Warmist “scientists” claim permanent recession needed to tackle threat of global warming

Who would have thought it? Warmist “scientists” have published a study claiming that in order to prevent catastrophic global warming we need permanent deep recession:

“If ‘business as usual’ conditions continue, economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2,”

Science Daily – Global Warming: New Research Blames Economic Growth.

So rather than trying to restart the economy, and create jobs, put money in people’s pockets, and stimulate growth, we should be hoping and praying for never-ending depression? Well, not quite. The study stops short of making concrete recommendations, but it is insistent that “enormous changes” need to be made to the way the world and it’s economy are run.:

To break the economic habits contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming, Tapia Granados says that societies around the world would need to make enormous changes.

Granados doesn’t say in the study what sort of  changes to the world economy that he believes is needed. But he does elsewhere. As, for example, in the online Marxist magazine, The Monthly Review.  There he argues that the current capitalist system “has to die to allow for human progress” such as dealing with supra-national issues such as global warming. Threats such as these are so serious, he believes, that not only capitalism, but also national government must go. Only world socialism, it seems, can save us:

capitalism will have to disappear to allow for a system more in agreement with the present stage of human civilization.  That stage has led us to form a global society in which national states and governments have become historical relics, increasingly unable to cope with worldwide problems that require worldwide solutions.

Monthly Review: Green Shoots, Profits, and Great Depressions.

So they you have it. Capitalism and national government both have to go. Strange how “the science” of global warming always seems to end up “demanding” that world socialism is implemented immediately, isn’t it?


78 responses to “Warmist “scientists” claim permanent recession needed to tackle threat of global warming

  1. Well in a way this report is right. If CO2 is a problem and if we try to stick to the current policies of windmills and wishful thinking then the only way to cut CO2 significantly is to destroy society as we know it. Gee, I wonder why we aren’t voting for that one?

    But I’d rather –
    1) Wait to see if the scientists are right (and I won’t hold my breath).
    2) Wait for some new energy technologies that actually work and endure any climate hardship that ensues from the wait.
    3) Engineer a cooler global temperature if we absolutely have to.

  2. michaelfrivero

    This is a pathetic attempt by the money-junkies to make you think that the Wall Street Mortgage-backed securities fraud that destroyed the entire western economic system was somehow a good thing.

    • Hi,

      Yes, things were so much better in the Marxist countries of Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Russia, etc, hey? I remember watching the tragic spectacle of people fleeing the capitalist West, trying to get in to the communist paradise. So sad.

      Lol. Thanks for the comment, i needed a chuckle today.

    • michaelfrivero, you do realize that it was the Clinton administration’s push for “affordable housing for everyone” that forced banks and especially federally-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue mortgages to people who were unlikely to be able to pay them back?

      So, the left creates a problem, and later uses that problem it created, blaming it on evil capitalism. Rahm Emmanuel: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

      It is what your side does. Now, while these demolition policies are quite successful, they are also self-defeating, as your side can only thrive as long as it has a private sector to plunder. Now that you have nearly succeeded in bringing it down, what will you do now? Other People’s Money has been depleted!

  3. |Ive had enough of these goons

    The current capitalist system has to die. One world government is required. Jesus H Corbett. Proof if any was ever needed that what these marxist (but personally well off under the capitalilst system) goons actually want is people dying of starvation the whole world over and all of us taxed to death by a supra national junta. There are too many of us. Many need to die – other people, naturally. These guys need to face off with us a la Gangs of New York and we’ll see how smug, superior and intellectual they feel then. I am so bored of all the handwaving and to-ing and fro-ing relating to CAGW. Lets just have it out now once and for all. Please make sure I am opposite Joe Romm in the lineup.

  4. Perhaps the warmists should see if they really would like living the way they want us to live. Send them to North Korea for a decade or two and report back.

    • There are a few who are trying to live a sustainable low-impact existence, but it’s not easy. Very few people want to give up the comforts and conveniences of modern life even when they recognise that ‘modern life’ is what’s trashing the planet.

      • “There are a few who are trying to live a sustainable low-impact existence, but it’s not easy.”

