Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 Next
Comments 21201 to 21250:
-
Rudmop at 17:31 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
275 ad hominem Rob. There is no benifit to have this in a scientific discussion; it comes across as an attempt at forcing a model that has failed on its predictions to fit in the true/true square of the truth table, when all along it was the false/true square. In the scientific truth table a true hypothesis will always give rise to a true prediction; whereas a false hypothesis may give rise to a true or false prediction. It could also be that the evidence coming from the experiment may either be true or false. In otherwords, you can get evidence that will seem to support your hypothesis, even though your hypothesis is wrong. I think it is well established that we all have the same hypothesis; carbon dioxide traps in IR photons and sets a new equilibrium for the rate of incoming solar radiation and emitted blackbody radiation from the surface. The disagreement is in the value for this equilbirium. For the past half century, Scientists have performed simple enough experiments that measure the differences in radiance of peak IR absorption for CO2 at the surface and at TOA. I think they forgot to include an effect similiar to compton scattering, only not with x-rays, rather with IR waves. Water molecules in the liquid state can absorb these rays. The liquid surface can absorb rays reflected to it, and liquid in condensation nuclei of clouds can absorb rays passed through them. Ignoring this feature can lead to the appearance that CO2 is trapping in more heat than it actually does. Of course time holds the answer, securely locked away behind the wizzards curtain, in a time capsual box. The box gets opened when predictions come true. We have not melted the Arctic, we have not risen the seas, we have not caused California to stay in a drought, we have not been able to maintain an ever increasing pattern in the temperature anomaly. There have been pauses and there is going to be a huge one this year. It has already started. So do observations support my results. YES! They even work well with Venus.
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive repitition and sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Rudmop at 16:55 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
You forgot foraminiferal ooze to go along with the carbon sink sequestration, in your example of silicate rock weathering. Venus has the advantage of the inverse square law; however, it also reflects more of the solar radiation incident upon it. It also has a sulfur dioxide concentration of 150 ppmv. Using the value I got for Carbon dioxide deg./ppmv on earth, based upon .28 deg/404 ppm and ignoring the other differences we would expect that CO2 alone on venus would contribute to a surface temperature of 669 deg C above its blackbody temperature of 226.6 K; but it is only 510C. So clearly, my estimation is not too high, if this is the route you want to take. I am within 76% agreement. what is the agreement that the climate scientists have predicted the earth's temperature to rise for the corresponding rise in CO2?
Moderator Response:[PS] This is not "comparing with observations": it is dangerously close to sloganeering. What you have to do is you use your physical model and from it derive the say the surface temperature of venus; or the lapse rate on earth; or better still what the observable spectral signature of DLR or OLR would be under your model, and compare it what it observed. Do it for observations with different water vapour. Agreed that this is not suitable for a blog comment so do the math, put it up somewhere and post a link to it here. (And as for forminiferal ooze please learn some basic chemistry though this is a common mistake)
-
Digby Scorgie at 16:41 PM on 27 February 2017Trump can save his presidency with a great deal to save the climate
John
Having read the Salon piece, I can't help feeling that the Trump administration is acting in exactly the same way that Hitler and his cronies did to persuade and bully the German people to his worldview. Or am I wrong about this parallel?
-
Ogemaniac at 15:50 PM on 27 February 2017As EPA head, Scott Pruitt must act on climate change
The LNT "myth" has not been debunked. It is certainly an area of legitimate scientific contention, however. I do not think it will have a significant impact on the public debate or nuclear plant costs in any case.
http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/58/1/7.short?rss=1
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:11 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
And honestly, if you didn't do this in the paper you've already submitted... I don't think you'll get past the waste paper basket at the front desk.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:08 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Try this. Think of a specific observation that would demonstrate that CO2 has a tiny impact on global temperature, as you suggest.
The rest of the scientific community has done this in spades over the past century. Exit from snowball earth events. Early faint sun paradox. Silicate rock weathering. Temperature excursions with the Siberian/Deccan traps. Etc.
Or, alternatively, apply your theory to Venus. Tell us what your equations output for the surface temperature.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:01 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Sorry, bubba. You can't just claim reality is your observational evidence.
-
Rudmop at 14:54 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Sorry, the other 99.13% is due to water vapor. I'm out now.
-
Rudmop at 14:42 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rob Honeycutt, @268,
If you walk outside right before sunrise tomorrow, and you experience a temperature of -18 Celsius, then you will be able to tell me if my results explain my observations and yours. On the other hand if you walk outside right before sunrise and the temperature is 32.8 degrees warmer than the blackbody average for your latitude, then my results will explain your observations. 0.87 percent of this temperature is due to the contribution that CO2 provides in trapping in surface heat. The remaining 99.13 is due to carbon dioxide. If you would like to factor in the ground level ozone, N2O5, CH4 then the values will change a bit.
-
Rudmop at 14:32 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
It will also depend on the amount of IR energy absorbed by water vapor and Carbon Dioxide molecules. These three ratios (concentration, diffusion rate, and IR absorption energy) are the meat and potatoes of my model.
