Tales From The Travels

I received a series of comments over the weekend from a person identifying himself as Gord and David. These comments were in response to a posting I made some time ago about a simple greenhouse gas experiment I had devised. To put it bluntly, the comments were yet another series of crackpot comments about how manmade global warming wasn’t real and this individual claimed he could prove it with a big ‘gotcha’ moment. In short, he thought he was smarter than all of the scientists in the world and could single-handedly prove them all wrong. This guy was going off on so much of a diatribe that I finally had to cut him off and refused to allow any more of his comments.

As bad as this guy was, he was really only the most recent example of this kind of individual. Now, I know that it is impossible to ever convince this guy that he made a mistake. No amount of evidence or logic will ever accomplish that. Such are the benefits when you decide to leave the realm of reality like he has. However, there are other people out there that might still be persuaded before they lose their minds. So, I thought I’d address the issue that this individual has raised. The worst part is that he isn’t even original. This complaint has been around for a while and has been debunked. But, I’ll give it another turn.

This ‘gotcha’ moment consisted of a detail in a figure showing Earth’s energy balance. This figure is well known and is used for illustrative purposes in many briefs. The complaint Gord had was with the red arrow on the right labled ‘Back Radiation’ and showing 324 watts per square meter going in a downward direction.

Gord’s claim is that back radiation cannot move from a ‘cold’ atmosphere to a warm Earth by the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, this entire figure is wrong and the entire argument of anthropogenic global warming is false. Quite a stretch, but that’s his claim.

Its also completely wrong in more ways than I care to cover here. But, let’s begin with a few.

First, the claim that heat cannot move from a ‘cold’ atmosphere to a ‘hot’ Earth is false. All the laws of thermodynamics say is that heat must move from a hot object to a cold one. The error Gord (and people like him) make is that they assume that the atmosphere is colder than the Earth, a claim that is not true much of the time. In fact, the atmosphere is hotter than the surface during much of the day.

Also, an ‘object’ like the atmosphere is not an object at all, but a vast collection of smaller objects. In this case, the atmosphere is a collection of gaseous molecules. The mistake the global warming skeptics make is to claim that all of the molecules in an object must have the same temperature. In fact, something like the atmosphere will have molecules with a whole range of temperatures. ‘Hot’ molecules in the atmosphere can transfer energy to ‘cold’ molecules in the Earth, even when the temperature in the air is less than the temperature of the surface. In this way, heat can move from an ice cube to the warm air around it because, no matter how cold the ice or how warm the air, there will be molecules in the ice that are hot and molecules in the air that are cold. Its just that there will be many more ‘cold’ molecules in the ice than ‘hot’ ones, and vice versa for the air.

According to Gord’s line of reasoning, blankets would never work. If I were to lay down on a bed, I would be radiating my heat out and cooling off. Not bad on a hot summer night, but I could get very chilly this way in the winter. So, I place a blanket on myself. AH HAH! According to Gord, this makes no difference! That is because the blanket would be cooler than my body and COULD NOT RADIATE HEAT BACK AT ME! The effect, according the the rationale of the global warming skeptics is that heat can ONLY flow from my hot body to the cold one of the blanket and NEVER be radiated back at me. This radiation back at me is ‘back radiation’ and they claim it cannot exist.

Even a small child knows this line of reasoning is false. Yet, I receive this argument on a consistent basis. Its really amazing to talk to these people and see in their eyes how they really think they have shown all the scientists to be wrong.

This is how they are wrong. The blanket and the atmosphere work the same way.

All things with internal energy radiate energy out as electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light. And, everything has internal energy, therefore everything is radiating energy. But, when things radiate light, they do so in all directions at once. The blanket on the bed absorbs heat from my body (which is in the form of IR light), then radiates that heat out again. But, now it radiates it in all directions. Some goes upwards, some sideways, some downward back to my body. The rate that I will lose heat depends on the temperature differential between my body and the environment around me. The warmer the surrounding environment is, the slower I will cool off. This is because some of that IR light is reradiated back to me at the same time I’m radiating energy out. So, while I’m radiating out at the same rate with the blanket as I was without it, I am now also absorbing some radiation. The skeptics want to claim that is is not true and is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. But, as I showed above, there are molecules in my body that are colder than others, and there are molecules in the blanket that are hotter than others. Heat will flow from those ‘hot’ molecules in the blanket to the ‘cold’ molecules in my body. If you are skeptical of this, lie on a bed without a blanket for awhile, then cover up with a blanket and see how much of a difference there is.

Really, only a fool would argue that an observed event can’t occur because its impossible by the laws of nature. Their first thought should be that maybe they don’t understand the laws of nature as well has they think they do. But, that just doesn’t occur to them.

The atmosphere works the same way as the blanket. The atmosphere absorbs heat from the ground, then reradiates it away. This radiation goes in all directions. Some will leave the atmosphere and go back into space. (Strange how the skeptics never complain about how the heat is going from a cold atmosphere into hot space.) Some of the radiation will go to the ground. And, some will be absorbed by air molecules to be reradiated yet again. Without this effect, the temperature on the surface of the planet would plunge every night, like it does on the Moon when it drops to below 200 degrees below zero. Instead, our atmosphere acts like the blanket and keeps the planet warm.

All of the radiation that does not go into space is called back radiation.

What is happening to our atmosphere is to increase its ability to store heat, thus making the temperature higher. It is like throwing an extra blanket on the bed.

There is a question that I like to ask these skeptics. They agree that the atmosphere absorbs heat from the Earth. So, I ask them, what ever happens to that heat, if it can’t be reradiated?

I’m still waiting for an answer from them.

Their argument is very silly and shows a lack of understanding of the laws of physics.

But more than that, its only a figure and can’t prove or disprove anything. Even if there really was an error in the figure, that doesn’t mean anything about the physical reality of the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere.

I guess this is the modern equivalent of believing in voo-doo dolls. Stick a pin in the figure and disprove global warming.

NOTE: This challenge was submitted as comment to ‘Greenhouse Gas Experiment.” My comments are embedded in the challenge. They are separated from the challenge by rows of asterisks and are preceded with the word “COMMENT.”

*************************************

You said…
“If you feel that you can prove, via the scientific method, that global warming is not real, then you can take my $1000 challenge. It is still sitting there and no one had claimed it. This pretty surprising since so many people like you state with so much certainty that it isn’t, you would have thought someone would have been able to prove it by now. One word of caution, nothing you have written here even begins to approach a valid argument.”

First, I have not made any claims that Global Warming is not real. We are currently still coming out of the last Ice Age and the Earth is warming compared to that reference point.

If you use another reference point, like 50 Million Years ago when the Earth’s temp was +22 deg C then the current Earth temp of +15 deg C clearly shows a long term COOLING trend.

The Past and Future of Climate
(See Fig.9 Climate over Geologic Time)
http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate.pdf
—————
What I say is that the Greenhouse Effect and AGW is completely falsified by established Laws of Science and actual measurements.

Scientific method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

——————–
1. Define the question.

Is the Greenhouse Effect and AGW real?

The links I provided to the Greenhouse Effect and Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram all show that the Greenhouse Effect and AGW can only occur by Radiative Heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface (This is called Back Radiation). Thus, disproving this will disprove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.