        I feel for you. It must be hard charging up the cellphone with the handcrank while you comment on blogs.

        BTW, who built your cellphone? Pixies? Hope they did it in a sustainable way.

      • That’s the main fallacy, “sustainable”, what we are doing now is sustainable. The air and water have never been cleaner. Food production continues to be more and more productive. There is plenty of oil and gas to last well over a hundred years. Technology will advance and be ready for whatever we need. Our industrial society is very sustainable.

  5. Doug Proctor

    The economic and social dislocation they speak of being required seems to be an intellectual masturbation (can I say that?). A feel-good sentiment that has no true value as the effects of actually putting this into play would be civilization-altering. You would never do such a thing unless you under actual present-moment physical attack, not playing out an intellectually derived scenario.

    Conscience raising uses a moderate amount of hyperbole. We recognize the extreme statements for what they are. This is beyond the exaggeration designed to get our attention.

    This is leadership on LSD. The Bad Trip type.

  6. In a Free Market Society isn’t statements like this considered “Treasonous”?

  7. Pingback: The Economy | The Aussie Digger : Home of all Australian Veterans ex Service and Serving members

  8. Socialism, is where everyone is forced to act like a small scale black marketeer, while the privileged few bend the rules big time. Humans are “hard wired” to try their damndest to evade food lines and rations, and under socialism they had the chance to waste precious ingenuity and time doing just that.

  9. He’s right of course, but it won’t happen – not voluntarily. People aren’t going to willingly give up all the luxuries and comforts of 21st Century civilisation, and in any case our societies as structured couldn’t survive the kind of massive emissions reductions that would be necessary to stave off climate chaos. People in cities would be dying in their hundreds of millions through lack of food, water, sanitation, home heating and so on.

    So we can’t live with fossil fuels and we can’t live without them. We will be trying to cope with ever-growing climate chaos in an ever-more energy constrained civilisation, and it’s not going to be pretty.

    • Well we’ve lived with fossil fuels for a long time now, and you know what? Since we started using them on a large scale life for humanity has got better and better and better. That’s the cold hard historical facts. Climate chaos is a theory. Not a fact, no matter how many spurious epidemiological studies they do about the frequency of warm days (lmao) or strong winds or whatever it is.

      • You’re absolutely right about fossil fuels being a boon for us in terms of having a better life, and therein lies the problem. As I said, we can’t live with them and we can’t live without them. They’re causing massive climate chaos but we can’t give them up because there is no alternative. We have very difficult times ahead.

  10. Deep recession.

    Yeah right.

    The Deep recessions of the late 1920s-early mid 1930s. Didn’t do much for Global Warming/ climate change then..

    Since the early 1930s were amongst the warmist and drought ridden years in the USA. Plus some of the worst flood years on record for China. Amongsts other major climatic events around the world at the time.

    So in other words a load of Anti capitalist and Anti Human developemental BS!

  11. Pingback: Warmist “scientists” claim permanent recession needed to tackle threat of global warming | THE MEGAPHONE | Scoop.it

  12. By what measure are these snot bubbles “scientists”?

    Science Daily has just replaced by roll of Charmin.

  13. Graham Thompson

    This is interesting and relevant …

    An internal study by the U.S. EPA completed by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson concluded the IPCC was wrong about global warming. One statement in the executive summary stated that a 2009 paper found that the crucial assumption in the Greenhouse Climate Models (GCM) used by the IPCC concerning a strong positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes a cooling effect, not a warming one. Carbon dioxide also causes a slight cooling effect but it so small it could never be measured by man’s instrumentation.

    EPA tried to bury the report. An email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Dr. Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbade him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. In a March 17 email from McGartland to Carlin, stated that he will not forward Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator (Lisa Jackson) and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” A second email from McGartland stated “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”

    McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Dr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to the EPA’s current position. Yet this study had its basis in three prior reports by Carlin (two in 2007 and one in 2008) that were accepted. Another government cover-up, just what the United States does not need.

    Eliminate this regulation immediately. This is a scientific tragedy.

