Blair MacdonaldJune 29, 2014 at 7:19 AM
I’ll take up your challenge. But I don’t want your money, I want good science.
It will be a three pronged approach: (1) changing climate is not evidence: evidence is found in the repetition of the claim – heat trapping CO2 does not repeat (at least to be special or measurable); (2) oddities in carbon climate science – it is not at all like other science; and (3) a refutation of the 1859 Tyndall experiment and the derived special GHG’s – it is the instrument that is special not he gases. All gases are.
1. For heat trapping CO2 to have any credibility it would have to stand as a similar law of science, that is be repetitive – like all the other laws of science. This is what makes science science.
If it weren’t for telescopes we’d (likely) still be in the geocentric paradigm as it is very difficult to prove without the aid of a telescope that we are not at the centre. The telescope reveals the repetition of a (Copernican) theory. Even with the telescope, Galileo had to prove extra the the world rotated and that a geocentric universe is an illusion. I argue that CO2 or for that matter manmade climate change is a similar illusion to geo-centricity.
If CO2 traps heat as it is said to do it should co-explain the likes of:
• plate tectonics, CO2 is there in both high concentrations and high temperatures – it doesn’t, water does;
• respiration, why our breath is warm, again water does, but CO2 is there at around 45,000 ppmv. No animal uses CO2 to warm its breath ;
• why meteorologists don’t measure CO2 to make predictions or explain cloud formation, and no one does, not pilots whose lives would depend on such knowledge – but they do measure and understand the physics of water;
• avalanche (continuing from the above) and general snow pack stability. It doesn’t figure in any literature I have. We measure all other variables that effect temperature change in the snow pack, but not CO2. Not even on volcanos – it sinks, it’s heavy, it must be there. Our lives would depend on this!
• utility: no one, nothing uses it for its said claim of trapping heat. I don’t buy CO2; there is not market for it. Wouldn’t it be used to trap heat in my house – as we do water? It should be in between our double glazed windows, and be part of the solution to the problem it is said to cause – as a heat trapper? No, it is not.
This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html
2. Carbon climate science is odd, not at all like other areas of science.
• Where is the complexity – the deep physics? It’s all too simple! It is explained to school children in school books as it is to adults in adult university science books. It not hard to understand and this is odd. Science is hard! It gets harder. We can all read about quantum weirdness in popular science, but to study quantum mechanics in depth is extremely challenging – this goes for all science, but not CO2 climate change.
• Where are the experiments, the research, and the multibillion dollar budgets? The Kepler and Hubble telescope / LHC like experiments. All it has it computer models. That is not science.
• Where are the PhD’s on understanding the physics of CO2 – this extreme threat? If have found none! This is not like the stuff of viruses, asteroids or volcanos or any other areas of science. The PhD’s are going to studying future effects and engineering green tech. They are parasitic on other areas of knowledge, and this is fallacy.
• Where are the typical science statements from scientists at the top of their field: ‘We still have much to learn’; ‘we don’t yet have a full understanding....’;’.. the more we dig, the more questions we discover..’?
• Carbon climate scientist’s claim to know – to have consensus – and this is odd. Other sciences never say such things, and if they do, it is not for long.
Response:
Why in the world would you say CO2 trapping heat would explain all of those things you listed?
Your argument on this point is there are other things in the world, therefore CO2 doesn't trap heat. That line of argument is totally invalid. CO2 doesn't have anything to do with plate tectonics (solid plates moving due to currents in the mantle); warm breath (warmed by our body heat); cloud formation (due to water vapor); or avalanches (due to gravity). (CO2 is used in industrial applications.) Somehow, in your mind, this means CO2 doesn't trap heat. I'm sorry, but there is a long history of scientific experiments and engineering applications of this property of CO2 to show that, yes, it really does absorb IR radiation.
Your next argument is equally invalid. The science behind how and why CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of light is extremely complicated. It is called quantum mechanics. The explanation given to school children is merely a simplified version of an extremely complicated subject. Yes, lots of money has been spent on quantum mechanics to explore it so that we can understand it better. But, that argument is totally invalid. Are you really saying the only way something can be a science is if no one can understand it and we spend billions of dollars on it?