-
Rudmop at 14:29 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom, I appologize for misreading your statement. I see what you are saying now; thankyou for the clarification. If we both agree on how heat is transferred by the greenhouse gas molecules in the atmoshpere, more than 100 meters above the surface, by first absorbing IR photons, and then transferring the energy via elastic collisions, then it should be evident that the number of collisions that can occur between water vapor and all other molecules and carbon dioxide and all there molecules will depend on concentraion and velocity. This is an important part of my model.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:15 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... I trust that you've gone through a large number of calculations to get to a result. That's not the question at hand. The question would be, do your results explain observations?
If it doesn't, sorry. No Nobel Prize.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop @255:
"Tom Curtis in 253, mentions that there are 380,000 (millions) of collisions that an excited CO2 or H2O molecule will experience before it returns to it ground state energy level. This implies that there are millions of quantum transitions between excited state and ground state (which he incorrectly refers to as the base energy state);"
No, I indicated that in the mean time to return to the ground state if there is no interference, around 380,000 collisions will have taken place, each of which has a significant probability of returning the molecule to the ground state with the excess energy either causing the other molecule (if of the same type) to enter an excited state, or more probably, with the excess energy being converted to kinetic energy. At the same time, each of those collisions also has a low probability of causing a molecule in the ground state to enter an excited state. The result is that radiation from the gas will be thermal radiation, ie, radiation described by Planck's Law.
"... it leads one to wonder it he also is implying that in each collision, there is a high energy transformation between the excited molecule and one of the other 990,596 ppmv that are not greenhouse gases"
You to wonder that, but there is not basis in what I said for that speculation. There is a high probability in each collision that the energy of the excited state if retained to that point, will be transferred to kinetic energy. But if transferred, the molecule is then in the ground state, and cannot transfer the energy a second time on subsequent collissions (as you are suggesting).
"If this is indeed the implication, then it is a gross misrepresentation of the Kinetic Molecular theory, in which all collisions are elastic collisions. The first question that arises is, where the kinetic energy conservation?"
The Kinetic Molecular Theory (or the Kinetic Theory of Gases), is an ideal theory known to be false in its assumptions. In particular, of the assumptions (below), assumptions (1), (2), (4), and (5) are known to be false of real gases. Unless you are prepared that all molecules are spherical in shape (assumption 1), that they are not subject to gravitational acceleration (assumption 2), that they are not subject to van der Waal's forces, or the strong and weak forces (assumption 4), you have no right to insist that assumption (5) obtains in actuallity, rather than in approximation.
- Gases are composed of a large number of particles that behave like hard, spherical objects in a state of constant, random motion.
- These particles move in a straight line until they collide with another particle or the walls of the container.
- These particles are much smaller than the distance between particles. Most of the volume of a gas is therefore empty space.
- There is no force of attraction between gas particles or between the particles and the walls of the container.
- Collisions between gas particles or collisions with the walls of the container are perfectly elastic. None of the energy of a gas particle is lost when it collides with another particle or with the walls of the container.
- The average kinetic energy of a collection of gas particles depends on the temperature of the gas and nothing else.
Further, there is no theory of the conservation of kinetic energy. There is a theory of the conservation of energy, but nothing I have said suggests it is violated (unlike your speculation).
What is worse for your argument is that you have already agreed that IR radiation captured by CO2 raises surface air temperatures, however minimally. It follows that they increase the mean kinetic energy of the near surface atmosphere, ie, violate the non-existent law of conservation of kinetic energy. It also means that they convert radiant energy to osciliatary (or rotational) energy, which is then converted to kinetic energy by collisions. If there was any validity in your argument, it would refute your own theory.
Your attempts to justify your theory in the face of criticism are becoming increasingly desperate and ridiculous.
-
Rudmop at 12:47 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rob Honeycutt, in my percentage figures, that are based upon a questionable temperature anomaly, not my own value, but IPCC's value, I have supplied the elementary math.
If you are referring to the value of .28 degrees that I arrived at, here is what I did. I calculated the concentration ratio for CO2:H2O. I used an average value of 404 ppmv for CO2 and a value of 8000ppmv for H2O. Both of these figures are very reasonable figures. I am not going to do the gas law calculations to show how I arrived at such an agreeable figure for the average water vapor concentration. The math you are requesting is 404 ppmv CO2/8000 ppmv H2O Vapor and the answer is 0.051.
I used Grahams Law of Effusion to calculate the ratio for the diffusion rates of CO2:H2O vapor. You can do this and you will get a ratio of 0.64 for the rate of diffusion of both gases.
If you are looking for big calculus equations, perhaps you can apply an integral to the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and water vapor to calculate the absorption energy of an excited molecule of carbon dioxide and an excited molecule of water vapor in superposition. I took the integral for the wavelenght values 14.8 um to 15.2 um for carbon dioxides IR spectral absorption. I also took the integral of its spectral absorption over the wavelengths from 4.3 um to 4.0 um. Since water vapor will emit wavelenght in the range IR wavelength 2.4 to 3.0 um when it undergoes deposition and condensation respectively, I integrated the energy absorption for carbon dioxide at these wavelenghts. For water vapor absorption energy, I integrated the energy absorption values for the wavelengths from 15um ot 27 um and 2.5 um to 3.4 um, noting that even though the blackbody radiation almost entirely excludes the wavelenghts 2.5um to 3.4 um, the fact that the exothermic phase changes of water during depostion and condensation will emit these wavelenghts. Finally I integrated the values for the IR absorption energy from wavelenghts 4.9 um to 8.0 um for water vapor. Please not that I do multiply by a factor of .125 to the integration result from wavelengths in the 4um to the 7 um range because the blackbody emission of these wavelengths is so low. The absorption energy ratio of CO2 to H2O is 0.27
Multiplying all these coefficients together to determine the absolute coefficeint for the ratio of how many time CO2 can absorp and transfer heat as compared to water you get 0.0087. Multiply this by the of the temperature above blackbody temperature that these gases maintain (32.8 deg. C), and you arrive at the answer of .29 degrees for carbon dioxide and 32.51 for water vapor.