    • Every field of science has the odd few cranks and crackpots; climate science is no exception. We have Spencer, Lindzen and Christy for example, all promoting their whacky ideas for which there is no valid evidence, and trying to deceive the public over global warming. Your cited study is evidently another worthless scrap of pseudoscience. Observations always trump hypotheses, and we now have about 3 decades of observed AGW, which rather puts the kibosh on the deniers’ ideas.

      • John Barksdale

        Did you have proof that carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise? If yes, kindly explain. It was you british who brought us Piltdown man wasn’t it?

      • “Your cited study is evidently another worthless scrap of pseudoscience.”
        Icarus, I’m pretty sure that words like “negative feedback” are incomprehensible to you so why don’t you just shut up.

      • We’ve seen a rather linear increase from about 288 kelvin to about 288.8 kelvin since the industrial revolution , crudely correlated with an increase of about 3 molecules of the building block of life to 4 per 10,000 of air . Where’s the evidence of catastrophic non-linearity at precisely our current temperature you must assert to justify your fear ?

        Talk about whacky ideas .

  14. No longer will it be the lawyers who are first up against the wall….

  15. You lot really do not get it: once the hippies are in a position where there is nobody left to check up on them, they will start programs of manufactured wars, arranged famines, and deliberately induced plagues.

    After all this time getting to know the hippies, and STILL these delusions about their possessing a basic humanity abound. Tsk, tsk.

  16. The Michigan Institute for Social Research – a descendant of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, a bevy of communists who fled Germany in the 1930s infiltrated the Columbia Teachers College and took over the American educational establishment! Enemies of the state, they belong in prison, not college campuses.

  17. Pingback: Valse enquete Natuur & Milieu suggereert dat wij gek zijn

  18. Pingback: Valse enquete Natuur & Milieu suggereert dat wij gek zijn — Infomag.nl

  19. “What our study makes clear is that climate change will soon have a serious impact on the world, and the time is growing short to take corrective action.”

    One implication of that statement is that after 30 years of global warming, we have yet to see a serious impact on the world. Good news! 🙂

  20. Pingback: JR vindicated on warming - Page 118 - Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan

  21. We are already in a semipermanent recession and CO2 is still rising. But WAIT, the temperature is NOT rising! It has not for over 15 years! Could it be that CO2 is not warming the climate????? It’s not us?

    Great, use non-existent climate change (aka global warming) as an excuse to impoverish the world. How on Earth is this an idea that anyone would promote? Oh, of course, it’s those who dream of running THE WORLD. The UN’s Agenda 21 is a world dominance, equal misery and property for all program that sets the UN up as the world’s micromanagers. When Agenda 21 includes consideration of Gaia and shamanism, we truly know that reality has left the building.

    Do we want people as useless as those in the UN to run the world? Do we want only one group running the world?

    The UN is upset with muslims killing muslims in Syria, but they make no noise about muslims killing Christians in Sudan. Now that’s equal justice for all! ‘Must be too many muslims now running the UN. The UN’s obvious bias is another reason we do not want them running the world.

    • Unfortunately the global warming trend has been accelerating, not declining. Global ocean heat content data shows a rise of around 10^23 Joules over the last decade, roughly twice that of the previous decade [1]. Global energy consumption is around 1.5*10^13W, which is 4.7*10^21 Joules over a decade, so by my rough calculation the climate system has been accumulating heat at over 20 times the rate of global human energy consumption during the last decade.

      [1] NOAA/NESDIS/NODC data

  22. When all other variables are equal, a substance with higher specific heat capacity can absorb or release more energy than a substance with lower specific heat.

    Water vapour has almost twice the specific heat capacity of air and so could (wrongly) be considered a “greenhouse gas”. The fact that it naturally evaporates and condenses at ambient temperatures, counteracts any warming potential it may have. Thus water vapour acts as a coolant in the atmosphere.

    CO2 has a specific heat capacity which is 15% lower than air and is non-condesning at ambient temperatures. CO2 therefore, also acts as a coolant in the Earths atmosphere.

