last few decades.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Well Dave, you are the one that insist that CO2 has some property which allows it to absorb IR energy much faster than any other gas in the atmosphere. And I provided you with an elegant experiment to conduct to test your theory.
You should try it, you might find that CO2 does not have this quality you insist it has.
But the issue is really moot, because increased CO2 levels LAG temperature increases, thus whatever CO2 levels might be, they are clearly not the CAUSE of warming…. but the result.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Strawman.
Scientific illiteracy.
Non sequitur. The fact that increasing temperatures cause a lagging CO2 increase (as CO2 is released from the warming oceans) does not mean that artificially elevated CO2 levels cannot affect the climate… the CO2 increases in the atmosphere are demonstrably man-made, not some natural lagging increase.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM
But you admit that CO2 levels increase as a result of warming, is that correct?
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 2:03 PM
That’s indisputable. I also admit that butter pecan ice cream is very tasty. What’s that have to do with this?
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM
“Global warming” as it is currently being debated, IS a hoax. Period. It’s nothing more than an anti-capitalist political position.
edgehead on September 14, 2007 at 2:11 PM
No, “global warming” is being exploited, exaggerated, and misrepresented for the advancement of an anti-capitalist political position. It is not, itself, and anti-capitalist political position.
It is also being misrepresented quite forcefully in this very thread by a lot of people on “our side”.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Well… if the warming came BEFORE the increased CO2 levels then obviously the CO2 didn’t cause the warming. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM
I thought I had already made this very clear. The increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are demonstrably due to burning fossil fuels, NOT due to some lagging natural causes.
As I said… yes, there is a natural, lagging CO2 response to increasing temperatures, but that IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SEEING.
Part of the alarmist argument is that the anthropogenic warming will trigger a lagging CO2 response which will compound the warming. You are inexplicably acting as though the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Afraid not Dave, past CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, even in the pre-industrial times, that is before cars and/or industry.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 2:52 PM
For the love of God, stop it with the non sequiturs… PLEASE?!? Do you know what that even means? You are asserting things to be true which do not logically follow from the “evidence” you provide. YES, CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. That does not in any way, whatsoever, support the notion that recent increases are natural.
And, as I’ve now said three different times–PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME–the recent CO2 increases are demonstrably due to burning fossil fuels. This isn’t even up for debate. There is no room for question about that.
Do everyone a favor and quit discussing this stuff. You will give people the impression that we are all as scientifically illiterate and incapable of solid logical thinking as you are.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Arg…. missed a close tag.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I would appreciate a link for that. Do you have one ?
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 3:01 PM
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Of course if you don’t want to provide a link, that’s OK, because new research has shown that CO2 has nearly no connection to global warming. Please see below:
Latest Research Erodes CO2’s Role in Global Warming
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 3:05 PM
This carbon dioxide is some very amazing stuff, it is far less than one percent of the atmosphere and “man-made” carbon dioxide is less than one percent of, that one percent. Yet that .0001 of the atmosphere can cause dramatic heating or cooling or just this terrible “climate change” as Al Gore is constantly claiming.
So why is it always…. always….. always the fault of carbon dioxide? Especially when any climate expert or novice would tell you that it is a minor gas and insignificant compared to water vapor for any type of atmospheric warming?
Well, a reporter once ask Willy Horton why he robbed banks…. and he said “Because that’s where the money is.”
And indeed carbon dioxide is “where the money is” because no business can exist without producing some carbon dioxide. Of course carbon dioxide is what everybody exhales and is actually beneficial to the planet because that is what plant life needs in order to “breath.”
But carbon dioxide MUST be made the culprit because it is the unavoidable byproduct of burning any type of fuel (except hydrogen). If they want the money and the control over business and people, and they do …. then the culprit MUST be carbon dioxide. Nothing else will do.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 3:11 PM
This guy explains it pretty well, and the assumptions he keeps mentioning are correct. There are more formal and technical papers out there if you want them, but that link pretty simply describes how we know.
New research comes out all the time that can be construed to support one side or the other. You are as bad as the alarmist with the absolutism in your assertions.
Even your link doesn’t say that CO2 plays no role. It pretty much agrees with my position, which is that CO2 role is poorly understood and has been exaggerated, but it plays a role.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM
DaveS and Maxx,
Quick question. How much do fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field effect the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun? Just curious if you know (I don’t know. It’s not a trick question).
Thanks.
jaime on September 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Okay, we’re going in circles here. We’ve already touched on this.
No, anthropogenic CO2 is about 3% of emissions, and is about 25% of the atmospheric CO2 (based on a rise, since 1960, from 310ppm to 380ppm). CO2, overall, is only .03% of the atmosphere.
Once again… if the earth’s temperature is about 280K and increases only 0.5%, that’s still about 1.4K (or 1.5C).
We’ve already disposed of that strawman… nobody is saying that CO2 is “significant compared to H20″… there is no reason to compare it to H20. We aren’t increasing atmospheric H20 (though the alarmists claim that warming due to CO2 will produce a positive H20 feedback, which will compound the warming, in addition to a positive natural CO2 feedback).
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:31 PM
jaime on September 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
That’s one of those areas in which there is a need for research. Alarmists, like Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate, would have you believe that he has all of the answers… he doesn’t, and that is the sort of area where the holes are.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Oh, and jaime…
The magnetic field probably doesn’t directly affect the energy reaching the earth from the sun. But some scientists have suggested that it could affect the frequency with which cosmic rays strike the atmosphere, which could affect cloud cover, which increases the Earth’s albedo, which results in less energy reaching the earth…
The idea is that a strong field protects the earth from the rays, which results in less cloud cover, and, therefore, more warming.