I know this approach does not use differences in ground level radiance and TOA radiance for peak absorption wavelenghts of CO2. It is my asserction that since liquid water can absorb at the 15 um wavelengths then some of these wavelengths will be blocked by water droplets on the surface of condensation nuclei in clouds. There will be no way to determine what percentage of these waves are blocked by CO2 and water in the clouds.
-
michael sweet at 11:50 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom,
Thank you for the information on Arhennius. I now understand a little more about how he did his calculations.
-
michael sweet at 11:44 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop,
Tom's description of molecular collisions reads:
"The notion that a CO2 molecule "... cannot hold on to any trapped energy for an indefinite amount of time", while accurate, is irrelevant. Even at 85 km altitude (US standard atmosphere), an excited CO2 (or H2O) molecule will, on average, experience 380,000 (a million) collisions before it would typically have spontaneiously returned to a base energy state by emitting a photon. Within the troposphere the figure is closer to 5 billion collisions. Therefore absorbed radiation is rapidly transmitted to the rest of the atmosphere as heat, and stored by the whole atmospheric layer. The emissions from that layer, in turn, are almost exclusively from CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) that have entered an excited state due to collissions from with other molecules. That is why the emission fits the profile of thermal radiation (within the radiating wavelengths). And because the radiation is thermal, it is controlled by the temperature of the layer, not the rate of absorption of photons from lower layers in the atmosphere."
This means that if a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon of energy it takes some time before it emits that photon again. Let us say it is a microsecond (you can Google the actual time). In that time it will undergo a certain number of collisions. Let us say it is 5 billion collisions (as per Tom Curtis' data above). Since the IR energy can be dissipated by collisions with other molecules it is approximately 5 billion times more likely that the CO2 molecule spreads the IR energy around to other molecules through its collisions than that it re-emits another photon of energy. No quantum magic is involved. In the end the CO2 molecules in that section of the atmosphere emit IR radiation proportional to their temperature as required by Quantum Mechanics. The amount of energy they absorb from lower in the atmosphere is irrelevant (except that it increases the temperature). This is the basic cause of the greenhouse effect.
Your discussion of quantum states, Kinetic Molecular theory and Albert Einstein appears to be an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you do not understand how energy is transmitted through the upper atmosphere. This mechanism has been discussed several times here at SkS. If you ask nicely there are scientists who post here who can explain it to you, including Tom Curtis. If you do not understand the basics you need to study more before you claim that you have discovered that everyone else is incorrect. Before you make public presentations on the greenhouse effect you must understand how energy is transmitted through the atmosphere.
The quality of your comments is going down. You provide little data to support your claims.
IPCC estimates 2.0-4.5C per doubling. Since CO2 has only increased 50%, there is at least 0.6C warming in the pipeline and 1.2C (from you, I prefer 1.5C) has been measured, I calculate the current warming as 1.8C. That means that the low end of the IPCC significantly underestimates current warming and the high end might be about right. You are mistakenly comparing current warming to IPCC projected warming with 540 ppm CO2. I note that these temperature changes do not include most of the long term effects of melting ice and snow (which add to the warming).
If your book challanges the warming observed by everyone, you will need data (which you have not provided) to suppport your wild claims.
For the record, I have a Masters of Science in Organic Chemistry and teach Advanced Placement Chemistry in High School and basic Chemistry at a local Junior College.
Keep in mind why you were sent here. A scientist realized that you have a lot to learn about atmspheric chemistry and commenters here have a strong reputation. Tom Curtis is the most active poster here at SkS. His posts are always detailed and supported by links to the appropriate literature. I recommend that you listen very carefully to anything he posts. If what Tom says does not make sense you should presume you do not understand the science. Do not think that Tom is incorrect without strong, peer reviewed data (which you have not produced).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:17 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... Here you continue to assert without offering any substance, math, or evidence.
-
Rudmop at 09:57 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I am sorry I did not read the admin suggestion about breaking up my paragraphs with spaces. I need to write in a spell check mode, as I am constantly mispelling words. Since this has no spell check editor, I write in MS word and cut and paste. I was careless in realizing that it does not keep the formatting of paragraphs when you cut and paste. My style of writing is a heavy usage of the semicolon; I appologize for that, but it is an unbreakable habit I learned by my excellent English Teacher, Mrs. Fitch in 10th grade.
Moderator Response:[PS] When most people write something, they want people to read it. Improving readability is absolutely worth moving on from you learnt in the 10th grade.