    W. R. Pratt

    • Then what causes the greenhouse effect?

      • @hauntingthelibrary: Climate science says that water vapour and carbon dioxide are the two largest contributors to the greenhouse effect (as found by Tyndall in 1859). Will is arguing that actually these gases have a net cooling effect, so it’s reasonable to wonder what he thinks is maintaining the greenhouse effect.

        Can you quantify “the range of natural variation”? By that I presume you mean unforced natural variability, not caused by any external climate forcing… is that correct?

      • Yes. I’m saying that a rise in temperature of less than one degree in a century is not outside the realm of unforced natural variability.

      • @hauntingthelibrary: Based on what evidence? Raising global temperature by 1 degree takes a *lot* of energy – unforced natural variability is really just ocean currents and atmospheric circulation moving heat around the climate system; it doesn’t make much net change to global temperature. Think of ENSO for example – heat is lost from the oceans to the atmosphere (and thus to space) during an El Niño but gained during a La Niña, so over a long period it averages out, and there is little to no net effect on global temperature. The known forcing history over the last few hundred years suggests that unforced natural variability is no more than 0.1 to 0.2°C at most, which means that current warming is about 5σ outside the range of unforced natural variability.

      • Based on the evidence of previous temperature variability. For example, the holocene period -http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/23/1101708108.abstract

      • @hauntingthelibrary: That paper rather proves my point; The NAO is exactly what it says – an oscillation – so it doesn’t produce any significant net change in *global* temperature. There are plenty of *regional* climate fluctuations, but to change the energy content of the entire climate system requires a substantial external forcing, not just internal variability.

  23. This guy has been hitting the bong pipe too often.

    • Who, icarus? He’s a poor guy who thinks adjusted data are for real. A victim of the warmist cult.

      • There is no plausible argument or evidence to support the so-called ‘skeptic’ viewpoint, which is why they resort to concocting false accusations of fraud against climate science instead. It’s pretty transparent.

      • Icarus, the sceptic position, by definition, is the null hypothesis. As i’m sure you are well aware, it’s axiomatic in science that a null hypothesis can never be proven. It can only be rejected or not rejected on the basis of copious evidence to suggest another theory better fits with the observed facts. The rise in temperature to date is not sufficiently outside SD to warrant this. QED.

    • Don’t blame the bong .

  24. Pingback: Monday Mid Day News and Links | Darth Chipmunk

  25. freedomactionnow

    Jose A. Tapia Granados is not a scientist; “he is a researcher presently at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He studied medicine in Spain and public health and economics in the United States. His field of research is the relation between macroeconomic changes and changes in population health.”

    In other words, no connection at all to climate science or weather. It says only that he “studied medicine” – he doesn’t use “MD” or “PhD”, so I have to assume he is neither one.

  26. freedomactionnow

    icarus62: “They’re causing massive climate chaos but we can’t give them up because there is no alternative.”

    You’re assuming the thing we’re trying to prove (or disprove). For starters, there is no “massive climate chaos”. I leave it to the others to say what they would consider “massive”. When it snows in the Sahara, or there’s rain in the Taklamakan desert, or the snows disappear from ANWR, then I’ll concede “massive”.

    “Every field of science has the odd few cranks and crackpots; climate science is no exception.”

    Right. Hansen is one.

  27. Pingback: AS Stealth Jet’s Oxygen Problems Worsen, Some Pilots Refuse to Fly | Random Ramblings from IowaDawg

  28. @Bob Armstrong:

    “We’ve seen a rather linear increase from about 288 kelvin to about 288.8 kelvin since the industrial revolution, crudely correlated with an increase of about 3 molecules of the building block of life to 4 per 10,000 of air. Where’s the evidence of catastrophic non-linearity at precisely our current temperature you must assert to justify your fear?”