*********************************************
COMMENT: NOTE: The Trenberth figure that the poster is referring to can be found here:

Contrary to your repeated claims, the figure does not show the Earth being heated by back radiation. The numbers by each of the sources indicates the amount of heat provided by that source. What we see is that 342 watts/square meter enters the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the source of almost all heating of the planet. All other arrows in the diagram indicate what happens to that that source of energy. The back radiation you refer to is energy reradiated by the atmosphere after it has absorbed energy that has, in turn, been reradiated by the surface of the Earth. This amount of energy can be measured easily and with great accuracy. Notice that this is less than the amount of incoming energy. This precludes it from being considered a ‘source’ of energy. No claim is being made that this energy is warming the Earth. Instead, what is being shown is that this process of warming the atmosphere which then reradiates the energy in all directions will work to SLOW the cooling of the Earth. If there was no back radiation, the Earth would cool dramatically at night to temperatures that would be fatal, such as what is witnessed on the surface of the Moon. The Moon has no atmosphere, hence no greenhouse effect.

Your argument fails in two respects.

First, there is certainly no violation of the second law here. That would be like saying a blanket doesn’t keep you warm in the winter. Your body heat is absorbed by the blanket and reradiated in all directions. Some of it is reradiated back to you and keeps you warm.

Second, this is merely a figure for illustrative purposes and cannot prove or disprove anything. This figure is not scientific data and is not part of the scientific method. This is a point that you should embrace, since it disproves your earlier claim. Global warming advocates cannot cite this as proof to how wrong you are because it is merely a figure and not data.

What you are trying to do is make a claim that the figure is wrong, therefore the theory of global warming is invalid. This is a false argument.

*********************************************

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

The information gathered was:
- a number of Greenhouse Effect explainations produced by reputable sources.
- Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram (Trenberth’s diagram is widely accepted and is found in virtually all AGW literature including the IPCC)
- a number of Physics links (2nd Law, The Law of Conservation of Energy, Heat Transfer, Electomagnetic Radiation) all widely accepted and used.
- an actual measurement done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.

*********************************************
COMMENT: Nearly all of these claims have been previously addressed in responses to your previous comments to the ‘Greenhouse Gas Experiment’ posting. They have been shown to be scientifically invalid and don’t need to be readdressed.

I’ll address the Brigham Young experiment you refer to.

Your claim that this experiment proves your point is dependent on your claim that the flow of energy involves some kind of bulk motion and can move in only one direction. Actually, if you read the whole experiment you will see that the experiment disproves your claim. The experimenters state:

“One possible reason that daytime cooling was not greater has to do with the different types of solar radiation. There are two kinds of solar radiation; direct and diffuse. Direct radiation is the portion of light that appears to come straight from the Sun. Only direct radiation can be focused. Diffuse radiation is sunlight that appears to come from all over the sky. When sunlight hits the Earth depending on cloud cover more or less radiation is diffused. [2] During daytime cooling I am turning the solar cooker away from the direct radiation however; I am unable to turn it away from the diffuse radiation.”

This statement, and their supporting data, clearly shows that diffuse heat (i.e., back radiation) is providing warming energy to the oven. The oven is cooling, but heat is coming in from the atmosphere at the same time.

This experiment actually goes to show that the Earth can be kept warmer by back radiation.

Once again, your lack of understanding is fatal to your argument.

*********************************************
3. Form hypothesis.

- The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is FALSE.

4. Perform experiment and collect data.

- The physical experiment and data collected was done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.
- An analysis of the Greenhouse Effect, Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram and a Heat Transfer examples were done.

*********************************************
COMMENT: There is no data or scientific argument here to discuss.

*********************************************

5. Analyze data.

The analysis shows that:

The Greenhouse Effect descriptions and Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Electromagnetic Physics, Heat Transfer Physics, The Law of Conservation of Energy and are in conflict with actual measurements.

*********************************************
COMMENT: There is no data or scientific argument here to discuss. Your claims have been investigated and shown to be false.

*********************************************

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions.

Only one violation of Any Law of Science or any valid measurement is required to dis-prove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.

There are numerous violations of Laws of Science and established Physics. Actual measurements confirm that Back Radiation cannot heat a warmer Earth.

*********************************************
COMMENT: Each of these statements is false.

First, it has been shown that no laws of physics have been violated.

Second, even if some laws were violated, or some hypotheses were shown to be incorrect, it only means that they hypotheses need to be corrected. Your argument is the same as saying we have to throw out all modern medicine if even one patient doesn’t respond the way we think he should.

*********************************************

7. Publish the results.

They have been posted here as well as a number of other sites for review.

*********************************************
COMMENT: They have been reviewed and they fail the test of the scientific method, as shown.

*********************************************
8. Retest

There has never been any counter arguments supported by Laws of Science or measurements to dis-prove my conclusions. in fact, there has never been even One Law of Science or even One measurement produced that shows that Back Radiation reaches the Earth.
——————
CONCLUSION BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is not real.

The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is completely falsified by established Laws of Science and actual measurements.

All my statements have the support of Laws of Science and actual measurements.

Only one violation of Any Law of Science or any valid measurement is required to dis-prove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.

There has never been even One Law of Science or even One measurement produced that shows that Back Radiation reaches the Earth.

Falsifiability
Quotations:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. — Karl Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
———————–

There you go, proof, via the scientific method, that anthropogenic global warming is not real and I take your $1000 challenge.

PS: If your $1000 Challenge is anywhere close to being realistic then Your “opinion” is not enough to dismiss what I have posted. You have to use the scientific method as well.

****************************
COMMENT: Just as almost everything you say, this statement is false. I do not need to use the scientific method to prove you wrong. I only have to show that you failed to use the scientific method. The purpose of my challenge was to show that no scientific evidence exists to support the claim of global warming skeptics. You have demonstrated the validity of my claim.
****************************

Consensus ‘opinion’ of any group of AGW ’scientists’ is NOT proof of anything. Correlation is NOT proof of anything.

****************************
COMMENT: It is true that ‘consensus opinion’ is not proof of anything. At the same time, global warming skeptics like to say that as proof of their beliefs, and it isn’t. The fact is ‘consensus opinion’ is a necessary part of the scientific method. All results must be reproducible by anyone. If only one individual, or even a small group, is getting a given result and that result cannot be reproduced by the general community, then it is likely invalid. The claims of cold fusion are a textbook example of how that works. So, while ‘consensus opinion’ is not proof, it is a very excellent indicator. And, making that statement certainly does nothing to prove any errors that may exist.

*****************************

Good luck!

*********************************************
COMMENT AND CONCLUSION:
This ‘proof’ is invalid in virtually all claims that it makes. There is no evidence, so support from the laws of physics, and no scientific argument to support your ‘CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.’

I have no doubt that you will reject the evidence I have supplied to you. You have left the realm of reality and have based all of your conclusions on what you WANT to see, not what is real. I did not spend my time to try and change your mind or educate you, you’ve shown that it would be an impossible task. What I am hoping is that someone that is searching for answers, and might otherwise be persuaded by the likes of you, can see for themselves that your arguments are false.

*********************************************

I’ve written numerous reports concerning climate change and global warming. Click on the link to the right to see a list of them. I submitted a proof that man is responsible for global warming and have responded to at least two people that argue that mankind’s activities are not changing the climate. I’ve tried to include links and references to scientific data and refereed resources in this debate.

So, I thought I would include a link to the NSF report on climate change. I found it to be very interesting and a valuable resource.

It is becoming increasingly more difficult for the skeptics to deny the issues of global warming. I have stated that it is impossible for any skeptic to successfully challenge global warming based on a scientific argument and using scientific data. I have defended that statement and continue to stand by it. This report only strengthens the validity of that statement.