-
Rudmop at 09:47 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
michael sweet @ 257, You are correct there about Arrhenius’ estimates. I'm forgetful; I knew that and was in error in my statement. I find it funny I had to go to my book in order to find this. Can we agree that the difference in the pre-industrial revolution temperature anomaly and the temperature anomaly of today is +1.2 degrees Celsius, (understanding that the entire difference cannot be attributed to CO2, but in this situation we will ignore that important detail, since the current climate model ignores that important detail)? By the way, much of that 1.2 degrees in difference has been questioned in its validity, but that is for another topic which I address in my book, and will not address here. So the 3.4 deg. C from Svante's estimates was an over estimation by 183 %. (3.4/1.2*100)-100
Using the numbers you provided for the IPCC of between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius for the estimated temperature rise attributed to carbon dioxide, we get a reasonable error of 67 % high, and a huge error of 275 % high. If you take the error for the average of their two predictions, you get an error of 158% too high. Notice there is no under estimation, which there should be if we are going to realize that increasing carbon dioxide is not the sole contribution to the 1.2 degree Celsius (questionable) difference in temperature anomaly since the industrial revolution.
In my model, if you take [(.28 deg.C/404ppmv CO2)x135 ppmv increase in CO2], you get 0.094 value for the temperature contributed by carbon dioxide to the difference between temperature anomaly since the industrial revolution and today. This is 92 percent too low for the measured temperature anomaly.Moderator Response:[PS] It would be more convincing if you could explain how your calculation is compatible with the observations in say here. You must demonstrating a match to observations for any theory to have merit.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"I was told by a scientist at Oak Ridge Laboratories to find answers to my questions on the effects of CO2 on heating the climate, to come to this site."
That's nice to know!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:05 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... "I also read a response (251) that somehow the observations contradict my assertions. I am going off the daily observations we experience from wallowing in the climate soup. My assertions are supported by these observations."
You have asserted this but have yet to demostrate it, and the opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
michael sweet @257, for what it is worth Arrhenius calculated the relative absorption by H2O and CO2 by comparing observations of IR radiation from the Moon by S P Langley under different humidity conditions, and latitude of observation, after correcting for different times of observation. By this times he determined the absorption across the whole IR spectrum when IR light passes through a "unit" of CO2 or of water vapour. A "unit" was defined as the amount of CO2 passed by a ray passing vertically through the atmosphere, for CO2; and a similar ray with humidity conditions at the surface of "10 grammes per cubic meter of the Earth's surface" (p 240), which are noted as being near average humidity. The effect of the different units for the different gases means that the measure automatically corrects for the different absolute abundences of CO2 and H2O vapour. With those units he finds (for one latitude, see page 245) that CO2 absorbs 6.6% of radiation per unit, while H2O vapour extinguishes 22.5% per unit, ie, that CO2 absorbs 20.6% of the total 20.6% of the total radiation absorbed under average humidity conditions.
The similarity of Arrhenius' estimate of the relative impact of CO2 to modern estimates under average humidity conditions helps explain his similar estimate of climate sensitivity. However, conceptually Arrhenius is still operating under a mistaken idea of the full mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and mistaken in a similar way to Rudmop. In particular, of necessity given the relative state of knowledge, he makes no allowance for the impact of altitude and temperature differences. Further, although his estimate is observational rather than theoretical, it is based on very low quality obervations relative to modern standards. As a result, his estimate overstates the relative impacts of CO2 and H2O absorption under similar conditions as estimated from LBL radiation models. That is because he considers only absorption, and not thermal emission.
That error is partly compensated for by his model of the greenhouse effect (p 254 forward), which of necessity uses the Stefan-Boltzman law, but not Planck's Law (which was not proposed till 1900). Further, it uses a single, near surface temperature for the atmosphere, which is in fact eliminated from his final formula for the greenhouse effect (equation 3). The result is a theory quite different to the modern theory of the Greenhouse effect as expounded by Manabe.
All this leads me to suspect the near approximation between Arrhenius' and modern estimates of climate sensitivity is to significant extent, a coincidence. I have not the mathematics to show that is the case.
-
screwtop at 08:23 AM on 27 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Also, I was interested to see that the Grantham Institute has lodged a complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation concerning the many inaccuracies in the Mail's Bates/NOAA article:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mail-on-Sunday-follow-up-February-2016.pdf -
screwtop at 08:17 AM on 27 February 2017This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'
Lamar Smith's denial and influence are concerning, but I'd be wary of taking his "unvarnished truth" comments out of context. It was part of a hypothetical "what the media might be saying about Trump if he were a Democrat" routine, so you would expect hyperbole. It's not clear to me whether the "unvarnished truth" sentence was hypothetical rhetoric or his genuine attitude.
-
michael sweet at 06:51 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop,
If you are going to calcualte the increase in temperature from an increase in CO2 it is useful to review those who have gone before you. Contrary to your claim at 255, Savante Arrhenius estimated that an increase in CO2 by 50% (from preindustrial 270 to 405 ppm) would result in an increase in temperature of 3.4C. Arrhenius 1896 page 267 (cited by 2015 other papers). This is a little higher than the current IPCC range of 2-4.5C for a doubling of CO2, although some current estimates are as high as Arhennius. Essentially, Arhennius is in agreement with current estimates while you are at odds with them. I note that the stratosphere was not yet discovered when Arhennius made his calculation although I do not know if it affects the calculation.
Please show why your model is so grossly different from Arhennius. Suggest where Arhennius was incorrect that everyone else has missed and you have found.
When you claim that Arhennius did not make this calculation you appear to be uninformed about what other scientists have done and how the calculation is made.