    Global temperature has returned to the Holocene maximum or slightly above, and is a degree or less below the maxima of previous interglacials. That indicates that only a little more warming will take us to a global temperature that the Earth hasn’t experienced for several million years. In particular it suggests that we’re nearing a point at which the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free and the Greenland ice cap will no longer be stable. Both of these are substantial albedo positive feedbacks, of course. Also there are carbon cycle feedbacks which are already kicking in (e.g. thawing permafrost). We’re heating up the climate about 50,000 times faster than the natural warming trend which triggered off the PETM and other hyperthermals 50+ million years ago, so I would say that we have little or no time to put the brakes on and avert these positive feedbacks.

    Is it really a responsible course of action to just wish and hope that the climate scientists are wrong, given what’s at stake?

    • @icarus62
      You are spouting a lot of nonsense and falsehoods . Show me any reason why adding again the amount of CO2 released since the thermometer was invented will increase our temperature more than the 0.8 degrees at most which can be ascribed to the CO2 which has so enhanced our lives and lifespans over those couple of centuries .

      But I seriously doubt you even know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

      • That 0.8°C is about right for the transient warming we’d expect from the ~1.6W/m² of climate forcing since 1750, with another 0.4°C at equilibrium, but remember that’s only from the fast feedbacks (mainly sea ice and atmospheric water vapour). Other albedo and carbon cycle feedbacks will add to that. Also remember that the LLGHG + ozone forcing is already up to 3W/m² (good for over 2°C of global warming from fast feedbacks alone), and we’re only spared that temporarily by the short-lived atmospheric shield of industrial aerosols. Do you see any prospect of GHG levels declining in the coming decades? It doesn’t look very likely at the moment, so we’re pretty much committed to exceed 2°C already, however hard we try to reduce emissions. Again; is it really responsible to just wish and hope that this is all a big mistake and there’s actually nothing to worry about?

      • @icarus92
        I’ve never found a coherent , algorithmic explication of “forcings” . The difference energy density expressed as power between 288 and 288.8 is 4.35 W/m^2 so I’m not sure what your numbers mean . Frankly I find the mathematics displayed by “climate scientists” amateurish and biased .

        I repeat that you don’t convince me you even know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

      • @Bob Armstrong: A forcing is pretty straightforward, surely? It’s just the magnitude of the imposed change on TOA radiative equilibrium. If you take incident solar irradiance as 240W/m², and the sun warms up by 1%, that’s a forcing of 2.4W/m². A doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm is a forcing of around 3.7W/m². With zero feedbacks the climate has to warm by about 1°C to raise OLR by 3.7W/m² and restore radiative equilibrium – e.g:

        σ256^4 – σ255^4 = 3.78W/m²

        No-one disagrees with this, not even ‘skeptics’ like Lindzen and Spencer.

      • See my Planet Temperature page for the computations . I tend to work from temperature to temperature with values in terms of energy existing only in the middle of the expressions , eg : { ( f T ^ 4 ) ^ % 4 } . Temperatures of 278.68 288 and 288.8 correspond to energy flows of 342.01 390.11 , and 394.46 W/m^2 respectively . 278.68 is the temperature of a gray ball in our orbit given a sun temperature of 5778 . Our temperature is linear with the temperature of the sun and inversely proportional to the square root of our distance from it . Our temperature is about 1/21 the temperature of the sun . A 1% increase in the sun’s temperature would increase or temperature 1% , or about 2.9 degrees . The entire warming we’ve seen would be explained simply by an increase of 10 degrees by the sun .

        Your 240 W/m^2 is a BS number associated with the absurd hypothesis that the earth’s surface has an absorptivity relative to the sun’s spectrum of 0.7 , but an emissivity across the entire spectrum of 1.0 producing a temperature of 255 .

        I’m more certain than ever that you don’t know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated arbitrarily colored ball . Are you a student or do you earn your living in the field ?

      • @Bob Armstrong: The effective radiating temperature of the Earth is 255K, which corresponds to σT^4 ≈ 240W/m², and incident solar irradiance is (1-α)*S/4 which is also ≈240W/m², so the climate is approximately in radiative equilibrium. Frankly I’m surprised that you’re disputing the basics when even notorious ‘skeptics’ such as Lindzen only dispute the magnitude of feedbacks.

