January 1, 2015
Mr. Keating, YOU and the IPCC have put forth the Hypothesis, NOT ME. YOU are saying that burning releases CO2 (science agree), but YOU and the IPCC are saying that CO2 gas in the atmosphere is NOT blocking heat from the sun cooling the earth, you say it is causing heating to the Earth's surface temperatures.
IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THE EXPERIMENTATION TO PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS. I don't have to prove anything, you do. Physics says what your Hypothesis claims is impossible, and examination of natural systems on earth and in the solar system shows your projections are not happening. Venus is cold not hot with its 95% CO2 atmosphere. The exact OPPOSITE of YOUR hypothesis.
The scientific method requires YOU to prove your Hypothesis that CO2 gas in the atmosphere will cause warming on the earth. To prove this scientifically, you need to either:
1. Set up and experiment demonstrating that it is possible, in a controlled laboratory setting, for an insulating gas to allow heat through it, without diminishing its total heat. This is impossible as we both know, insulators insulate. A thermal insulator will stop some heat. An infa-red camera recording the experiment will show that when you turned on the thermal heating element, thus introducing your simulated sun heat into the gas, that the gas THEN, started to emit infa-red light in all directions, thus deflecting that heat away from the target earth. The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us, that the infa-red heat the gas is emitting is the heat that entered the gas from the thermal emitter, the gas is not burning a fuel and making the heat, the heat is exogenous to the insulation gas.
YOUR hypothesis states heat enters through the insulation gas unaffected, but then where it is radiated back out by the earth, it is blocked partially from leaving giving the earth a greater heat balance.
So please, direct me to the published scientific article in which YOU or the IPCC proves this hypothesis? I"d like to read this violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics and of Conservation of Energy. I'm sure the rest of the world is interested in these violation as well.
What experiment did you do to prove your hypothesis?
YOU are making the claim, you must prove it scientifically.
2. Demonstrate vie observation of the natural world, that this hypothesis is supported by observed facts.
I've noted that Venus, an observed fact, has a solar temperature of only -444 degrees F. YOUR hypothesis states that it should be suffering from a run-away-greenhouse effect because of all that CO2 in its atmosphere, but it is not, it is very cold. The insulation gas has insulated the surface of Venus from the sun's heat, as all thermal insulators will do.
Science DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW manmade CO2 based greenhouse gas warming is NOT real, YOU must prove that it is. You must explain:
1, WHY Venus is so cold when it has so much CO2 in its atmosphere; and
2. How it is possible for the sun's heat to magically pass, undiminished, through the earth's blanket of insulating CO2 gas, as it enters the earth's atmosphere, and yet then be blocked by the same insulating CO2 gas, when it tries to leave.
I have read no such paper proving this hypothesis. Tell me or show me YOUR scientific experimental results, or the published article in which you have announced these results?
No such article exists as we both know, and no such experiment has been successfully conducted, as we both know.
I will give you an opportunity to refute the observed facts and the Law of Conservation of Energy by explaining to me now, how with no scientific experiment and no observed facts your hypothesis is correct?
Or to the contrary. Tell me how nature and the law of Conservation of Energy have not proven that CO2 gas greenhouse effect is impossible?
What errors are there in my post or math? You didn't state your grounds for stating:
"You are incorrect in supposing you did anything to show man made global warming is not real."
You merely state the though with no scientific support. Just like people who state that God created the earth 30,000 years ago, Evolution deniers!!!
Interesting that you, a supposed scientist, have lowered yourself to their deflection arguments rather than providing me with scientific data to back up your argument Father Keating.
I eagerly await your scientific reply, though I'm expecting a religious argument from you instead.
I await your reply Father Keating.
and Happy New Year!
and Happy New Year!
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international scientific organization that was set-up, by international request, under the auspices of the U.N. Its purpose is to consolidate the massive amount of research being done and to produce an assessment report. It does no research of it own and did not originate the concerns of climate change. In fact, the reason governments asked for it is because of the growing concerns over global warming and climate change. This is why I find it perplexing that so many deniers get foamy at the mouth at the mention of the IPCC.
Let’s set the record straight – the IPCC does not do scientific research, it produces periodic assessment reports of the international research that is being done. The fact the assessment reports run into thousands of pages is an indication of just how much research there is. The science has been going on for about 150 years and there was already a scientific consensus long before the IPCC was ever organized. Watch this video for a very good presentation on the history of the science:
And, climate change is not a hypothesis. Global warming and climate change is a fact and the science behind the conclusion is very well supported and proven. The reality is the conclusions on climate change and global warming are the result of many independent theories, each of which has been tested and verified over many decades and centuries. Deniers want to call it a hypothesis and want someone to produce a single scientific paper putting it forth, but that isn’t the way it works. Climate science is the single most complicated science because it involves all disciplines of science, even down to quantum mechanics and particle physics. Thinking of climate change as being a single theory is like thinking of a sky scraper as a single, manufactured piece of material rolling out of a factory.
You state that it is ‘you’ that has to do the experimentation. By ‘you’ I am assuming you are referring to the plurality of the scientific community. Strange that you would automatically put yourself outside of the realm of science like that. But, you are correct, the scientific community must do experimentation to verify the science. As I said above, this effort goes back about 150 years and even that original research was built on previous experimentally demonstrated science.
It is true that greenhouse gases do not block out the sunlight. This is because those molecules are transparent to sunlight. We can demonstrate this experimentally. Look outside during the daytime. Do you see things? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you have experimentally proven that enough of the sunlight gets through the atmosphere to reach the ground.
Now, do another experiment. Stand in the sunlight for a period of time (how long is up to you). Does being in the sunlight make you get warmer? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you have experimentally proven that incoming sunlight warms the surface.
For our next experiment, I want you to go into the shade out of the direct sunlight. Are you cooling down? If the answer is ‘yes,’ you have experimentally demonstrated that a body warmed by the sunlight will reradiate the energy.
Now, go into a dark place as you are cooling off and look at yourself in a mirror. Are you glowing in visible light? If the answer is ‘no,’ then you have experimentally proven that reradiated energy is in a different wavelength than the incoming visible light that you absorbed.
By experimentation, we have now proven that solar energy passes through the atmosphere, heats the surface, that energy is then reradiated and it is reradiated at a different wavelength than the originally absorbed radiation.
This is the key to understanding global warming because there are molecules that do not absorb visible light, but will absorb other wavelengths of light. In this case, the specific radiation we are interested in is infrared light. Greenhouse gases will absorb infrared light but not visible light. These molecules, just like your body, will reradiate that light. The difference between these molecules and the surface is the greenhouse gas molecules will reradiate it at the same wavelength they absorb – IR wavelengths. This radiation was emitted by the heated surface and was originally going in a generally upwards direction and would have gone out into space if nothing had gotten in its way, but something did (i.e., greenhouse gas molecules). Now, those molecules of greenhouse gas will reradiate it again, but now it is going in a random direction. Approximately half will go up and half will go down. Once reradiated, those photons of IR light can then be absorbed by something again, just to be reradiated yet again. In this way, greenhouse gases slow the cooling process of the surface. But, don’t forget that sunlight is still coming in and continues to add to the energy in the surface.
This, and much more, has all been demonstrated experimentally. So, you see, scientists have done the hard work. Now, it is YOU that has to accept we have done our share. YOU cannot say scientists have to prove it and then IGNORE the results when they come back. The scientific community has fulfilled its obligation in this matter. YOU have not.
As for Venus, how is it possible for you to claim the temperature on Venus is minus 444 degrees F? The amount of scientific literature on this topic is truly massive and the confirmed surface temperature of Venus is nearly 900 degrees F. There is no dispute in the scientific community on this issue.
I can tell you, if you are going to believe Venus is minus 444 degrees F, you will have ZERO credibility in the scientific community. You might as well discuss how aliens built a city on Mars.
The science has been proven and it has been proven conclusively. Those results are available for anyone that wishes to do their homework. I think I have addressed every one of your questions either here in this response, or in response to challenge submissions. You can see a list of those submissions here.
One last thing, I have tried to be as civil as I can to you. Please respond in kind. You have no idea of what my religious beliefs are and they would be irrelevant in any case. Stick to the science. You may address me as Dr. Keating, Professor Keating or Mr. Keating. You can even address me as Christopher or Chris. But, keep your uncivil bigotries to yourself.
"I've noted that Venus, an observed fact, has a solar temperature of only -444 degrees F"ReplyDelete
Don't be surprised Dr. Keatings, I've seen several deniers with about that much knowledge of science. In fact, one denier I was going at told me that acidifying that oceans only "makes it less alkali" and is not a problem. I was like:
This is a very entertaining post, Professor. I chuckled my way through your experiments until I got to "are you glowing" when I got a good belly laugh. I never leave articles about climate change feeling better than before I started reading, so thanks for writing the exception.ReplyDelete
I also applaud your civility. I can't tolerate inappropriate capitalization and his post is just lousy with it. It makes the author seem demented and uneducated and I have no time for people like that. But you never took any bites out of him. Kudos.
That was a good laugh.ReplyDelete
Thanks. I'm trying to be as civil as I can. At the same time, I will not let anyone bully me. That is one of the accepted tactics to try and intimidate proponents of climate change into silence. It is not going to work with me. I am taking a tactic of deleting comments that are offensive and inviting them to resubmit them in more civil manner. We'll see how that works.ReplyDelete