-
Rudmop at 06:03 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Yes the calculatios are in my paper.
-
Rudmop at 05:58 AM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Kr @254, I appreciate your concern for the idea of reconsidering what my model may be lacking. It is well known that carbon dioxide is a substance that can trap heat by capturing IR photons. You are correct is pointing out how Svante Arrhenius correctly predicted this property of carbon dioxide. He did not predict the value, in terms of degrees/ppmv that it was capable of increasing the climate temperature. The attempt of scientists to determine a value or an approximation of this effect have relied heavily seem have relied mostly on a single approach. If this approach has the assumptions of Tom Curtis in 253, then there are some problems with it, as it seems to be in violation of the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Tom Curtis in 253, mentions that there are 380,000 (millions) of collisions that an excited CO2 or H2O molecule will experience before it returns to it ground state energy level. This implies that there are millions of quantum transitions between excited state and ground state (which he incorrectly refers to as the base energy state); furthermore, it leads one to wonder it he also is implying that in each collision, there is a high energy transformation between the excited molecule and one of the other 990,596 ppmv that are not greenhouse gases, leading to closer than billion collisions. If this is indeed the implication, then it is a gross misrepresentation of the Kinetic Molecular theory, in which all collisions are elastic collisions. The first question that arises is, where the kinetic energy conservation? So the attempt to discredit my explanation falls short. You can't apply classical mechanics to a quantum mechanical problem. Remember the ultraviolet catastrophe? I guess in this case it would be the IR catastrophe. The foundations laid forth by great scientist such as Max Plank and Albert Einstein and Louis de Broglie, James Clerk Maxwell and William Thompson, (Lord Kelvin) can be used correct the apparent errors in in experimental procedure and calculation by the examples provided; examples that are being used to demonstrate the falseness of my model. I also read a comment either on my original post under the Trump Presidency, or in the earlier page 5 of this post that asked why I am posting to non-scientists. I also read a response (251) that somehow the observations contradict my assertions. I am going off the daily observations we experience from wallowing in the climate soup. My assertions are supported by these observations. One thing everyone forgot is the slightest variations in solar output influenced by sunspot activity. This will result in different observations in upwelling and down welling radiant differences from year to year, as have the most profound differences when observations were made between peaks and valleys of the 11 year sunspot cycles. The observations by taking the difference between the radiative upwelling, at the peak wavelengths of CO2, at surface level and TOA level is full of potential errors, because liquid water absorbs at this wavelength. Also
I thought this skeptical science site was a blog with scientists. I was told by a scientist at Oak Ridge Laboratories to find answers to my questions on the effects of CO2 on heating the climate, to come to this site. I have to admit if I told my students to research blog sites in order to find answers to their research questions, that I would probably get some flack by fellow teachers and even parents for suggesting such an idea. But the value I saw is that it would allow other scientific minds to critique my views. I have presented my paper to AJP and should probably wait until they are able to look it over. I do worry that if I made one little error in formatting or even grammar and spelling that they will throw it out without any response. I suppose I have learned a lesson as to get on a site and have many ad hominem insults added into the critique. I know that there need to be some calculations. I will forgo those until the paper is evaluated by scientists who review for AJP.Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, if you want people to read what you post here, it would be extremely beneficial for you to break-up your lengthy tomes into a set of digestable paragraphs separated by spaces.
-
John Hartz at 04:18 AM on 27 February 2017Trump can save his presidency with a great deal to save the climate
Recommended supplemental reading…
Democracy isn’t all that’s at risk under Trump’s agenda. There’s a 5-point attack happening on our nation’s minds
by Sophia McClennen, Salon, Feb 25, 2017
-
william5331 at 18:50 PM on 26 February 2017OMG measurements of Greenland give us a glimpse of future sea rise
It seems to me that two processes might accelerate the melting of both major ice sheets beyond what we concieve of today. The first is a type of close coupled Walker Cell. When the ice is finally gone from most of the Arctic ocean for a period, the water will warm above the melting point of ice and will warm the air above it. If this rising moist air drifts over Greenland, it will meet the ice and will cool. As it flows down-slope to the ocean, more warm air will be sucked toward Greenland. As the air sinks it heats adiabatically and over the approximate 3km drop from the peak to sea level it heats about 29 degrees C. Of course it doesn't heat, it gives up this heat to the ice. Secondly, because of the difference in the latent heat of water vapor to water and Ice to water, every gram of water vapor can melt about 6grams of ice as both turn to water.
The second possible process is a sort of water lift (like an air lift). For glaciers which are deep enough to be in contact with the deeper warmer saltier water, the ice will melt on the front of the glacier. The resulting mix of water will be fresher so will rise up the sloping ceiling of ice to discharge on the surface. This will suck more of the deep water in. As the ice front grows deeper and deeper as the glacier retreats along a retrograde slope, this process should become stronger. In addition, the denser water should flow down slope more strongly the deeper the grounding line.
Both processes are mass transfer (convention) processes which can be very strong when compared to thermodynamic processes. (for instance the amount of heat which can be transfered by a heat pipe compared to the amount shifted by a solid bar of silver of the same diameter.