      • As I say , that 255 is a BS number calculated as I stated . It’s useless for anything other than propaganda . The energy impinging on any gray ( flat spectrum ) ball , no matter how light or dark , in our orbit gives the 278.7 number.

        I expect to be seeing at least one of Lindzen and Spencer at the Heartland conference in a couple of weeks , so I’ll find out if there is any disagreement in our understandings .

        As I’ve said , I find the level of understanding of the most basic classical physics and math among “climate scientists” pathetically amateurish compared to any comparable branch of applied physics .

      • These so-called “Climate Warming Scientists” throw bogus numbers around in a futile attempt to “legitimize” their fake claims. Unfortunately most people who have never learned anything “scientific” in their lives take numbers like this as “proof” that these fake claims are true!
        The Green Scam has been the worst hoax ever to be perpetrated on humankind in modern history.
        These purveyors of lies should be jailed………….

      • @Bob Armstrong: You say:

        “278.68 is the temperature of a gray ball in our orbit given a sun temperature of 5778”

        … and:

        “The energy impinging on any gray ( flat spectrum ) ball , no matter how light or dark , in our orbit gives the 278.7 number.”

        How can the temperature be the same regardless of albedo?

      • Icarus has flown too close to the sun!…………………….Geez!

      • For a gray ( flat spectrum ) object , Kirchhoff’s insight based on Ritchie’s 1830’s experiment , was that absorptivity equals emissivity equals a constant across all wavelengths and therefore doesn’t even enter the equation . That’s why the gray body temperature , simply the sum of the energy impinging on a point , is the appropriate “null hypothesis” . The variation from that temperature is then a function of the correlation of the spectrum of the ball with the spectra of its radiant sinks and sources .

        That people can have careers in “climate science” and never learn this 19th century physics is what has driven me to get involved in this deadly farce .

      • Of course absorptivity equals emissivity for a body in radiative equilibrium, that’s what I was saying above (240 Watts in, 240 Watts out) but absorptivity depends on albedo. Anything less than a perfect black body reflects some of incident radiation – about 30% of it in the case of the Earth, so incident solar irradiance is (1-α)*S/4 which is ≈240W/m². Agreed? Since we know the Earth is approximately in radiative equilibrium, OLR must also be about 240W/m², which means an effective radiating temperature of about 255K. Where do you see a problem with this?

      • But it’s 342 in and 342 out .

        And the rest of your posts just shows again that you do not know the 100 year old physics . I cannot believe you have a quantitative background equivalent to any comparable field of applied physics , eg , any engineering degree . How many years of math did your degree , if you have one , require ? Do you understand orthogonal function decomposition ?

      • @Bob Armstrong:

        “But it’s 342 in and 342 out .”

        Obviously not, since the Earth is far from being a perfect black body. 30% of that 342W/m² is reflected, not absorbed, and so cannot possibly contribute to the temperature of the Earth. The 70% which is absorbed gives us 240W/m² of incident solar irradiance and maintains the effective radiating temperature of the Earth at 255K which emits σ255^4 = 240W/m². Pretty straightforward – the Earth cannot possibly be radiating far more energy than it receives from the sun.

      • I’m sorry . I have stated all the relevant computations here . Work thru , eg , my http://cosy.com/Science/Basics.html page ; work thru a physics book ; in deed , work thru the beginnings of the http://climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Essential_Physics page I’ve been constructing on my own time which is somewhat more basic than my Basics page . Get to understand the equations . You will learn the 150 year old insight that identically radiantly heated gray , ie , flat spectrum , balls will come to the same temperature , no matter how light or dark they are . Otherwise , you could create a perpetual motion heat engine .

        Until then , you get an F on this topic . And you illustrate exactly how retarded the teaching of real , solid , quantitative science is in this pathetic sham of a “science” .

        I hope you are a student , and still have a chance to escape your department and take some solid courses in math and physics .

        Bye .

      • You are unable to refute the self-evident fact that reflected radiation cannot possibly contribute to the temperature of the body it was reflected from.

      • Why has this debate gone on for over a week?…………..in some circles people like you are called TROLLS!