And, you are wrong. When something is explored as much as CO2 has been, there is a consensus. An example would be that Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Is there more to learn about all of that? Sure. But, there is a consensus among scientists that this is the basic situation and anything new we learn is merely details. Same thing with CO2. There is a consensus that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. We may learn more about this in the future, but that will just be more details.
I am not sure what you are saying about the Tyndall experiments. O2 and N2 are transparent to IR because the molecules are too small to absorb the large waves of IR radiation. You even admitted that in your submission. Tyndall measured the intensity of light at different wavelengths as it passed through different gases. He found many things, but one of them was that CO2 absorbed light at IR wavelengths. Based on your submission I don't think you understood that. It sounds as if you think he just held a thermometer up and measured the temperature in a CO2 atmosphere. No, that is not what he did. And, his experiments have been repeated and verified many times.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
It will be a three pronged approach: (1) changing climate is not evidence: evidence is found in the repetition of the claim – heat trapping CO2 does not repeat (at least to be special or measurable); (2) oddities in carbon climate science – it is not at all like other science; and (3) a refutation of the 1859 Tyndall experiment and the derived special GHG’s – it is the instrument that is special not he gases. All gases are.
1. For heat trapping CO2 to have any credibility it would have to stand as a similar law of science, that is be repetitive – like all the other laws of science. This is what makes science science.
If it weren’t for telescopes we’d (likely) still be in the geocentric paradigm as it is very difficult to prove without the aid of a telescope that we are not at the centre. The telescope reveals the repetition of a (Copernican) theory. Even with the telescope, Galileo had to prove extra the the world rotated and that a geocentric universe is an illusion. I argue that CO2 or for that matter manmade climate change is a similar illusion to geo-centricity.
If CO2 traps heat as it is said to do it should co-explain the likes of:
• plate tectonics, CO2 is there in both high concentrations and high temperatures – it doesn’t, water does;
• respiration, why our breath is warm, again water does, but CO2 is there at around 45,000 ppmv. No animal uses CO2 to warm its breath ;
• why meteorologists don’t measure CO2 to make predictions or explain cloud formation, and no one does, not pilots whose lives would depend on such knowledge – but they do measure and understand the physics of water;
• avalanche (continuing from the above) and general snow pack stability. It doesn’t figure in any literature I have. We measure all other variables that effect temperature change in the snow pack, but not CO2. Not even on volcanos – it sinks, it’s heavy, it must be there. Our lives would depend on this!
• utility: no one, nothing uses it for its said claim of trapping heat. I don’t buy CO2; there is not market for it. Wouldn’t it be used to trap heat in my house – as we do water? It should be in between our double glazed windows, and be part of the solution to the problem it is said to cause – as a heat trapper? No, it is not.
This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html
2. Carbon climate science is odd, not at all like other areas of science.
• Where is the complexity – the deep physics? It’s all too simple! It is explained to school children in school books as it is to adults in adult university science books. It not hard to understand and this is odd. Science is hard! It gets harder. We can all read about quantum weirdness in popular science, but to study quantum mechanics in depth is extremely challenging – this goes for all science, but not CO2 climate change.
• Where are the experiments, the research, and the multibillion dollar budgets? The Kepler and Hubble telescope / LHC like experiments. All it has it computer models. That is not science.
• Where are the PhD’s on understanding the physics of CO2 – this extreme threat? If have found none! This is not like the stuff of viruses, asteroids or volcanos or any other areas of science. The PhD’s are going to studying future effects and engineering green tech. They are parasitic on other areas of knowledge, and this is fallacy.
• Where are the typical science statements from scientists at the top of their field: ‘We still have much to learn’; ‘we don’t yet have a full understanding....’;’.. the more we dig, the more questions we discover..’?
• Carbon climate scientist’s claim to know – to have consensus – and this is odd. Other sciences never say such things, and if they do, it is not for long.
3.
The 1859 John Tyndall experiment is flawed. It is 18th Century electric
trickery, and has lead us to believe in (possibly) the most nonsense
scientific premise in the history of science: that only the ‘GHGs’ (2%
of gases in the atmosphere) trap heat, and that the remaining N2 and O2
(98%) are not GHG’s because they don’t. Infrared (IR) – sensed by us as
heat – thermopile detectors (the same used in the Tyndall experiment
deriving the GHG’s) are easily and cheaply available today and are used
in noncontact infrared thermometers, thermal imaging cameras and
importantly IR spectroscopy. They are all related through electric
thermopile. Application of these thermopile IR detector instruments
(their operation manuals) reveals they don’t measure temperature of all
substances or see all substances – N2 and O2 are such substances,
germanium is another. These substances are transparent to the
instruments (in the IR frequency range). It is the instrument that is
special and not the gases. It is all to do with the atomic vibration: N2
and O2 have only symmetric vibrations and so are IR inactive, and so
transparent, but they are not Raman inactive (Raman Spectroscopy is a
complimentary instrument to IR spectroscopy). IR thermometers are said
to be no substitute for traditional thermometers and must be used with
caution especially with these special substances. Imagine a sauna made
with walls of (IR transparent) germanium, and heated to sauna
temperature. To a regular traditional thermometer it would register hot;
to a noncontact IR thermometer it would read not the inside temperature
of the sauna, but the same temperature as the outside of the sauna. It
would ‘see’ right through walls (apart of course for the water vapor and
other trace gases). It would be useless. N2 and O2 are stealth gases:
they are to IR thermopile thermometer instruments as stealth bombers are
to radar. This was from my blog entry:
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/12/the-gassy-messenger-magic-of-ir.html
CO2 has no heat trapping specialty (it does trap heat, only as much as it’s specific heat capacity allows; its science appears no more than an agenda; and the science is all based on a false premise, one that can be refuted by simple application of a 30US$ noncontact IR thermometer.
CO2 has no heat trapping specialty (it does trap heat, only as much as it’s specific heat capacity allows; its science appears no more than an agenda; and the science is all based on a false premise, one that can be refuted by simple application of a 30US$ noncontact IR thermometer.
Response:
Why in the world would you say CO2 trapping heat would explain all of those things you listed?
Your argument on this point is there are other things in the world, therefore CO2 doesn't trap heat. That line of argument is totally invalid. CO2 doesn't have anything to do with plate tectonics (solid plates moving due to currents in the mantle); warm breath (warmed by our body heat); cloud formation (due to water vapor); or avalanches (due to gravity). (CO2 is used in industrial applications.) Somehow, in your mind, this means CO2 doesn't trap heat. I'm sorry, but there is a long history of scientific experiments and engineering applications of this property of CO2 to show that, yes, it really does absorb IR radiation.
Your next argument is equally invalid. The science behind how and why CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of light is extremely complicated. It is called quantum mechanics. The explanation given to school children is merely a simplified version of an extremely complicated subject. Yes, lots of money has been spent on quantum mechanics to explore it so that we can understand it better. But, that argument is totally invalid. Are you really saying the only way something can be a science is if no one can understand it and we spend billions of dollars on it?
And, you are wrong. When something is explored as much as CO2 has been, there is a consensus. An example would be that Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Is there more to learn about all of that? Sure. But, there is a consensus among scientists that this is the basic situation and anything new we learn is merely details. Same thing with CO2. There is a consensus that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. We may learn more about this in the future, but that will just be more details.
I am not sure what you are saying about the Tyndall experiments. O2 and N2 are transparent to IR because the molecules are too small to absorb the large waves of IR radiation. You even admitted that in your submission. Tyndall measured the intensity of light at different wavelengths as it passed through different gases. He found many things, but one of them was that CO2 absorbed light at IR wavelengths. Based on your submission I don't think you understood that. It sounds as if you think he just held a thermometer up and measured the temperature in a CO2 atmosphere. No, that is not what he did. And, his experiments have been repeated and verified many times.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