An interesting account of the effect of a warm wind on the ice was given in a novel by Jean Auel called Plains Of Passage. It is a novel but Jean did her home work and recounts what various explorers have observed. p927ff
-
Tom Curtis at 16:06 PM on 26 February 2017Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Eclectic @40, the original Station S SST data as shown by Keigwin (1996) Figure 3, is published here. The data is annual data from 1955 to 1995, with a mean of 23.025 C, a Standard Deviation of 0.2981 C, and a trend of 0.05 +/- 0.08 C/10 years, as determined by simple linear regression. More recent temperature data (ie, from late 1988 to the end of 2015) can be found here as Hydrostation_S CTD data. That data comes as profile, with 22 individual profiles over the course of 2015 (and presumably similar numbers for earlier years). I did not think it worth to the trouble to download 22 seperate files to determine an annual average, but 2015, at least, appears to have a mean around 24 C.
From this I would say it was perfectly reasonable to use 23 C as the modern value, but the end of the chart should have been marked as 1975 (the mean of the years of modern data).
ThinkProgress shows a graph of annual means for Station S from 1955 to 2008:
Clearly if you do use 2006 rather than 1975 as the final value, the modern value would be closer to 24 C than to 23 C. Using a fifty year mean (1957-2006) would lower the data point to just above 23 C, and would be perfectly valid given that the data from the d18O is presented as fifty year means.
Given the scale of the graph, it is not possible by visual inspection to determine whether or not the final d18O data point is 1950 (as it should be).
Overall, I disagree with ThinkProgress about the termination of the graph (which is clearly before 2000). I agree about removing the modern data, but think it a minor point. I definitely think that the "modern value" shown should be labeled 1975, given that it appears to be the mean of the instrumental values in Keigwin (1996). As it is labelled "2006, it should show a temperature much closer to 24 C. Whether RRS should be considered to have incorrectly labelled genuine modern data, or incorrectly placed correctly labelled data is indeterminate; but in either case they have straightforwardly strengthened the case they are trying to make by misrepresenting the data.
Thankyou for bringing that to my attention.
-
Eclectic at 14:07 PM on 26 February 2017Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Tom Curtis @39 , your first graph of local Sargasso Sea surface temperature proxies, taken from Keigwin, has already been "doctored" by Robinson and associates.
In ThinkProgress , May 22nd 2012, physicist Mark Boslough relates how Keigwin's original graph had been shorn of "several years of modern measurements at hydrographic station "S" in Bermuda, starting in 1954" (measurements which presumably Keigwin had thought a good modern comparison for the nearby Sargasso proxies) — and these hydrographic measurements were making the denialist case look less impressive.
He also said the graph had been shifted by 50 years, in a clumsy error by Robinson and associates mistaking the "paleo Now" for the year 2000. ( I do not see that in the graph: but my screen is very small ! )
In a further enormity, they had added a spot temperature of 23 degrees at the end of the graph — an addition which strengthened the denialist "impression" for the casual reader. Boslough says the correct figure for that 2006 spot, should be a full degree higher (i.e. 24). He brought the error to their attention. And they refused to acknowledge or correct it.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:06 AM on 26 February 2017Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Deaner @38, and Kirdee @ 37, you may be waiting a long time for a detailed rebutal of the accompanying paper to the OISM petition. That is because the paper constitutes a Gish gallop. It is so dense with cherry picks, data taken out of context and other errors that it would take a paper just as long simply to provide links to related rebutals. Given that all of the claims can be (and have been rebutted on SkS) in relation to other issues, the time that would be involved in tracing down all the references, and composing a rebutal is not sufficiently well rewarded.
To give you an idea of what I mean, I will consider just a few claims made by the paper.
The paper leads with a Sargossa Sea proxy from Keigwin (1996):
It is a real proxy, and I do not know of any problems with Keigwin (1996). What I do know (and which should be obvious) is that no proxy from a single location is a proxy of global temperature. To think it is is as absurd as thinking that temperatures in Darwin, Australia must vary in sync with those of Boston, Massachussets. Because temperatures in different regions do not vary in sync, when taking a global average they will regress towards the mean. Large variations will be evened out, and global mean temperature peaks (and troughs) are unlikely to coincided with peaks (and troughs) of individual regions.
Robinson, Robinson and Soon (hereafter RRS) will have nothing of that, and conclude from a single proxy that:
"The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average."
In contrast to their finding, if you look at a genuine multi-proxy reconstruction of Holocene temperatures (in this case 73 proxies from diverse regions), you see that global temperatures have varied within a 1 to 1.5 C temperature range, and that "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history", including, as it happens, the MWP:
RRS have created an entirely false impression by using clearly inadequate, and cherry picked, data.
Next consider their use of Oelermanns (2005) regarding glacer length, which RRS show as follows:
For comparison, here is the actual figure (2 B) from Oerlermans (2005):
You will notice that RRS show the figure inverted. You will also notice that while the all glaciers figure (in red) jogs down towards the end, it is only the "Alps excluded" figure that jogs up at the end, as shown (once allowing for the inversion) by RSS. From that evidence, they have deliberately chosen the more restricted data, and chosen it because it better fits their narrative (because it is smoother).
What is worse, they know and neglected the fact that a Oerlermans (2005) used the data to reconstruct global temperatures. The result is very different from the impression they are trying to create:
Temperatures are seen to be more or less stable from 1600, with the slight rise starting around 1850 in keeping with what has gone before. The 20th century, however, is marked by an unprecedented, rapid, rise in temperature. That has lead to an unprecedented and rapid retreat of glaciers.