I would be very interested in having a skeptic show why this report is not valid. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll be doing something more worthwhile during the long wait.

One of the issues that global warming skeptics hate most is the issue of thinning arctic sea ice. The reason is that there is clearly no other explanation other than global warming. Try as they might, and they really do try, they cannot explain this phenomena away. Their favorite explanation is to just deny its occurring. I have frequently been told by the skeptics that arctic sea ice is at record extent, which is completely contrary to the facts. The truth is, arctic sea ice has dramatically thinned over the last 30 years. Now, new data shows this thinning is continuing.

Recently released studies by NASA show that the sea ice level continues to be at near record lows. While the data shows the extent of sea ice has increased this past winter over winter last year, it also shows a greater amount is thin ice. This is very important because thin ice is more likely to melt completely. Once the ice melts, the ocean begins to heat as it absorbs the sunlight that was previously absorbed and reflected by the ice. A warmer ocean means ice will melt longer, form later, and be thinner, leading to an even worse scenario in the future.

Again, I would like to hear any global warming skeptic explain this with scientific data and using the scientific method. They don’t explain it because they can’t. So, they just deny it. And, instead of finding the strength of will to work together and fight this problem, we spend our time and strength debating the obvious. All the while, the situation continues to get worse.

Look at the reports linked above and decide for yourself.

I have engaged in an exchange of comments about global warming on a previous post of mine about a greenhouse gases experiment I designed.

I decided to consider these posts as the second entry into my $1000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. All of the comments, and my replies, are copied below. My critique of validity of his argument is included at the end. I’ll save the suspense, he failed to prove his point. But, then again, no other global warming skeptic has ever been able to prove it, either.

***********************
Skeptic:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect assumes that in daytime, a cool atmosphere “back radiates” to a warmer earth surface. While all bodies radiate, the nett effect can only be heat passing from warm bodies to cooler bodies – 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This NASA diagram shows no greenhouse :
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
My view is that the atmosphere acts like a radiation shield on an automotive exhaust. One or more sheets of metal between the hot exhaust and cool surroundings, reduce radiation from the hot exhaust. The shield(s) adopt intermediate temperatures. There is no “greehouse effect” between the shield and the cool surroundings.
The result is that absorption of sunlight by gases in the atmosphere, moderates daytime temperatures. Similarly it increases nightime temperatures.
It would be interesting to see a trend of the difference between global average max and min temperatures over the past 150 years. If GHGs are increasing, one would expect a falling trend. This trend would be less susceptible to urban heat island effect. Is this data available ? (It is obviously stored in order to calculate global average temps).
****************
Me:
You’re wrong when you say the diagram does not show any greenhouse effect. There is an arrow labled ‘Radiation Absorbed By Atmosphere 15%’. Atmospheric absorption is what the greenhouse effect is all about, and what this experiment is all about. The experiment shows that a CO2 atmosphere absorbs more energy than a N2O2 one.
As for the day/night difference, that is an interesting question. You could be correct on this, although I have some thoughts about it. It would depend on the relationship of energy escape rate at night versus energy storage rate during the day. I don’t know where to find that data, but I agree with you that it should be somewhere.
*****************
Skeptic:
Correct … the diagram does show heat from sunlight being absorbed. I have no argument about the atmosphere absorbing incoming solar radiation. However, it does not show greenhouse “back radiation” (that is, a cool atmosphere radiating heat to a warmer earth) as most of these heat/energy “greenhouse” diagrams do.
I suspect that there is a general confusion about heat / wavelength / temperature. The 2nd Law doesn’t care what the wavelength of the energy is. The idea that a cool atmosphere can absorb long wavelength radiation from the earth and then “back radiate” this to a warm earth violates the 2nd Law.
As you and the diagram suggest, all the atmosphere does during daytime, is to absorb some incoming solar radiation.
******************
Me:
Your statements about greenhouse effect and the 2nd law are both incorrect.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says, in various forms, that entropy always increases. Heat can, and does, move from a cool body to a warm body, as long as there is an increase in entropy somewhere else to compensate.
But, that isn’t what the greenhouse effect is all about. What the greenhouse effect says is that the atmosphere is trapping heat, like a blanket on a bed, and keeping the overall temperature higher than it otherwise would be. By adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more efficient at trapping heat. Individual molecules will trap heat, then reradiate them. But, there is not a preferred direction to this radiation. Energy will be radiated by the molecules in all directions. Some of this radiation will be reabsorbed by the ground, some will be reabsorbed by other molecules in the atmosphere, and some will radiate into space.
There is certainly no violation of the laws of thermodynamics there.
******************
Skeptic:
Yes, the general expression of the 2nd Law is that there is always a tendency to an increase in total entropy. In a simple system such as this, assuming constant pressure, perhaps you can give an example of heat flowing from a cold body to a hot body without the input of work ?
Have you discovered a source of perpetual energy ?
If the greenhouse effect acts “like a blanket on a bed, and keeping the overall temperature higher than it otherwise would be” as you suggest, we would expect temperatures to be lower in daytime if there was less GH gases. This is exactly the situation over deserts, with low levels of water vapour in the atmosphere … but deserts are hot in the day, not cool. The only NETT effect that GH gases have is to absorb incoming solar radiation, as shown in the NASA diagram. There can be no NETT back radiation from a cool atmosphere to a warmer earth.
*******************
Me:
Again, you are wrong on several counts.
First, there is work being done on the Earth by the Sun, a huge amount, in fact.
Second, the Earth’s environment is certainly not a simple system. There is nothing that is simple about it. If it was, things like weather forecasting would have been perfected long ago.
Third, being a desert does not mean it is hot. Antarctica is considered the driest desert in the world. A desert such as the Sahara is hot because of the intense solar radiation during the day is absorbed by the ground and not by ground cover. Plant life converts much of this radiation into chemical products through photosynthesis. More energy is used up in evaporation. Without ground cover and without the evaporation that would be found in a wetter climate, the ground absorbs all of the heat and then reradiates it. After sunset, the ground is no longer receiving solar radiation and cools rapidly. This daily cycle has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or global warming. What you would need to do is to check the long-term average temperature in a desert to see if there is any change. The data shows that, yes, even the desert areas are getting hotter.
Also, the atmosphere is typically only cooler than the ground during the daytime, but warmer during the night.
As for the net effect, your statement is correct, but misleading. It is true that eventually, all energy coming into the atmosphere will leave it. But, this could take thousands of years, or even millions. If energy is trapped in the atmosphere at a rate greater than what it radiates back out into space, then the temperature must rise.
By the way, referring to your comments about radiating from a cool system to a hot one, you must take into consideration the atmosphere. The upper levels of the atmosphere are much hotter than the lower ones. Temperature drops as you go up in altitude, but then rises again to temperatures in the 100s and even 1000s of degrees. By your argument, we could never radiate any heat into space at all because it would first have to radiate through this much hotter layer of the atmosphere.
If you think that global warming is false, then I suggest you check into my $1000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. If you can prove, via the scientific method, that global warming does not exist, I’ll pay you $1000.
***************************
Skeptic:
Are you now suggesting that the work done by the sun on the earth is responsible for heat travelling from a cold bodies to hot bodies ?

You did not answer my question:
… assuming constant pressure, perhaps you can give an example of heat flowing from a cold body to a hot body without the input of work ?

I have no argument that the earth\’s atmosphere and climate is complex. The discussion here relates to the claimed \”greenhouse effect\” … that is, the daytime \”back-radiation\” from so called GHGs.

Once again you have sidestepped … your greenhouse theory would suggest that the daytime Sahara temperatures should be cool rather than hot, because of low levels of the major GHG, water vapour. Low GHG\’s mean what you call your \”blanket\” is missing.

\”As for the net effect, your statement is correct\” … we are making progress !

Do you disagree with this NASA diagram showing no \”back radiation\”, no greenhouse effect, and no what you refer to as \”a blanket\” ? :
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif

The atmosphere is not opaque as you imply. Warm parts of the atmosphere will show a nett radiation to cooler parts. However the atmosphere does not absorb all radiation passing through it. It is partially transparent … that\’s why even in very polluted areas we can see the sun.

Your $1000 is very \”old hat\” and looks very silly compared to the $500,000 offered here :
http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
… if you can prove global warming is true.

**********************
Skeptic:
I should add that the sign of a good scientist is that he is a skeptic about just about everything. History is full of examples of great scientists who have stood against the tide of popular opinion. Galilleo is a good example, although he waited till his death bed before standing for the truth. Bruno was a little more bold and was burnt to death as a result. John Nash didn\’t want to be \”contaminated\” by ideas of others, so he derived everything himself from first principles.

Most scientists probably had similar experiences to mine years ago when I first heard about CO2. I\’d learnt 350ppm in school and now it was higher … at first glance it seemed there might be a connection with global temperatures. However it didn\’t take a great deal of investigation to start to see the flaws in the hypothesis. Until a couple of weeks ago, I\’d taken greenhouse for granted, as I\’m sure 99% of other scientists do. I may have made similar statements as the blogger here. On questioning greenhouse in detail, it is clearly built on just as poor grounds as the theory about man\’s CO2 causing global warming.

****************************
My critique of this entry:

I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics in general, and the 2nd law in particular.

As I understand it, you say that global warming is not valid because heat cannot go from the ‘cooler’ atmosphere to the ‘hotter’ ground. This is wrong on two points. First, the atmosphere is only cooler during the day, but is warmer at night. By your very reasoning, heat is flowing one way during the day, but in the reverse direction at night.

But, even this is incorrect. Heat is not a substance that flows only one way at a time. Heat is energy and is flowing in all directions simultaneously. As the ground radiates heat, it is absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere then reradiates it out. The ground and the atmosphere both reradiate it in all directions and they do so simultaneously. So, while heat is moving from the ground into the atmosphere (and, also down into deeper ground), it is also moving, at the same time, from the atmosphere back into the ground (as well as into other parts of the atmosphere and even into space). This is not only allowed by the 2nd law, it is required by it. You wanted me to provide an instance when “assuming constant pressure, perhaps you can give an example of heat flowing from a cold body to a hot body without the input of work ?” In fact, this is what is happening with every cold body that is in contact with a warmer body. A glass of ice tea is radiating heat into the hot atmosphere around it, even while the atmosphere is radiating heat into the ice tea.

This is the way everything works. As you sit there reading this response, you are radiating heat out into your surroundings. Those surroundings, in turn, are reradiating that energy. Some of that energy being reradiated will come back to you. Now, if one object is hotter than the other, there will be a net transfer of energy from one to the other. In the absence of a third source, the hotter object will be getting cooler and the cooler object will be getting warmer. This is different than saying there is only heat moving one way. For instance, if you give me $10 and I give you $9, there is a net transfer of money, but money is also being transferred both ways. In the event there is no net transfer of heat between two objects, the two objects are said to be in thermal equilibrium. But, even in equilibrium, energy is being constantly exchanged between the two systems.

But, even this doesn’t explain everything. That’s because there is a third party involved here, the Sun. The Sun is transferring energy to the Earth and causing heating. Some of this energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and never makes it to the ground. I never made any comments about the atmosphere being opaque, but the fact is, the atmosphere is opaque to many frequencies. The fact that it isn’t opaque to all frequencies is obvious. We wouldn’t be able to see anything if it was. So, some frequencies must be getting through.

However, the ground is opaque to these frequencies and absorbs them. This causes the ground to heat up. Even as the ground radiates this heat in a process that is working to cool it down, more energy is coming in from the Sun to continue to heat it up.

If there were no atmosphere in the way, the energy radiated outwards by the ground would go directly into space. For instance, the Moon and Mercury both have little to no atmosphere and we see this process at work. The surface of these bodies heats up tremendously in the direct sunlight, but then cools precipitously when the Sun is not shining on it. As a consequence, the Moon and Mercury both have extreme temperature ranges between day and night.

Add an atmosphere and we see something different. Mars, which has only 1/100th as much atmosphere as Earth, does not have as pronounced a temperature swing. Even this thin atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide) provides insulation to the surface to keep the heat from radiating directly into space. Some is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiates it in all directions, including sending some back towards the ground. As a consequence, the heat cannot leave Mars as quickly as it does on the Moon and Mercury. This is basic insulation theory and exactly the way insulation in your house works.

On Venus, the atmosphere is 80 times as thick as ours, again mostly carbon dioxide. This thick atmosphere is such an effective insulator that there is no temperature variation on Venus at all. The temperature everywhere on the surface of Venus is the same – from day to night and from pole to pole.

The Earth’s atmosphere does exactly this, too. It prevents the ground from radiating heat directly into space. It absorbs some the heat radiated by the ground and then reradiates it in all directions. Some of that reradiated heat is absorbed by some of the surrounding air, and some is reabsorbed by the ground.

That is the greenhouse effect. I had a hard time following your last statement about the greenhouse effect. It appears that you may be saying there is no such thing. If so, it would be hard to have a discussion with you about the topic because you would have to reject all science to reach that conclusion. Individuals that take that stand typically sound like the creationists that reject the Copernican theory and say the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth because the Bible says so. So, I hope that isn’t what you’re stating in you last post shown above.

Global warming is a different than the greenhouse effect. What global warming is saying is that manmade emissions into the atmosphere are causing it to become a more effective insulator. As a consequence, more of the radiation emitted by the ground, and by the atmosphere itself, will be trapped and unable to escape to space. As long as the Sun continues to do work on the Earth and shine energy on it, there will be an energy input. More of this energy input will stay in the Earth-atmosphere system and cause the temperature to rise. Eventually, thermal equilibrium will be restored and the amount of energy radiating out into space will be equal to the amount coming in. But, the temperature will continue to rise until such a time as that equilibrium is reached. Of course, if we continue to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we will continue to make it more difficult for the system to reach thermal equilibrium and the temperature will continue to rise.

As for the NASA diagram, this ‘back radiation,’ as you incorrectly call it, is included in the energy absorbed by the atmosphere. Notice, there is no time-lines on that diagram. All it says is that energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and eventually radiated into space. By this diagram, you can’t tell if it takes a second to accomplish this, or a million years. Also, please note that this is a simple outreach diagram designed to give a general idea of the processes at work and is not designed to be scientifically rigorous. Also note, the amount of change that global warming will cause in the stated process percentages is so insignificant as to not show up in something this simple. If the percentage change was significant enough to show up here, we would have been incinerated long ago.

Stating that a good scientist is skeptical is not a valid argument. From what I can tell, what you are attempting to say is that by being skeptical, it makes you a good scientist. Of course, there is much more to being a good scientist than being skeptical. A big part of being a good scientist is knowing what things to be skeptical about. A good scientist roots himself in the fundamental laws of science and progresses from there.

Citing Galileo is not accurate, in a number of ways, nor valid. First, Galileo did not wait until his deathbed to come out with his theories. I suspect you are thinking of Copernicus, but even that is inaccurate. It is true that Copernicus received the first copy of his book on the day he died, but he had taught his theories in Church colleges and even at the Vatican, for years. Galileo, on the other hand, had been teaching the Copernican system for many years before his death. This is what got him summoned before the Inquisition. Contrary to popular belief, he was not called before the Inquisition for teaching the Copernican theory. He was summoned because he defied the Inquisition’s orders to him to not teach the theory. This may sound like splitting hairs, but splitting hairs frequently means the difference between going free and being punished. In fact, many of the senior members of the Church believed in the Copernican theory and supported Galileo’s teachings. Galileo was a devout Catholic and had many friends in the senior leadership, including the Pope. But, by defying the Inquisition, he was defying Church authority and had to be punished.

Global warming skeptics like to cite Galileo. From my vantage point, it appears they are saying that if they wrap themselves in the cloak of Galileo, then they become the persecuted scientist that is standing for truth against an illogical world opinion. The biggest problem with this is that you have to be right first, and the global warming skeptics are unable to show they are right about anything. I renew my statement that no global warming skeptic can prove via the scientific method that global warming is not occurring.

Which brings me to the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. I am well aware of this challenge and actually submitted an entry to it. I did not make my submission in the hope of winning $500,000. Everyone I have ever communicated with about this challenge is in agreement – Steve Miloy never had any intention of awarding that money. At best, he was only trying to get free publicity. At worst, he wanted to say, ‘See! I offered $500,000 if someone could prove global warming and no one could. This proves global warming doesn’t exist!’ But, of course, he never showed why any of the submissions failed to prove global warming. He just said they didn’t and that was it (which was allowed for in the contest rules). You can see my previous postings about this challenge and my submission here and here.

I, on the other hand, am fully prepared to pay $1000 to anyone that can prove global warming doesn’t exist. I find your comment to be very interesting. If my challenge is so ‘old hat’, why is it that no one has ever done it? If there is such a proof out there, all you have to do is copy it and submit it. There is no such thing as plagiarism of science. I can say ‘E=mc2’ and not have to worry about Einstein’s estate coming after me. If this is ‘old hat’, submit it and win $1000. Are you saying you couldn’t use an extra $1000?

In summary, as I understand your comments, you have tried to prove global warming doesn’t exist because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As we have seen, this claim is scientifically invalid and you do not win the challenge.

However, you are always welcome to try again. There is no entry fee.

In a February posting, I announced the $1000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. I also made a posting where I showed the response I submitted to JunkScience.com’s Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. One reader, Aaron Rogers, has submitted several comments to this post and challenged my claims concerning global warming. I have decided to take Mr. Rogers’ latest comment, which is quite involved, and consider it to be the first submission to my challenge.

There is no entry fee to my challenge, so Mr. Rogers had nothing to lose. And, by submitting a comment to my blog, he clearly meant to submit it for public viewing. And, it clearly was written to convince me that global warming does not exist.

I have reprinted Mr. Rogers’ submission below verbatim and have included my comments after each paragraph. My comments are in bold face and enclosed between brackets.

I renew my claim at this time that the claims by global warming skeptics cannot be scientifically proven and my offer of $1000 to the first person that satisfies my GWS Challenge still stands.

******************

Yes, I suppose we if can not have a civil discussion then we should stop conversing. For some reason these topics drive even reasonable men to exasperation at times. If you will allow me one last response then I will trouble you no more. I have cited two technical papers; Douglas & Christi paper on the climate model errors in the upper troposphere and Svensmark and the role of solar forcing. There are many, many more but I prefer that you expend the effort to find the peer reviewed literature that is relevant to this discussion. I do not want to steer you.. If you are truly inclined to round out your knowledge base I am sure you can find your way around without me guiding you. As far as websites go, Real Climate is a great source to find peer reviewed material for arguments supporting AGW. On the other end, Climate Audit is an equally reputable site for finding peer reviewed papers with opposing views. I am not talking about the hot heads blustering on other blogs; I am referring to the peer reviewed literature. By this method, I recently found a blog where only the climate modelers discuss the weaknesses and strengths of the mathematical and philosophical assumptions behind the models. These are the guys writing the code. It is not for the fainthearted but it is great way to gain insight as to what these experts are arguing about. No one is questioning the physics of fluid dynamics; it is more about how one applies these laws in the code and how to tweak the parameters that govern the outcome of each GCM run.

[I am familiar with both of these authors and these websites, as well as several others you don’t mention. A blog is not a reference, no matter what bloggers say. Notice that I try to give my reference sources as often as I can so that a reader can see the evidence for himself.

It is partly true, as Douglas and Chisti state, that 1998 had the highest average global temperature. There is now more data available showing warmer years, but that data was not available to them. The NASA data shows that 2005 and 2007 were both warmer (14.70 degrees C for 1998, 14.76 for 2005 and 14.72 for 2008). But, that does not mean the planet is cooling or that we have even reached the maximum. Take a look at the data as presented here (The link to the NASA data source is included at the bottom of the graphs). The data, as shown in this table, shows that 1998 had the highest average temperature at 14.71 degrees C, just barely higher than the 14.70 average recorded in 2002. But, examination shows that 1998 was way out of line with the trend and the 5-year average has continued to increase.

But, even that is not relevant. The issue of global warming is not about whether one given year is warmer or cooler than some other given year - it is about long-term trends. Take a look at the NASA data again and compare the temperatures from years early in the table to the temperatures of today. What we see is a significant increase in average global temperature. In 1880, the average global temperature was 13.88 degrees. It hit 14.00 in 1882 and again in 1889 (14.04) and did not go over 14 degrees again until 1915. In comparison, the average global temperature in recent years has not gone under 14 degrees since 1976 and hasn’t gone under 14.4 since 1996. This shows the long-term trend. Something like the five-year average only shows that the trend appears to be continuing, but requires multiple data points to truly show the trend (and, multiple data points do, in fact, indicate the trend is continuing). A one-year measurement does not mean anything, either for or against the argument for global warming.

I am also familiar with the work of Svensmark. He has made claims such as that human CO2 is insignificant compared to natural causes and should be dismissed, dismisses the surface temperature record, and claims global warming stopped in 1988. Generally, his work has been discredited by numerous researchers. ]

Your reference to the Antarctic warming is based on the very recent paper (JAN 2009) by Eric Steig, Mann, et al on Antarctic warming is a case in point. According to the BAC (British Antarctic Survey) since 1957 the central Antarctic temperature record proves a steady or slightly decreasing trend depending on how much error one ascribes to the data collection. The fact that the western peninsular area is warmer and has been warming is a well known fact since 1901. This is primarily due to the fact that the Peninsula is sticking out into warmer maritime winds and waters normally present in this area; nothing new here.

[This is a very curious statement. You are saying the Antarctic Peninsula is warming because it ‘is sticking out into warmer maritime winds and waters normally present in this area; nothing new here.’ How is it possible for the peninsula to be warming when it is in an environment that is ‘normally present’? If the environment was normally present, the two would be in equilibrium and the peninsula would not be warming. The only way the peninsula could be warming is if its surrounding environment is warming. In fact, the data shows that the environment around the peninsula is undergoing drastic warming. You seem to be accepting this warming environment as evidence that the environment is not warming.

Steig et. al. showed the continent of Antarctica is warming, especially the western slopes. The warming of the peninsula is, as you said, well known and, ironically, has been cited as evidence of global warming for years. Global warming skeptics claim the Earth is not warming because Antarctica is not warming. It was believed this lack of observed warming has been due to circumpolar currents that shield Antarctica from the rest of the planet, but the peninsula sticks out beyond these currents and is exposed to the same conditions that the rest of the planet is. Now, Steig et al. are saying the continent has been warming, we just failed to look at the data properly. And, they say, the Western Slope is warming at the same rate as the rest of the planet.]

This latest paper by Eric Steig and Michael Mann (yes, the same Mann who produced the Hockey stick that eliminates the MWP and LIA) has now produced a temperature map suddenly reversing the well documented central Antarctic historical cooling record by the BAS. Are you not the least bit suspicious or let’s call it interested in how this came to pass? Is it really prudent to blindly accept Antarctic warming based on one paper by authors already known to be heavily invested in AGW? The lay public may be easily swayed but I would think that someone of your educational level ought not to be so easily persuaded. In my opinion this paper is just another case where Mann has once again called the data into question because the outcome did not fit the model. The fact the central Antarctic polar region has not warmed has infuriated, Steig, Mann and Hansen for some time now. To mitigate the embarrassment over the last few years, the computer models were simply adjusted to explain how AGW could happily occur in conjunction with a cooling Antarctic. This was necessary because one of the most important predictions of AGW was that the poles were the most sensitive areas to warming and thus like the canary in then mine, would feel the effects first. The poles should be warming and warming more than any other area. Unfortunately, the Central Antarctic data set was not cooperating.

[Using terms such as ‘...has infuriated...’ and ‘...embarrassment...’ are not scientific or valid. Until such time as the individuals in question personally state what their mind-set and emotions were, no such claim can be made by others. Plus, their mind-set or emotions have no scientific value and are not relevant to scientific claims. The idea that a researcher experiences normal human emotions in the process of his research is in no way relevant to the value of the outcome. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and many others all experienced anger and frustration in their work. We know this by their personal logs and historical accounts. Are you saying that this somehow invalidates their work? Please, stick to factual and scientific arguments.

Further, you should read the BAS statement on Antarctic climate change over the last 50 years. It can be found here. Briefly, they state the data from the high plateau of East Antarctica show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends. But, they also state there are only two long-term stations in this region. The findings of Steig et. al. are consistent with this statement and find only moderate warming in the East Antarctic region and even some areas of cooling.

The BAS goes on to state that the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is ten times the mean global warming rate; there is ‘significant’ warming in the Southern Ocean; there is warming of the Antarctic atmosphere below 8 km, with 30-year warming at 5 km during the winter being over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole; and sea ice cover has declined ‘substantially’ in the seas to the west of the peninsula, while increasing in other parts of Antarctica.

Taken in total, the BAS statement is very consistent with the findings of Steig et. al.

The majority of your comments consist of unwarranted personal attacks on the authors and invalid questioning of their motives, none of which serves as scientific evidence. If we remove all of the unprofessional statements from this paragraph, what we are left with is:

“This latest paper by Eric Steig and Michael Mann has now produced a temperature map suddenly reversing the well documented central Antarctic historical cooling record by the BAS. One of the most important predictions of AGW was that the poles were the most sensitive areas to warming and thus like the canary in then mine, would feel the effects first. The poles should be warming and warming more than any other area. “

This is a much less inflammatory statement and addresses the science and not personal feelings. As I showed above, the BAS statement is consistent with the findings of Steig et. al. In fact, what we are seeing is exactly the canary effect, with both poles demonstrating widespread effects due to climate change.]

But secretly Steig, et al were never satisfied with the band aid applied to their GCM’s that allowed co existence of AGW and Antarctic cooling. So they decided to go straight for the throat: attack the historical data that clearly demonstrates a steady cooling trend. He has used the questionable technique of calling the data into question before; weather balloon data for the upper troposphere temperature that was in disagreement with his pet GCM runs. In this case Steig, Mann, et al have filled in the missing temperature data in the western Antarctic central polar region by splicing in infra red satellite data and performing erudite statistical gymnastics to couple the existing hard data in a manner specifically designed to produce a temperature map with the desired outcome.

[Again, personal attacks are scientifically invalid and irrelevant to the discussion.

Referring to the BAS statement (referenced above), the BAS stated,

“Analysis of weather balloon data collected over the past 30 years has shown that the Antarctic atmosphere has warmed below 8 km and cooled above this height. This pattern of warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere is seen globally and is the expected signature of increases in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. However, the 30-year warming at 5 km over the Antarctic during winter (0.75°C) is over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole.”

This statement is very consistent with Steig et. al. and very much counter to what you claim above.

As for the filling in the ‘missing’ temperature data, this is simply not an accurate statement. The authors discuss this in their paper in detail. There is a good record of weather station data from stations along the coast, but a lack of it inland. However, there is satellite data from both infrared and microwave observations. They use this data, in conjunction with the surface data, to interpolate what the data is over the continent. This principle is completely valid. Whether their results are accurate is something that will have to be examined and tested over time, but I cannot see anything wrong with their methods.

Blogs by global warming skeptics to the contrary that I have read failed to produce any valid arguments. The worse they have really been able to state is that the warming trend isn’t as severe as claimed by Steig et. al. This does not detract from the basic statement that Antarctica is warming. Further, none of the skeptic blogs I have read address any of the independent reports that are consistent with Steig, et. al. It appears the strategy of the skeptics is to attack the authors with such ferocity that the issue will be permanently discredited. But, the results of the BAS, papers by Shuman and Stearns, and Johanson and Fu; observational evidence of retreating glaciers; ice core data showing warming trends, among other independent data, all are consistent with the findings of Steig et. al.

Suppose that it is found that Steig et. al. were wrong with their methods, how does that affect the findings of all of the other independent researchers that are reporting the same thing? Your complaints do not hold up to scientific scrutiny.]

The coupling of the satellite data was done for a very good reason; there are very few ground based stations in the central Antarctic and those that do exist are difficult to maintain and subject to much greater variation. Ripe ground for a person skilled in data manipulation such as the AGW alarmist Michael Mann. Here was an opportunity to present the data in the most favorable way to support AGW yet still walk the fine line between fact and fiction. This was possible because it is very difficult for the satellite IR sensor to accurately read the air temperature over the snow and ice much less when clouds are present. Unlike the Polar Regions these coastal areas are frequently cloudy. The area of the Western peninsular shelf is about i/3 of the total Antarctic area. The bottom line is that Steig and Mann have artfully coupled the satellite data with carefully selected ground based “calibration” stations in the western area to achieve a predetermined IR emissivity offset number. This is another form of reverse engineering. All one has to be wary of is to be sure that the arcane statistical method used is minimally defendable even if under later scrutiny it proves to be heavily biased in one direction. It is clear from the paper that some of the calibration points were anomalously high or had a clear history of technical problems or were in fact erroneous and should have been cast out. With the inclusion of such data, the not too surprising outcome was to produce a temperature rise in this area that precisely offsets or overwhelms the amount of cooling present in the central region. Also suspicious is that the computer code and statistical modeling methods used by Steig at al have not been released for scrutiny by other experts in the field. All in all, it took quite a bit of peninsular warming since this area is only one third of the much colder central region on the other side of the mountains. Read the paper, it is full of cautionary statements in regard to the methods used and references to the lack of knowledge of the historical natural variations which of course are essentially unknown. That is interesting since the record 2006 cold anomaly in the central Antarctic was also associated with a persistent anticyclone over the pole. This in turn allowed maritime (read as “warm”) winds to clock around the Western and upper peninsular regions for a substantial period and induce a natural warming variability. There was no mention of this anomaly in the paper. Another point regarding the accuracy of the methods used by Steig is that while the ground based reference temperatures used for the emissivity calibrations in this Western region have an error factor no better that +/- 2 .0 C, the reconstructed temperature map claims an error of only +/- .25 C, a factor almost ten times more accurate. How can this be? Another interesting question is that since Steig and Hansen’s paper now seems to prove catastrophic Antarctic warming, will the GCM’s be “re adjusted” back to their original form where co existence of a cooling Antarctic and AGW is no longer permitted?