      • The fact that a flat spectrum ball would warm the the same temperature no matter how light or dark was a fact that I learned reading boy’s science books in the 1950s . You prove redundantly that you have never had a real physics course yet you spout off as if you knew what you were talking about . You’ve been had , dude . How many times when you might have taken a serious quant course did you figure you could take the “poets” version and still be relevant ?

      • @Bob Armstrong: Imagine two planets of the same size, at the same distance from the sun. One of them (let’s call it Alpha) is highly reflective – it has an albedo α of 0.7, which is approximately that of Venus. The other (let’s call it Beta) is Earth-like, and has an albedo of 0.3. Insolation S at the planets’ orbit is 1365W/m², so the incident solar irradiance Ti actually absorbed by the planets is (1 – α) * S / 4:

        Alpha: (1-0.7) * 1365/4 = 102.4W/m²
        Beta: (1-0.3) * 1365/4 = 238.9W/m²

        Each planet is in radiative equilibrium so it must necessarily be radiating the same as it is absorbing from the sun, as you pointed out yourself. Radiation R is proportional to the fourth power of temperature T, thus:

        R = σT^4

        … where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.67*10^-8. So, to calculate the effective radiating temperature Tr of the planet we use:

        Tr = (Ti/σ)^0.25

        Alpha: (102.4/5.67*10^-8)^0.25 = 206.1K
        Beta: (238.9/5.67*10^-8)^0.25 = 254.8K

        So the two planets have effective radiating temperatures which differ by about 50K. They are not the same. They cannot *possibly* be the same, without violating the laws of physics. Please tell me that you understand this now, or if you think I’m wrong, explain why without handwaving and without fobbing me off with your web page.

      • I don’t need to imagine planets . I know the physics . For a gray body ,
        Absorptivity = Emissivity = Constant
        across the entire spectrum and therefore drops out of the calculation .

        You have clearly not spent working thru the material on my website nor any real physics book . You just keep parroting superficial crap you don’t really understand . You don’t know how to calculate anything based on the spectrum of the object and the spectrura of its sources and sinks .

        Bye bye .

      • Uhuh. As I suspected, thanks 🙂

      • I didn’t want to reply again , but I wanted to edit my first line above . Absolutely imagine planets . Done that for decades . And in the 19th century much extremely deep reasoning which came from those observations led to Kirchhoff , Stefan-Boltzmann , and eventually Planck .

    • “We’re heating up the climate about 50,000 times faster than the natural warming ”
      What hole did you pull that absurdity ouf of ?


  29. @John Barksdale:

    “Did you have proof that carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise? If yes, kindly explain.”

    Yes, we’ve known for 150 years that CO₂ is one of the principal gases in the Earth’s atmosphere responsible for the greenhouse effect. Since CO₂ is well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, any increase in atmospheric CO₂ will enhance the greenhouse effect and have a positive climate forcing which (all things being equal) will cause global warming.

  30. This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks!

  31. There’s an article in the current “Commentary” magazine (it’ll proably show up online in a few months). The main point is that in spite of evidence to the contrary, “the media climate never changes” (that’s the title of the piece).

    He writes aout hearing an NPR piece on Himalayan glaciers – this seems to be the one:

    Melt Or Grow? Fate Of Himalayan Glaciers Unknown

    The title says it all: we don’t know. About the IPCC report:

    “”One page had the most egregious errors you could imagine, just one after another, including the claim that the glaciers would disappear by 2035,” [Jeffrey Kargel at the University of Arizona] says.”

    The Commentary writer says

    “The IPCC has shown itself to be unreliable, at least in a single instance, despite serving as an essential source for the mainstream’s global-warming alarmism.”

    His point is that while the NPR piece showed the IPCC error, it didn’t follow the thread — that there are “limits to scientific certainty”. He writes

    “… the [NPR] reporter might have said, ‘how long will it be until scientists and governments admit they don’t know enough about the climate of the entire panet to predict the severity of global warming?”

  32. Asking questions are genuinely good thing if you are not understanding something completely, except this paragraph
    provides fastidious understanding even.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s