Who knows. Over at Realclimate they get all ticked if anyone mentions that research.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Able to guzzle more energy than dozens of normal men!!! Producing more hot air than a locomotive!!! Able to pile up carbon credits higher than a tall building in a single bound!!!
Look UP in the sky! It’s ChickenLittle! It’s FlyingSnakeOilSalesman! It the Sultan of Chad! It’s the Ayatollah of Heat! No, it’sCarbonMan in a private jet painted green using the internet that he himself invented to fix all that heretical GISS data while holding his carbon emitting breath while doing it!!!
CarbonMan, strange visitor from an alternate reality who came to Earth with claims and scary predictions far beyond those of mortal men, disguised as Fat Albert, and now joined by other members of the Royal GreenLeague such as BioFuelHummerMan and EcoCleaningWoman, they all fight a never ending battle for science-fiction, hypocrisy, money grubbing and the Hollywood way!
MB4 on September 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Thanks, DaveS.
jaime on September 14, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Yes… CO2’s role has been greatly exaggerated. Especially when you consider the role of the sun.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Actually, I misstated the theory. The cosmic ray theory dictates that the SUN’s magnetic field affects the number of rays striking the earth.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:52 PM
That would be easier to do if we knew exactly what the role of the Sun was.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM
my only problem is with that guy is:
has anyone validated his assumptions?
specifically, when did the government start taxing CO2 emissions, rather than estimating them.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 14, 2007 at 3:56 PM
But you also said this:
Like most of your post, it shows an understanding of only half of the equation required to retain thermal equilibrium. The Earth’s albedo is approximately 30%, meaning that 30% of the light that reaches it is reflected. The other 70% is absorbed in some manner, and must then be emitted as radiation, after decay processes split high energy photons (UV and visible light) into low energy photons (e.g. infrared radiation).
jaime on September 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
If I may…
It depends what you mean by “energy”. Magnetic fields deflect charged particles, such as electrons, protons, and ions, and thus shield the earth from a large amount of the so-called “solar wind”, which is made up of these things. However, the effect of magnetic fields on electromagnetic radiation (light) is significantly less (unless they interact inside some funky substance), so changes in the earth’s magnetic field are not likely to have a large primary effect on the temperature. However, the amount of “solar wind” reaching the earth can have significant secondary effects on the environment, such as the ionic composition of the atmosphere and the ability of a region to sustain life, which may influence climate in the long run. Also, I don’t know for sure, but changes in the magnetic field may reflect some other sub-surface events that may have an effect on climate as well.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM
We do know. We know that the sun’s output is not perfectly constant. We also know that increased output causes a slightly warmer earth and decreased output causes a slightly cooler earth. It’s not rocket science.
We also know that when the sun is in the upper part of the cycle that not only earth is effected, but it effects the other planets in our solar system as well. And that is exactly what we are currently seeing, earth is warming as well as other planets within our solar system. It’s no great mystery.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM
And that’s the theory… the charged particles provide condensation nuclei, which increases albedo and lowers temperature over the long-term.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
No, but it’s also not that simple. I agree, observing warming all of the solar system certainly suggests that warming on Earth is largely natural. But it certainly doesn’t PROVE it, and a “gut feeling” won’t suffice when scientists are experimentally propping up their own theories and providing feasible models for anthropogenic warming mechanisms.
Like I said, I agree with you on the big points. I just disagree with you on the idea that these fallacious arguments serve to advance our side of the debate.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 4:15 PM
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Yup. I hadn’t seen your comment before I posted mine; I started it, walked away from the computer for a minute (yes, it can happen) and then submitted it. I forgot all about it, but there was a book called “the Chilling Stars,” or something like that that came out fairly recently about it. I haven’t read it, but from what I hear, it’s a pretty serious account.
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 4:18 PM
If that was true, the earth would be a lifeless frozen wasteland. It would be like trying to heat your house in the dead of winter with all the doors and windows open.
And there would be no energy to run the earth’s processes, such as cloud formation to deliver fresh water.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Dave, if you are unable or unwilling to understand why increased output from the sun would cause a warmer earth, then I don’t think I can help you.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 4:29 PM
And where did you get the idea that there has been “increased output from the sun”? Read.
Sunspot activity is the most intriguing… irradiance is not increasing recently.
DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 4:39 PM
For DaveS – Maxx – Big S
Pardon for the interruption, but if you each had 30 seconds to address Mr Gore on the issue, what would you say?
News2Use on September 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM
if the models are feasible, why are they reluctant to release source code, algorythms, and raw data from the models?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 14, 2007 at 4:46 PM
It’s a continuous process, so as some energy is emitted, other energy is absorbed. The energy in is equal to the energy out at any given time, with small fluctuations, leading to a total flux of approximately zero. Your house heating analogy is right, but not for the reasons you state. In the situation you describe, the house will reach a relatively stable temperature if it is allowed to equilibrate. It may be cold, but that is really just a function of the amount of energy put in per unit time; if you turn up the thermostat, it will raise the equilibrium temperature, just as altering the exterior temperature will move it. At the earth’s current composition and temperature, it manages to emit just about as much energy as it absorbs.
News2Use on September 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Good question. My answer:
“Mr. Gore, in all of your pronouncements on global warming, you imply that climate equilibrium is “fragile.” However, from the data that we have seen, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable over the last billion years (in the grand scheme of things) and the biosphere has managed to adapt where necessary. Our current observed climate change is well within the acknowledged limits, even if we are having some effect. The earth will survive this climate change, and we will as well, as long as we focus on how to live with it, rather than worrying about a relatively inconsequential increase in temperature.”
Big S on September 14, 2007 at 5:12 PM
That’s not what these guys say.
There are more recent articles, I’ll look for them in a bit.
Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »