- The moon's daytime temperatures can get over 250 degrees F. It's nighttime temperatures can drop to -250 degrees F. If the atmosphere functions in a way as to carry heat away from the surface, wouldn't that mean that the moon has a thicker atmosphere than the Earth? After all, it removes heat so much more efficiently than the Earth's atmosphere does.Delete
I'm going to contact the Nobel Committee because I think you're onto something.
- Hello Eric,Delete
How does a moonly atmosphere that doesn't exist remove heat when its surface temperatures in sunlight reach such high numbers?
The reasoning and critical caliber of our AGW opponents at work.
Perhaps I missed something Eric?
- Hello Gary,Delete
You did miss something but it wasn't in my reasoning: why does the moon get so cold at night while the Earth stays warm at night?
The atmosphere is a double-edged sword. It blocks a lot of radiation that the Earth would otherwise receive, leading to cooler daytime temperatures on Earth. But the atmosphere also traps radiation, which is why it doesn't drop below zero on Earth as soon as the goes down.
That's the greenhouse effect. The Earth would be frozen without it. But if one were the slightest bit intuitive, they would come to the conclusion that increasing the amount of GHG would increase the atmosphere's ability to trap heat.
- Hello Eric,Delete
I see. So this so called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere regulates the temperatures of earth so that it is cooler in daylight and warmer at night. So it prevents the earth from being incinerated or frigid like its proximate cousin so deprived of an atmosphere.
Understand the purpose of an atmosphere!
- The Earth's surface is not a heat source, but it is an IR source. The short waves of sunlight pass through the atmosphere and are absorbed by the surface, heating it up. That is the ultimate source of heat. (I can make the same analogy with the body. It does not generate heat, it merely releases energy stored in the food eaten.) This IR radiation would then go straight out into space and away from the surface. IR radiation is just light, almost the same as what we see with our eyes, but longer wavelength. This is why the Moon gets so cold at night. The heat source (the Sun) has been removed and any energy stored in the rocks generates IR radiation that goes straight into space, so the temperature drops dramatically. On Earth, the atmosphere absorbs this energy by means of greenhouse gases. This is neither new nor controversial. If not for the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on Earth would be about -20 degrees Celsius. What has changed is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As we add more GHGs, more energy is trapped in the atmosphere and it takes it longer to get out to space, raising the average temperature.Delete
The reason we don't get as hot on the surface of the Earth as it gets on the Moon is because the atmosphere reflects a large percentage of the incoming sunlight back into space. Some is also absorbed high in the atmosphere (the ozone layer) so that energy never reaches the surface. The Moon has not atmosphere, so 100% of incoming sunlight reaches the surface and is absorbed.
And, yes, that is very similar to the way a blanket or coat works. Energy is absorbed by the blanket or coat, is reradiated in random directions, and slows the flow of energy from your body to the outside environment.
- Hello Mr. Keating,Delete
Nice of you to chime in. So the atmosphere keeps the earth cooler when bathed in sunlight. Doesn't that work against your AGW theory?
- Hello Gary,Delete
"So this so called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere regulates the temperatures of earth so that it is cooler in daylight and warmer at night."
Nonsense. The greenhouse effect is why the Earth stays warm. The fact that the Earth doesn't get incinerated has to do with the reflective properties of the atmosphere.
But your assertion in your initial post was that the moon's daytime temperatures are high because it doesn't have an atmosphere to remove heat from its surface. But the moon gets incredibly cold at night. If it has no atmosphere to remove heat from its surface, how does it get so cold?
The answer can be found in any sixth grade science text book (except those found in Texas). The moon gets hot in the daytime not because it doesn't have an atmosphere to remove heat from its surface; it gets hot because it doesn't have an atmosphere to reflect any of the suns radiation.
The Earth's atmosphere traps a portion of the heat that it receives from the sun. Arguing that it doesn't trap any heat is wronger than wrong. If you wish to make such an argument, however, you'll need to find a mechanism for why the Earth doesn't freeze over every night.
I wonder if you can audit a middle school science class...
- Hello Eric,Delete
The moon gets so hot because there is no atmosphere, or no atmosphere to blunt the full force of the sun's rays. The earth has an atmosphere with which it avoids the incineration disaster of the day that the moon endures. That is half the story.
Now do you agree with this half of the story or not? If so, then a thicker atmosphere will further blunt the incoming sun's rays leaving the earth cooler in daylight than it otherwise would have been. Agree or disagree?
- This is an example of why so many scientists just won't talk to deniers. You guys really do want to simply reject science. Basically, 30% of incoming sunlight gets reflected back into space, 19% gets absorbed by the atmosphere and 51% gets absorbed by the surface. Take a look at this graphic:Delete
The argument that a thicker atmosphere "will further blunt the incoming sun's rays" is not a valid argument unless you can show that the thicker atmosphere reflects sunlight efficiently. This is particularly true if it is more effective at retaining heat than reflecting it. In that case, any cooling that might occur due to increased reflectivity is offset by the increased efficiency of storing heat.
- Hello Mr. Keating,Delete
Well the science is very simple. The moon without an atmosphere has no capacity to dissipate the sun's energy. The earth with an atmosphere does. So does a thinner atmosphere or one more like the moon's better dissipate the sun's energy or does thicker atmosphere better do the job?
You should do a bit more research on the wavelengths of light that water or water vapour absorb, Mr. Keating, focusing upon the UV wavelengths in particular.
- You are so wrong that I have come to the conclusion that you just want to waste my timeDelete
- Hello Gary,Delete
Yes, that is only half of the story. The other half is that the Earth stays warm at night and the moon gets freezing at night. Why? You can't keep ignoring this fact. What is the reason for the dramatic temperature change on the moon and the not-so-dramatic temperature change on Earth?
Your conclusion is wrong because heat in the form of visible light still reaches the Earth's surface. That heat is then radiated back out into space in the form of infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb this IR radiation, instead of allowing it to flow freely back out into space. This increases the overall energy in the atmosphere, making it warmer.
Note: the atmosphere does not reflect ALL of the sun's radiation. If it did, it would be pitch black outside. Nor do greenhouse gases absorb ALL of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. If they did, the Earth would be more like Venus.
Speaking of, Venus has a very thick and reflective atmosphere. If a thicker atmosphere would "blunt" the sun's incoming rays (as you seem to maintain), why is Venus so hot?
- Hello Mr. Keating,Delete
I know that people wish to believe ideas more than they do facts, especially when those ideas are so dear to them. And of course there is always some resentment.
I did look at the child's graphic explaining the earth's absorption and dealing with the sun's energy. Does this report conditions at the earth's equator or is it valid from the equator to the poles? Is there not also a night time graphic explaining events in the absence of a sun? Is it always the case of clear blue skies with the odd cloud here and there? What of the effect of winds and such?
The is not a cartoon, Mr. Keating. You advance a theory that I find incomprehensible based on known physics and climate science, as do so many others. So if I were you, I would expect some resistance.
I am not wasting your time. You have said that CO2 cannot heat the earth. I agree. You have said that CO2 will add to the water in the atmosphere. Perhaps. If true, then a thicker atmosphere of water vapour will better absorb the sun's UV rays, further blunting or dissipating the sun's energy. Is this not correct?
- Hello Eric,Delete
Its called storage. The earth stores the energy of the sun throughout the day in a number of ways. At night, in the absence of the sun and with a cooling earth, the storage facilities begin to release this energy. This storage does not warm the earth from what it already was. It simply slows the rate at which the energy then releases to space.
Compared with the atmosphere deprived moon, cooler that the moon in the day and warmer than the moon at night.
Regarding Venus, why is Death Valley so hot? Does it have more CO2 in its vicinity, and thus water vapour than perhaps San Francisco? When you have the answer to this question, you will have the answer as to why Venus is the hot planet. The Ideal Gas Law may be of some help.
- The fact that you find the science incomprehensible is exactly the point you have made. The problem isn't the science. The problem is you.Delete
- Hello Mr. Keating,Delete
That may very well be, but its not my theory. It yours. So if one has difficulty understanding, then perhaps you are not doing a very good job of explaining this thing.
So do explain why the earth's GHG laden atmosphere daily ransoms the earth from the incineration suffered by its close and unshielded neighbor. Any person who lives near a lake can easily explain a moderation in temperatures from dwellers more distant. But you expect us to believe the opposite, contrary to all evidence.
There is no petulant cleaving to beloved and exotic theories. Science cares little for such childish fondnesses. Just look through comments of the grief stricken Ptolemaics. At least, they had a working theory.
- What factors prevent the moon from storing heat? Could it be because it has no atmosphere to capture some of the IR radiation that it is releasing into space? Seriously, how can the Earth "store" heat, but not the moon? And can you elaborate on these storage methods? What literature did you get that idea from?Delete
And don't obfuscate the issue here. Venus reflects about 90% of the sunlight it receives. The Earth reflects about 30% of the sunlight it receives. Why is Venus so much hotter?
If you come up with an answer to either of those questions that isn't "the atmosphere," then you should sue your school system. I'll testify.
Hey, maybe they'll settle out of court for that $30,000 that you need.
- Hello Eric,Delete
Why is Death Valley so much hotter than San Francisco? Does it have some composition in its soils or terrain that causes its daily incineration?
How can the earth store the sun's energy whereas the moon cannot? Well, how much water do you find on the moon? How much vegetation and plant life do we find on the moon? Similarly with a desert, which mimics greatly the climate of the moon.
Having you testify at my imagined civil trial against my school system would sink me.
- Oh, so it's the water and vegetation radiating heat.Delete
Now all you need is some evidence, and you've got yourself a viable position.
And death valley is hot because the valley walls prevent the heat from escaping the valley. It is also an arid environment with comparatively little plant life. Why don't its temperatures drop below freezing at night?
But this is the last comment. You haven't done your homework and I'm not doing it for you anymore.
- Hello Eric,Delete
I shall put in a quote from dear old Wikipedia, a loathsome organization.
When the sun heats the ground, that heat is then radiated upward, but the rising air is trapped by (1) the surrounding elevation and (2) the weight of the air (essentially the atmospheric pressure) above it. The atmospheric pressure is higher at very low altitudes than it is under the same conditions at sea level. This pressure traps the heat near the ground, and also creates wind currents that circulate very hot air, thereby distributing the heat to all areas, regardless of shade and other factors.
On Venus, what do we find in values for atmospheric pressures? Its far hotter on Venus. So is atmospheric pressure greater or less than what we find in Death Valley?
Greater? Less? You choose.
- Hello Eric,Delete
And the answer is greater or less atmospheric pressure?
- Hello Eric,Delete
The confirmation and evidence of the earth's storage facilities comes with the fact that the earth is cooler in daylight and warmer at night than the moon which has no storage facilities in water and plant life.
- No, I want a published paper that says that. Everything I can find says the Earth stays warm at night because the atmosphere traps radiation as it leaves the surface. You say it's "storage." Where did younget the idea from? Sources please?Delete
Put up or can it.
- Yes, the water on the earth and water vapour in the atmosphere traps or stores the energy of the sun. Then it releases it in the absence of the sun. That is I suppose why they call it a greenhouse gas. Is this news to you? Even Keating admits as much. You want a paper? Why not just read a textbook.Delete
- No I just needed you to admit that the greenhouse effect exists. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas but so are hydrocrabons.Delete
In short, the atmosphere is why we stay warm at night.
- Eric, this guy is not engaging in a debate. He is just trying to tie up someone in endless replies. If I need to, I will spam him.Delete
- Hello Eric,Delete
I absolutely agree. The storage facility releases the energy stored up during the day keeping us warmer than we might have been had we been on the moon. But the atmosphere and water also keeps us cooler in daylight as it goes about storing all that sun's energy. There are two sides to a coin. If that's what you mean by the greenhouse effect, then so be it: cooler in the day and warmer at night.
Its a lot more complicated with the winds, convection, and atmospheric pressures added. But let's start small. Baby steps first.
- Actually, this is the reason that climate scientists won't talk to deniers. After they saw what happened to these 49 NASA scientists who raised questions about Global Warming, they are afraid for their jobs. It is not a scientific consensus. It is a fear-driven political consensus, run from the top with an iron fist!Delete
The so-called "consensus" on global warming is just about as valid as Saddam Hussein's reelection by a 100% consensus in the Iraqi Parliament in those days.
And, it has been established in the same manner. By top-down, fear driven mandate.
- Dr. Keating,Delete
The sad thing is that I've know for the last several comments that this guy is just trolling, but I've been on vacation the last few days so...
But it just occurred to me that you've had to open up three pages because of all of the comments so I'll end this now an apologize for feeding the trolls.
I won't leave the blog entirely but I'm done with this clown.
Best of luck with these people.
- Jonathan Gal is another troll. Watch out for him.Delete
Don't worry about the page. I can make as many as I need.
- I actually have a degree in political science. This type of denialism is a subject of interest for me for political reasons. It seems that deniers and conspiracists of all stripes share the same sort of crippled epistemology.Delete
I should be more objective, but it's more fun to get in the trenches.
Anyway, give 'em hell.
- It is an interesting topic of study and I have frequently wondered why someone will so strongly defend some stand so strongly when all of the evidence shows they are wrong. Climate change is just one example and it isn't always science. Some one may be convinced another person is guilty/innocent of a crime, even though the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive and there is nothing you can do to change their minds. There are many more examples. The question is, why?Delete
- Confirmation bias and anti intellectualism seem to be recurring themes but I suspect there is more to it.Delete
I'll let you know if I ever find out.
- AnonymousJuly 7, 2014 at 4:48 AM"And that 'questions link' must have been some such attempt at a joke. How amusing. I would definitely say keep to the occupation of physicist in place of comedian, but I hesitate because I think your true calling has yet to reveal itself."
That is rather mean hearted of you. Whether Dr. Keaton turns out to be right or wrong should be beside the point. He has already admitted bias on this issue, which is great for documentation purposes; he is being honest, and he is entitled to his opinion. Having an opinion is not particularly scientific, but it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent thinking human being who is without opinions. There is nothing wrong with this. Do not use that honesty as a weapon to try and tank his career... unless you want to send a clear message to other scientists that they can neither be honest and have opinions and simultaneously keep their careers.
The path of progress is always filled with potholes, uncertainty, doubt, and no small amount of randomness. Scientists navigate this path often not knowing where to go; they develop some hunch, then they follow it; sometimes they find a dead end; sometimes they find something truly enlightening. It should not matter which path Dr. Keaton has taken, whether he turns out to be right or wrong; he has been honest about his stance on things; don't use that honest as a cross to crucify him.
No scientist should lose their career because someone thinks that politically it is the convenient thing to do.
- On my blog, I wrote a piece entitled, "Flaws In The Global Warming Hypothesis." There is a link to it, below, and I will summarize here the key points of the article, which refutes the hypothesis of the global warming hypothesis ...ReplyDelete
1. The Heat Capacity of CO2 (ie its ability to absorb heat) is actually lower than the Heat Capacity of Air. So, as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat actually decreases. This will create the opposite effect of what the alarmists suggest. This will cool the earth.
2. The Thermal Conductivity of CO2 is lower than the Thermal Conductivity of Air, which means that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more reflective of heat. This will increase the reflectivity of the atmosphere for heat travelling in both directions. Heat attempting to leave the earth will be reflected back towards the earth, which will create a warming effect. However, the heat coming from the sun and trying to enter the atmosphere will also be reflected away from the earth and back out into outer space, which will have a cooling impact. So, the change in reflectivity of the atmosphere, from rising CO2 levels, has two competing impacts on the temperature of the earth. One is a cooling impact. The other is a warming impact. These two impacts will cancel each other out, creating zero net impact on the temperature of the earth.
3. The ice core data are highly unreliable, due to questions about diffusion of CO2 through the ice cores, as well as alternative explanations for the observed data, which have not been adequately addressed.
Please follow the link below for the complete article that I wrote on this matter.
- PS: For your reference, I am a Biology graduate of Harvard College from the 1980s. I scored in the top decile of my MCAT's, with a particularly strong score in Physics (top 2% in Physics). After receiving an A in my basic Physics class at Harvard, I was asked by the professor to pursue a PhD in Physics, a request that I declined.Delete
- Mr. Gal, this is a response to both your reply to my post and this post. As for whether I have an indirect interest on this issue, I want to separate the science from the politics. What I mean by that is even supposing Climate Change is man made--I'm not indicating it is or isn't, I really don't know--that doesn't necessarily lead to the political conclusion of a Carbon Tax. To me the fact that politicians have suggested it as a solution is a failure of politics which has lead to this becoming a political issue. It would seem a more Economically beneficial policy to hold if Climate Change is man made is to incentivize research into creating technology that could, "clean," the problem. Again, this may sound naive, but if Climate Science followed the Scientific Method through experimentation instead of statistics--refer to my earlier posts where I discuss this--one of the by products would be some sort of technological solution.Delete
- Now, Mr Gal, in regards to this post. It seems to me like your points one and two form the basis for a testable hypothesis. The problem is that I don't believe it has been tested. Part of the Scientific method is create an experiment where this can be tested. So, in the interest of Science and you are an educated man, maybe you know of some kind of experiment that could test the hypothesis. Again, read my previous comments to see why this may will probably take longer than a month to do and might take more than $30,000.00 to do. But, in the interest of Science, your suggestion may lead someone with the time to conduct the Scientific Method through experimentation and test the hypothesis.Delete
To me, the most compelling argument is point three. That is why I requested the most definitive peer review article proving climate change is man made. If the most compelling article is simply some statistical regression or the like of historical data points over time well that is easy to refute. Essentially, that is not the Scientific Method and not Science. If that is the most definitive evidence--I don't know if it is--then I can easily impose other unrelated data sets with no connection to climate change and show that statistically that is the cause as well. Again, I would only do this not in the interest of Climate Change but in the general interest of Science. The point being Statistics in't Science, it is a tool but not the Science itself. The ultimate problem when Statistics is treated as Science, aside from the one you pointed out in three, is that ultimately Statistics will never provide the solution. I can elaborate, but does this make sense? Also, you can look on my previous comments on this page to get a better sense of my argument.
Again, my interest is only in having an honest discussion.
- Jonathan Gal: Your submission has been accepted and I will post it with my response as quickly as I can. It is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Heat Capacity" Watch for it but understand there are over 25 submissions ahead of you. Please be patient.Delete
- Thanks for the notification, Dr. Keating. I have some additional thoughts, which I probably should've listed as "Point #4." I will publish, here, below; and you can do as you wish with them.Delete
- Addendum To My Original Post:Delete
Point #4: PV = nRT
As the number of moles of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, then - all else being equal - the volume of the atmosphere will increase, not the Temperature. Why? Because the outer surface of the atmosphere faces the zero pressure environment of outer space. So, there is nothing for the gases of the atmosphere to "push against."
If there were some sort of barrier (say, for example, a massive plastic sheet that surrounded the entire atmosphere and restricted its physical expansion), then the Volume would be fixed, and the increased number of moles of CO2 would cause both pressure and temperature to rise, according to the Ideal Gas Law. However, there is no physical boudary surrounding the atmosphere. Therefore, as the number of moles of CO2 increases, then the volume of the atmosphere expands without raising pressure or temperature.
In effect, the atmosphere has a massive, built-in "pressure release valve."
- Point #4 has been included.Delete
- Further on Point #4.Delete
This also explains why people observe an increase in temperature in a "coke bottle experiment", where pressurized CO2 is pumped into a two-litre, plastic bottle.
It is not the heat capacity or the heat conducitivity of the CO2 that causes the observed temperature increase.
Rather, it is the pressure increase inside the Fixed Volume container, which causes the temperature increase, according to the Ideal Gas Law.
PV = nRT
When the V is fixed by the container, then the increase in # moles and the increase in the Pressure from the pressurized CO2, does cause a temperature rise.
However, this model (the "Coke Bottle Model" is not a good model of the atmosphere, because it is a fixed volume model. The atmosphere does not have a physical, outer boundary, like the coke bottle does. Therefore, the volume of the atmosphere can expand, unlike the volume of the plastic coke bottle.
In other words, the atmosphere has a built-in "pressure release valve", as I already stated.
- Point #5:Delete
This letter, from 49 high level NASA scientists who were later fired from their skepticism on global warming, is really all the proof that anyone needs.
Global Warming is a political movement, run by a group of highly aggressive and unethical left-wing leaders who employ the same kind of tactics employed by Saddam Hussein in order to maintain the so-called "scientific consensus." In short, scientists who speak out against it are terminated.
It's not a scientific consensus that was arrived at through open, honest, intellectual exchange of ideas and data. Rather, it is a political consensus that is enforced by Stalinesque political tactics.
Putting aside the science, this is all you really need to know to disprove the hypothesis ...
- But, if that's not enough, then how about a little history on the current Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.Delete
Hansen, it turns out, is much more of an activist than a scientist. Someone with such extreme views as this will not create the kind of culture in which open and honest discussion of the sciences can occur. Someone with these kinds of extreme, left-wing views will apply extreme leftist tactics (a.k.a. Stalinism) to achieve his goals ...
" As Brian Sussman points out in his explosive new book “Eco-Tyranny,” there is nothing new about these kinds of statements, as Hansen has a long history of extreme claims and advocacy on behalf of large-scale government regulation.
For example, in May 2011, Hansen advocated redistribution of wealth by placing a “flat rising fee on carbon” with the objective of “affect[ing] consumers and chang[ing] lifestyles. People with lavish lifestyles will pay more in increased energy costs … and they will see that their personal decisions make a difference.”
Clearly, he is using the issue as a justification for wealth redistribution. Honest science and/or real environmental goals take a back seat to his real goal of wealth redistribution ...
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/rebellion-at-nasa-against-global-warming/#fzuGCohegdYslXbB.99
- With regard to the NASA scientists, I thought I had read somewhere that the 49 scientists who wrote that letter were later fired. At the moment, I cannot find my source on that. I was going from memory. Apparently, my memory has not served me well.Delete
However, there are some other articles about people who have experienced career troubles as a result of their global warming skepticism, one example of which follows:
- Here is another high level scientist who experienced "Climate McCarthyism" when he began to raise doubts about the science of global warming. This may have been what I was remembering ...Delete
- And, a report of a journal article being rejected because it doesn't fit with the political narrative.Delete
- "The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’ "Delete
That is not a scientific reason for rejecting an article. That is a political and public relations reason.
- Wow! You have all of this time to comment on my blog, but not enough time to do your own homework.Delete
I have reviewed several of these claims that papers were denied because they were contrary to climate change. Everyone I have looked at has been a false claim. This is just one more thing deniers use to deceive the public.
- Allegations of Climate McCarthyism and Leftist Bias notwithstanding, I do still look forward to your discussion of my scientific issues with the hypothesis (Points #1 - #4).Delete
- And, where is your homework, Dr. Professor?Delete
You allege that the claims in the articles I posted are false, but you did not provide any verification or substantiation for your allegations.
Please site your source for the allegation that these are false claims.
- And, by the way, saying simply "I am the professor, and therefore I am right" does not carry any weight in my book.Delete
Such assertions only prove the point that those in positions of authority are abusing their authority. I don't respond to authority. I respond to logic and reason ... scientific reason.
And, I am still waiting for your scientific discussion of my points #1 - #4. You have yet to address those.
- I am not aware I ever said "I am the professor, therefore I am right." I will address your points, but it will probably take a couple of weeks. Like I told you earlier, there are over 20 submissions ahead of you. You can track the progress I am making on this page:Delete
- AnonymousJuly 6, 2014 at 7:48 PMMr Gal,Delete
On the letter form the "49 NASA scientists" perhaps you should read your own link. First off, the people who signed the letter couldn't have been fired for their beliefs - they specifically refer to themselves in the letter as "former NASA employees".
Secondly, a quick perusal of the list of authors reveals that,far from being "top NASA scientists", this is a list of engineers,astronauts, administrators, and launch/rocket/mateirals scientists. There is not one person trained in climate science, meteorology, or anything close to pertaining to the topic at hand. Just being a former NASA employee doesn't automatically give them any automatic gravity regarding climate, or indeed any other topic in which they aren't trained.
For the record, my name is Paul Cottle. I'm a former NASA employee (at GSFC) and PhD student in atmospheric science. By no means a climate expert - but I CAN read.
- AnonymousJuly 6, 2014 at 9:56 PMLOL! PV=nRT???? nuff said. Why is Earth do you think it okay to use classical thermodynamics? I bet your one of those idiots who thinks that you'd freeze if you stepped outside of a space ship.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 7, 2014 at 6:33 AMPaul,
Hi this is anonymous #2. As a member of the scientific community, you should know what the average student's likelihood of getting a faculty position, then tenure is, it is rather low. At the moment, one could call academic science rather competitive. If you are good and lucky, you can become a principal investigator (PI). Much of a PI's time is spent applying for a seemingly ever dwindling supply of grant money. In fact, one might compare the process to a rat race, where all head PI's compete for a piece of the same pie. The availability of grant money on a particular research area is strongly dependent on the politics, at the time. Just ask the unfortunate biologists who were interested in stem cell research a few years ago.
We have plenty of bright boys and girls with degrees in all sorts of branches of engineering and science who would love to build rockets to send people up to Mars. They existed back in 1972 as well. It's been over 40 years since that time; lately we have been sending our astronauts up to the ISS on russian rockets because we don't have the political capital to generate the money needed to make our own. Frankly, this situation is a little embarrassing.
This goes pretty far to prove that science in the US is inextricably linked to the politics of the time. It is generally treated, at a national level, as a surplus-budget pastime; as opposed to an economy stimulating activity. To the savvy "guild" of physicists; they know that grant money is their career's lifeblood. Without it, they cannot do research. They cannot make money, they cannot afford bread. So what does the savvy "guild" of physicists do? They play politics to give themselves a bigger piece of the grant pie. The economists have a name for this kind of behavior, they call it "rent-seeking".
This has several unfortunate, unintended consequences; first of all, it has the nauseating effect of generating intense dependency of the scientists and their research on the political whims. Secondly, if you think that marketing has a strong "reality distortion field"; you should really take a long hard look at the history of politics. This has a more dangerous consequence... when facts become intentionally distorted or exaggerated by the scientific community out of desperation.
There has another possible dynamic to this which is interesting... guild membership. Anyone who is part of the guild, doesn't really want to say anything that will reduce the money the guild obtains. Anyone who is outside of the guild, who tries to call foul can be dismissed as not being part of the "guild", therefore, not an expert in the area of "guild foo". Paul, dismissing those who are not climate experts shuts down discussion; some people fall for this tactic, but it is a political tactic and it is also not a scientific thing to say, "they are not climate scientists".
What is a rocket scientist, really? They are not that different from climate scientists. The undergraduate education that they receive is the same, this gives them their BS. The graduate education that they receive, by and large, and discounting a class or two, is the same! They understand dynamics. They can make things fly in the atmosphere, so to dismiss them as being incapable of understanding the "finer intricacies" of the atmosphere because they are not the flavor of guild member that you are, is insulting, counter productive, and just plain wrong. Because you damn well know that they probably know as much about the math that drives dynamics as you do, and they might even know more. All that it takes to screw up that hockey stick graph is for a little system; maybe a forest, maybe an oceanic algae growth, that drains CO2 from the atmosphere faster than your climate model predicts.
I will quote the Princess Bride: "We are not politicians. We are scientists. Discombobulating the public does not become us. "AnonymousJuly 3, 2014 at 5:17 PMA basic premise of logic that one cannot prove non-existence. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that an object is not on a table, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence as this challenge asks.ReplyDelete
These types of negative proofs are common and are most often used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. Because you can’t prove non-existence, the burden of proof is correctly on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning it.
This type of challenge is essentially the same as me offering the professor $1M if he can prove that unicorns do not exist. He can offer significant evidence of the non-existence, but he can never prove it.
Since proof of non-existence is logically impossible, I certainly hope that after Professor Keating rejects the submissions (as he must since it is impossible to offer a complete proof of non-existence), he does not then claim this as proof his argument is true.Replies
- If it is impossible to do, then why do deniers keep making the claim? I am merely providing a venue for deniers to do what they claim they can. But, you are saying it is impossible? Thanks, you are just making my point for me. If you don't like the shift of responsibility, as you call it, then don't claim it is easy to prove man made global warming is easy to prove.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 3, 2014 at 7:00 PMYou would have to ask them. I am only pointing out the logical fallacy and resulting impossibility in the challenge. I took no position on the underlying issue.Delete
I am also not sure what you mean by "then don't claim it is easy to prove man made global warming is easy to prove." I made no such claim.
- There is no logical fallacy. That is yet another false argument made by deniers that can't come through with their claims. All they have to do is prove there is another explanation for what is observed and that it covers all of the scientific data. That certainly falls under the scientific method. Again, just another false argument deniers make to deceive the public.Delete
- If you haven't made the claim, then the challenge isn't directed at you.Delete
- AnonymousJuly 3, 2014 at 8:08 PMI think you are missing the point. Even if the applicant "proves there is another explanation for what is observed and that it covers all of the scientific data." that still does not prove via scientific method "that man-made global climate change is not occurring" as is required by the challenge.Delete
- No, you're wrong and if you would do some homework you would know that. The strongest evidence of man made global warming is that the only way we can explain everything we observe is to include man made effects. If you were to show that this is not true then you have shown man made global warming is not real.Delete
I have about three dozen submissions so far. If you don't want to submit, that is fine. You are free to believe anything you want.
- Anonymous, you had the absence of evidence fallacy somewhat correct in you first paragraph (though this is not a basic premise of logic), but then you forgot that in your last paragraph. Not absence of evidence = evidence of absence is _not always fallacious_. As you mentioned in your first paragraph. "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - from Wikipedia, "Evidence of absence". Now that i have clarified that, let me say that it is entirely irrelevant. There is no negative to be proved here. There is a positive claim that deniers are making, namely that observed climate change can be attributed to purely natural factors. To provide evidence to that claim, for instance, they could fill in the gap between the observed climate change, and what's calculated to be due to natural factors: http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html However, that would introduce another problem: that would make the combined natural + anthropocentric factors way above observation. So they'd somehow have to show, also, that the anthropocentric factors are miscalculated or mis-measured. One might, for instance, due experiments in a lab to show that carbon does not deflect light/heat the way we think it does, or that our way of measuring the amount of carbon is wrong. However, you are right on this: if i were to, say, burn a leaf, that would by definition by altering atmospheric composition - every so slightly, yes - to claim otherwise - and furthermore to claim that none of our actions impact our surroundings - is just downright absurd. But that is not the hypothesis that evidence is being asked for. The hypothesis is a weaker one: that the observed large-scale variations in climate can be explained by natural phenomena (not including home sapiens).Delete
- to clarify re "proof of non-existence is logically impossible". let's make the claim that set A does not contain element b. This is a claim of non-existence. Now if I can prove that 1) i have examined every element is set A, and 2) none of them are b, I have therefore proved that set A does not contain element b. Note this is not the only way to prove non-existence. For instance, I might show that b belongs to the set not-A, or that it belongs to a set C, which does not intersect set A. or I might prove that all elements of set A neccessarily contain a property d, and element b does not contain that property. or we might prove element b to be logically impossible, e.g. by showing that it's self-refuting. etc. there are in fact many different ways to logically prove non-existence.Delete
- in general, see "first order logic": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic (correction - i had previously said second-order, but this is actually first-order) Now having said all this, i want to reiterate that it is all entirely irrelevant, as Mr. Keating is asking for evidence for the _positive_ claims that deniers have made that they can provide evidence that human activity is not a significant contributor to climate change. They said they have positive evidence. Mr. Keating is asking them to provide it. He will pay them handsomely for it.Delete
- Thank you. Plus, note that my stand on the issue is irrelevant to the challenge. I could actually be a denier (I am most definitely not) and the challenge would be unaffected.Delete
I did read through your response. Its so wonderful that you actually responded. The seeming emergency stemmed from having to endure further of Paul's 'expert' comments. Also, your marked presence in every other thread and absence in mine left me somewhat alienated and self conscious.
We all know the purpose of a blanket. We all understand its material structure.
A blanket has a purpose in that it can shield or insulate our bodies from the elements without. However, its structure is in no way comparable with that of fluid mixture of gasses in our atmosphere.
And that 'questions link' must have been some such attempt at a joke. How amusing. I would definitely say keep to the occupation of physicist in place of comedian, but I hesitate because I think your true calling has yet to reveal itself.
A blanket cannot raise one's body temperature. It can only slow heat loss. The earth is not generating its own heat. It is dependent upon another body for that function. The source of this IR energy escaping the earth is outside the blanket, not neatly contained within it. So you have a bit of a problem.
Secondly, the atmosphere's function is not to trap heat, but rather to carry it away from the surface of the earth. I posed to you the problem of the moon possessing daytime temperatures far greater than those found on earth with its GHG laden atmosphere. How can there be such a result when AGW theories lead us to the opposite outcome. Very strange.
Perhaps there is within you an ability or artfulness in enlightening us on this seeming absurdity, but I really doubt it.
Just to let you know that I gambled away the $30,000, so my bookie is expecting prompt payment. I thought the soccer team would make the final 8. I should stay with football.