[This entire paragraph is nothing more than a personal attack on the authors of this paper. You fail to show any scientific evidence to support your claims or to show that the authors are in error. If they are as much in error as you claim, I suggest you write a scientific paper and submit it to peer-reviewed journals for publication. But, I will advise you that nothing you have written above would ever find its way past any reviewer anywhere. This fails to meet the scientific argument standard.]

My point is do not chug down every glass of Jim Jones cool aide served up by Mann, Hansen and Steig. Let’s wait for the peer reviews to come in over the next few months and really see if 50 years of Antarctic data are that far in error! Since the mainstream media is not as careful as you or I, we will simply see an outpouring from them of the astounding find, “ the Antarctic is melting!” just as was done when the Hansen’s 2008 October surface temperature data suggested a massive warming when in fact the September data were used twice in row. Serious errors in the Steig et al paper are already being uncovered and it remains to be seen how these errors and other arbitrary assumptions in the controlling statistical parameters have affected the final computer run that produced the red hot Antarctic temperature map now being proudly displayed as fact by AGW internet minions.

[Again, you substitute personal attacks for scientific evidence. I addressed your more valid comments above. Steig et. al. themselves point out the weaknesses of their methods and address them. This is an initial report and is very likely that the calculated numbers will be adjusted over time. Certainly, it is possible that future corrections may find there is no warming, but based on all of the independent reports that show the continent is warming, this would be a very surprising result. It is more likely that any adjustment in the results will still show the continent is warming. As painful as it may be for global warming skeptics to accept, the fact stands that more and more results by more and more independent researchers are and will be showing the same results.

However, even if Steig et. al. are shown to be wrong, surely your entire proof denying global warming doesn’t consist of attacking this one paper. Antarctica is an exceptional case due to its location and environment. Even if the continent were remaining temperature-constant, what about the rest of the world? The evidence of global warming doesn’t rest on this one paper.]

As far as Al Gore is concerned, he is about to make another one of his historic speeches which will no doubt be used to kick off the Obama administration’s complete capitulation to AGW. I believe it is not disingenuous of me to point out his glaring deficiencies since his Sasquatch carbon footprint is trampling all over any reasonable discussion of the alternate data. The exaggerations and errors he continues to promote are not fostering a healthy “climate” for scientific debate. And it does not matter to me one whit that a pop culture statistic somewhere states that a “consensus of 98% of experts” believe this or that. One should know better than to use that argument. Galileo stood alone against a consensus of ill informed zealots as well. The history of science is replete with examples of one person having to suffer the indignity of mob ignorance. I am devoted to ferreting out only the valid and incredibly fascinating peer reviewed opinions from qualified sources. As an engineer I am naturally suspicious and one of my responsibilities is to look at reams of data and look for anomalies and inconsistencies that either reveals an actual problem with a population of resistors or with the test or the data itself. This type of work makes one very good at smelling out the rats. I have learned to question the method as well as the results before coming to any conclusions. I detect the odor of bad science in this idea that we are headed for a near term tipping point and irreversible climate disaster from rising CO2 and over reliance on artfully contrived AGW computer modeling scenarios that spuriously attempt to “prove” this end of times catastrophe to a frightened and gullible public.

[Again, personal, unprofessional attacks are not scientific evidence and do not support your claim in any way. But, please note that you refer to any contrary argument as ‘Jim Jones cool aid’, but anything supporting your viewpoint is automatically accepted by you to be valid.

You are correct in that the scientific evidence must be submitted to peer review. But, you leave out the fact that it has already been peer reviewed. This is not some wild claim by the authors. They were required to produce their evidence and their methods and have them reviewed by independent peers before their paper was approved for publication. Their conclusions could certainly be found to be in error as a result of future research, but the research as it stands today supports their claims. You cannot dismiss it simply because you don’t like the conclusion and claim that it might be reversed at a later date. It is also possible that it will be found to be valid and not reversed.

Is it possible their conclusions will be found to be at least partially incorrect? Almost certainly. But, understand, the only way to get the research moving forward is for someone to be the first. But, what parts are going to be found to be in error? And by how much? What if its found that Antarctica is warming by only half as much as they have found? This would qualify as being in error, but would also be serious scientific evidence of global warming. Until such a time that additional research clearly shows they are in error, their peer-reviewed conclusions are valid scientific evidence.

Arguing Al Gore is wrong is not clever, nor scientific. Al Gore is not a scientist and he has many of his facts wrong. Saying Gore is wrong is not, in any manner, scientific proof that global warming does not exist.

Citing Galileo also is disingenuous and unscientific. The situations cannot compare. Today, unlike in Galileo’s time, scientists from all over the world are engaged in research and share their data without fear of being pulled up before the Inquisition. The fact stands, 98% of scientists that are most engaged in climate change research and are the most informed on the subject believe in anthropogenic global warming. If global warming skeptics are going to dismiss this fact as being irrelevant, then they cannot make claims about scientists that are skeptical of global warming. Either way, it is not scientific evidence, but neither was I citing it as scientific evidence.

There is nothing in this paragraph that approaches being a scientific argument. In fact, just the opposite. From my perspective, you seem to be saying you are only seeking evidence to support your pre-drawn conclusion. Anything else is a ‘rat’.]

I am sorry you did not spend more time researching the conquest of the Northwest Passage (NWP). Yes, there was one ship in 1850 that was doomed. Recall that the Dalton minimum was just ending at that time. But in 1905 the feat was accomplished by Amundsen. Then of course several times by the Canadian wooden ship, St. Roche and again by a smaller Canadian police vessel the St. Roche II circa 1940. Interestingly, the police ship was dispatched by Canada for the expressed purpose of defending Canada’s right to controlling the lucrative NWP sea lane should it remain open in the future, which it did not. The feat was also repeated in a luxury cruise ship out of Norway in 1988 back when Global Cooling was all the rage. I suppose I should not be surprised by your error here. The mainstream media has published a great deal of misinformation about these facts lately. I actually thought along the same lines until I was recently enlightened. Apparently, the variability and difficulty of freezing an entire ocean of salt water in precisely the same way each Arctic winter has been with us for quite a while.

[This is an interesting comment about how I didn’t do my homework on the NWP exploration. The fact is, many attempts to find the NWP had been made over the years. Let’s put this in context. You made the claim that a wooden ship traversed the NWP nearly 100 years ago and this somehow shows that the claims of how ships today are traversing the NWP as irrelevant to the issue of global warming. As I interpret your line of reasoning, you are saying the fact that ships can traverse the NWP today is irrelevant because a wooden sailing ship was able to do it 100 years ago. If a wooden ship could do it, then its not surprising that modern, steel ships can do it.

This is a clearly false argument from top to bottom. If we examine the facts we see that your argument actually supports global warming. Yes, Amundsen was the first to successfully traverse the NWP and he did it in a wooden sailing ship. But, he took three years to accomplish this, spending the winters from 1903 through 1906 locked in ice and unable to advance. This was merely the last of many expeditions to attempt this.

The statement that there was a prior expedition in the 1850s is semi-truthful, but false in intent. There was a two-ship expedition in 1845, led by Sir John Franklin, which resulted in the loss of all hands after three years trapped in the ice. However, this was by no means the first expedition to find the NWP.

Historically, finding the NWP has been a goal for centuries. While it is known that the Vikings attempted to navigate the waters, the first recorded modern expedition was led by John Cabot under instructions of Henry VIII in 1497. This expedition was followed, over the years, by well over a dozen expeditions, including ones led by both Hudson and Cook. The actual number may be disputed because some expeditions involved exploring rivers in the belief they would lead to the NWP. But, expeditions into the ice were numerous and were attempted from both the Atlantic side and the Pacific side. By the 1770s, the discovery of the NWP was so strongly desired that a reward of £20,000 was offered to the first person to successfully navigate the passage.

The first successful traversing of the NWP was by the crew led by Robert McClure in the period of 1850-1854, but they did not sail the entire route. They actually crossed part of the route by sled, but they were still awarded £10,000 as a reward. As of 1957, only three ships had successfully navigated the NWP. The St. Roche that you referred to, was the first to transit from west to east. It took two years to complete the voyage, from 1940 to 1942, being forced to spend the winters locked in sea ice. Even though it was fortified for the ice, the captain and crew frequently thought they were about to be crushed by the sea ice. In 1944, St Roche made the return trip, becoming both the first vessel to go both ways, but also the first vessel to make the transit in one season, taking only 86 days. St Roche was the second ship to complete the voyage. The third successful transit didn’t occur until 1957, followed by the next successful transits in 1966 and 1977.

In comparison, the sea lanes were free of ice in both 2007 and 2008, allowing ships to transit straight through without the aid of an icebreaker. This is vastly different than the situation experienced by Amundsen and all expeditions prior to the 1980s.

As for the Canadian defense of the NWP, of course Canada is going to defend its territorial waters and I cannot see how this applies to the scientific debate. There are several excellent Nova episodes on the Northwest Passage that I highly recommend. There are also many good books and even webpages that detail the history of the NWP. You could have found all of this information for yourself with only a small amount of work.

So, what we see is numerous attempts to navigate the NWP over a span of several centuries were all foiled by the overwhelming sea ice and even Amundsen didn’t conquer the ice, but found a way to live with it for two winters before he was able to get through. In contrast, ships today are finding the passage to be ice-free. In fact, the St Roche II that you refer to transited the NWP in 2000 and was the first to find the passage ice free.

Any attempt to use these historical facts as evidence that there is no global warming is simply invalid. What the evidence shows is that the entire history of the exploration of the NWP supports the theory of global warming.

Also, contrary to your statement, the global cooling that you refer to was never ‘all the rage’ in science. This claim has been thoroughly debunked. The issue was looked at in the 1970s and the press took off with the idea. It was never really seriously proposed in scientific literature. There is such as thing as ‘global cooling,’ but this has to do with the shading effects of air pollution particulates and is very different from what you are referring to.

In light of your accuracy about the exploration of NWP, you should not be making rude comments about how much time I have spent reading about the subject. Such attacks are unprofessional and do not contribute to a scientific argument. Then, when you are proven wrong, it greatly undermines your credibility. You should try to refrain from that in the future. See this article about NWP.]

That brings us to the Viking expansion during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) from 850 to 1250 AD. Notwithstanding Mann’s recent assertions in the latest Hockey stick, this 500 year climate episode can hardly be called a local or short lived event as Mann asserts. Greenland was only one of the many areas the Vikings attempted to expand their mostly farm based culture during the MWP. The MWP is an episode of well documented mild winters and bountiful harvests in Europe and wine production in England. The Vikings also spread northward into areas that are now too cold to farm. Yes, the Greenland outposts failed for a number of reasons beyond a suddenly cooling climate that followed the MWP known as the LIA (Little Ice Age). My point is that there are natural forcings that drive our climate and we must not be so dismissive of these titanic powers that both warm and cool the climate without any connection to CO2 much less forcings induced by homo sapiens. We can only prey that such a cooling event does not occur again especially since solar activity is once more on the wane. Unlike warming, cooling would be truly catastrophic for world food production. Understanding these natural phenomena is where we should be focusing the thrust of our climate research, not on an over emphasis on AGW where world socialist political boondoggles such as carbon credits and use of corn based ethanol are being prematurely shoved down our throats by force of law.

[Your statements are again not informed and the facts do not support your statements.

One of the most authoritative references on Vikings is A History of The Vikings, by Gwyn Jones, which states that Viking settlement of Greenland was first begun by Eric the Red in 982, followed by an expedition setting out with 25 ships of settlers in 986, 14 of which arrived in Greenland. The colonies were all located in a narrow band along the coast and, eventually, the population grew to about 3000. Life in Greenland was governed by the hostile environment and the settlements never had more than a tenuous hold. By 1250, the records show the climate was deteriorating and the polar ice was closing sea lanes. Attacks by Inuit, problems with shipping, and the worsening climate all combined to end the colonies and the last one was abandoned in about 1500.

The point of all of this is that this was not, contrary to popular belief, some balmy period in Greenland’s history. Life in the settlements was characterized as harsh. The weather was extreme and there was only a small amount of land that was ice-free.

To compare the MWP to today’s events is totally invalid. The record shows that the MWP was an event that occurred in the North Atlantic region. At the same time, regions of the world were experiencing colder climates than before. The global warming we are witnessing today is global in extent, not regional.

The MWP was also much less in magnitude that what we are witnessing today, and took centuries to occur. In contrast, today’s climate change is occurring in mere decades and is already more extreme that anything witnessed during the MWP. As an example, historical records show that wine grapes were grown in Europe during the MWP as far north as England. Today, wine grapes are grown as far north as Sweden.

You cannot take a small, localized climate event and use that as a comparison for a large-scale, global event. The two had different characteristics and different causes.

Any claim that other causes of climate change are not being investigated is ill-researched. Extensive research is being conducted on a whole multitude of effects, including the role of solar variance in any climate change. Ironically, all of this extra research only serves to support anthropogenic global warming. Research shows that alternative explanations fail to account for the changes that are being witnessed. You even referred to the decline in solar activity. Global warming skeptics frequently claim that an increase in solar activity would account for global warming. But, as you correctly pointed out, solar activity has been waning in recent decades and cannot be responsible.

One last note on this paragraph, the use of ethanol is being pushed not in response to global warming, but as a way to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.]

Thanks for the lively exchange. I hope I have encouraged you to consider the fact that there are many qualified scientists conducting credible research that should give a reasonable person pause before swallowing AGW immanent climate disaster hook, line and sinker.

[Your argument has consisted of extensive personal attacks on researchers that find evidence to support global warming, the claim that evidence of warming in Antarctica is incorrect, that Amundsen’s traversing the NWP 100 years ago in a wooden ship over a period of three years is the same as modern ships passing through ice-free channels, and the Vikings settled Greenland in a warming period in the North Atlantic as evidence that global warming is a natural cycle. None of your arguments were valid. Also, you failed to even begin to address the mountains of data that support the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming, much of which has been cited in other postings in this blog. So, I must conclude that you have failed to produce a scientifically valid argument to show that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring.

Sorry, but you have not even begun to prove, via the scientific method, that global warming is not occurring, or that manmade emissions are not causing it.]