Once again RRS create a false impression by cherry picking the data, and by forcing us to rely on an intuitive, but false understanding of the relationship between glacier length and temperatures (which are modulated by slope and precipitation, factors Oerlermans takes into account but for which we have no information). Worse, they portray the data from approximately 70 glaciers (ie, the total number of glaciers used excluding those from the Alps) as though it were the full 169 glaciers considered.
I could go on, but you will already see from my brief treatment of just two points how extensive a full treatment of RSS would be. You will also have noted the dishonest tactics used repeatedly by RSS in their paper.
-
robert.hargraves at 04:49 AM on 26 February 2017As EPA head, Scott Pruitt must act on climate change
Actually Pruitt may take a major step towards checking climate change if he revises EPA's pseudo-science rules about low level radiation. The LNT (linear no threshold) myth that even low level radiation can cause cancer has been disproven. Ending LNT and ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) would end public fear of radiation and lower exhorbitant costs for the medical and nuclear power industries. He can start with ending the anti-radon program, which is costly and anti-science. Here's my take... http://www.theenergycollective.com/roberthargraves/2395360/residential-radon-safe-not-scary
-
Deaner at 15:38 PM on 25 February 2017Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Kirdee, I couldn't agree more. I have been waiting patiently for the actual scientific rebuttal to the paper. As easily as the information is laid out, I would have thought that a point by point tearing apart of the data and sources used would have come quickly.
-
william5331 at 13:57 PM on 25 February 2017As EPA head, Scott Pruitt must act on climate change
Pruitt can drag his feet for 4 years and if Trump gets elected again, for a further 4.
-
Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop - I'm afraid your arguments, no matter how elegant, have two ma6jor problems. (a) They don't match the numbers calculated repeatedly by multiple experienced scientists since Arrhenius 1896, and (b) they are directly contradicted by experimental evidence that supports the consensus views, see Harries et al 2001 satellite spectral data and following papers for that - doubling CO2 will directly increase temps by about 1.1C, with feedback increases in H2O and others bringing it to roughly 3C per doubling.
Empirical evidence flatly contradicts your claims - you might want to reconsider your assertions.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:02 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The second piece of block text by Rudmop @238 is a response to my response to his first posting of his ideas on another thread. Briefly, my criticisms were that:
1) "The strength of the greenhouse effect of a given gas is a direct function of the difference in power radiated to space by that gas and the power radiated by the surface, and intercepted from going to space by that gas. As the power radiated to space is an inverse function of the temperature of the gas at the mean altitude of radiation to space, the vertical distribution of the concentration of relevant gases is a fundamental property without which no valid determination of relative greenhouse effect of different gases can be made."
2) "The energy trapping capability of each molecule is not simply a function of the sum of the energies at the absorption peaks in the spectra. It is also a function of the relative energy radiated at those wavelengths from the surface"
3) "You have not explained, and nor can I see what relevance rates of diffusion have on the result. In particular, concentration levels of CO2 (in particular) and to a lesser extent H2O are fairly stable so that rates of change in the concentration in still air (diffusion) have no bearing on spatial patterns of concentration, which you do not allow for in your equation in any event."
I note that Rudmop has changed his formula to take into account my second point.
He rejects my first point saying:
"Carbon dioxide molecules at this altitude, provided the density separation does not result in a near extinction, will actually be radiators of heat. At this altitude, there are more possible vector directions that point to space, than point back to the surface. So as excited carbon dioxide molecules spontaneously radiate photons, there will be a more favorable amount of heat loss than heat gain by the climate. These higher altitude molecules cannot hold on to any trapped energy for an indefinite amount of time. Nothing can do that. Everything radiates its heat to the colder gradient as a necessity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. CO2 at the TOA is not going to collect more heat than it radiates."
What Rudmop neglects in this response is that emissivity equals absorptivity. It follows that if a given thickness of atmosphere has more radiation at a given wavelength impacting upon it then it will radiate due to its temperature, it will absorb more radiation than it emits. As the CO2 in the upper troposphere is colder than that in the lower troposphere, or at the surface, it will absorb more radiation than it emits, and therefore the upward IR radiation from that layer will be less than the upward IR radiation entering that layer.
The notion that a CO2 molecule "... cannot hold on to any trapped energy for an indefinite amount of time", while accurate, is irrelevant. Even at 85 km altitude (US standard atmosphere), an excited CO2 (or H2O) molecule will, on average, experience 380,000 (a million) collisions before it would typically have spontaneiously returned to a base energy state by emitting a photon. Within the troposphere the figure is closer to 5 billion collisions. Therefore absorbed radiation is rapidly transmitted to the rest of the atmosphere as heat, and stored by the whole atmospheric layer. The emissions from that layer, in turn, are almost exclusively from CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) that have entered an excited state due to collissions from with other molecules. That is why the emission fits the profile of thermal radiation (within the radiating wavelengths). And because the radiation is thermal, it is controlled by the temperature of the layer, not the rate of absorption of photons from lower layers in the atmosphere.
With regard to my third point, Rudmop now clarrifies by saying:
"As the greenhouse gas molecules trap heat, they must be able to transfer their heat to other molecules by making random collisions with the other molecules. The speed and efficiency at which they can do this will determine their “strength” as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is lighter and moves more quickly than Carbon dioxide, if both are at the same temperature."
In fact, the relevant ratio here is the rate of natural reemission molecules in an excited state to the rate of collision. As noted above, that does not rise above about 1 in a 380,000 below the thermosphere, either for CO2 or H2O. Allowing that CO2 radiates before collisions 2.5 times as frequently as H2O, that only raises its non-thermal radiation to 0.0003% of the total (compared to 0.0001% for H2O) even in the upper mesosphere. In short, the difference is negligible for all practical purposes.
-
John Hartz at 05:43 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop: If you have not already done so, I highly recommend that you peruse The Science of Doom website. It is full of equations about key components of the Earth's climate system.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:20 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... So, just to be clear, you are aware that observations contradict your assertions. Right?
-
Rudmop at 03:11 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
That submittal date is 2017, sorry. I cannot read my post as I type on my phone. Need to wait until this evening when I can access my computer.
-
Rudmop at 03:08 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I have submitted it to a scientific journal on Feb 21, 2016. I am also ready for talks.. I probably am going about giving up a lot, but to date, no one has shown this in the literature, except me here on this discussion blog for climate scientists. I will be giving a presentation at Occidental college tomorrow on my model here. I. In my submission t have done the math and provided the equations, with my own variables. I prefer zeta and and kapparently for my coefients. I explain my calculations an the resonance absorption frequencies that cause an excited molecule in a state of super position. I appreciate the efforts of those scientists who have given me rational food for though for my presentation. My less egocentric psyche did warn me about the possibility of giving away my ideas, however if there is a Nobel prize to be given for this, I have only disclosed the part, it takes much more that I will not present here and show the proof. If that is the case that my model is worth a Nobel prize, this important part is the half of it. The other half will be in the book and the article.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Further re Rudmop, here is a fuller version of the first comparison in my preceding post, with the data offset for easy comparison:
In reading such graphs, as a simple rule, a molecule traps an amount of energy per second cm-1 steradian-1 equal to the difference between the observed radiation at that wavenumber and the black body radiation of the surface. As can be seen, the 15 μ-meter wavelength (667 cm-1 wavenumber) is deep and distinct, unlike the neighbouring absorption by H2O.
Second, the effective altitude of radiation within the troposphere can be determined as approximately the difference between the radiation temperature and that of the black body at the surface, divided by the lapse rate. Thus the "shoulders" of the CO2 absorption band show absorption at about 12 km, while the neighbouring H2O shows absorption at an effective altitude of 6 km or less. That difference is the fundamental difference that makes CO2 absorption more effective per molecule than is H2O absorption.
Both of these features are features Rudmop claims are false.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:47 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... "I trust that anyone who views this as a credible means to invalidate my model will know what that type of behavior clouds their scientific reputation. It is not how scientific discussions progress."
If you give us the math that shows your model, people here can evaluate it.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:45 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... "I have provided a clear explanation of my model."
Not so much. You've written a rambling piece, that doesn't have any substantive math, and runs contrary to basic physics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:43 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop... I'm curious. If you genuinely believe you have a model that substantively challenges the standard accepted model, why are you posting it here? If I had worked out such a thing I'd be submitting it to major scientific journals. And after that I'd be out shopping for the tux I'd need for my Nobel acceptance speech.
Yes, I know that sounds like a sarcastic comment, but that is the gist of what you're offering up. You're challenging basic physics which has been well understood and accepted for 150 years.
As a non-scientist I can already pick out several basic errors in your comment. But it seems counter-productive to go into those details being that the overall notion you're presenting is so utterly preposterous.
But you are correct to essentially suggest that all ideas should be entertained. So, for entertainment purposes... can you please paste in here your calculations? You know, something along the lines of this.
-
Rudmop at 01:42 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Sorry I don't have time for sarcastic retorts that attack my character, as well it is against the rules of the site which hats scientific discussion. I have provided a clear explanation of my model. There is an expectation that you will not use conflation as a means to invalidate it. It stands own as far as the science. So unless you can address where it fails, without using tactics of insults and conflation, I trust that anyone who views this as a credible means to invalidate my model will know what that type of behavior clouds their scientific reputation. It is not how scientific discussions progress. Good day.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:37 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop @241 states:
"My model does not violate any of the laws, and it serves as an alternative answer to a model that has failed on its predictions."
The models (plural) that Rudmop claims to have failed are the Line By Line (LBL), or lower resolution radiation models (or the modules within GCMs that serve the same function). It is they, not GCMs as a whole that determine relative contribution to the Total Greenhouse Effect of various gases. These models have produced such obviously failed predictions as this one from 1969:
Or these (all 134,862 of them) from 2008:
Here is the preceding data binned by surface temperature (a) and latitude (b):
In contrast to the LBL models, which predict easilly discriminable data for clear comparison with reality, Rudmop's model does not predict any observable quantity. Rather, it only predicts a quantity that cannot be directly observed. That is, its only prediction is not falsifiable by direct observation.
It can be known to be wrong, however, because the LBL radiation models with their copious directly observable predictions, which are falsifiable but unfalsified, also make predictions about the value which is the sole prediction of Rudmop's model.
It is no wonder he wants to take his model before an uninformed public rather than to a group of experts in the field. It is hard to hoodwink those who know what they are talking about.
-
MA Rodger at 01:07 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop @238.
So what you are saying is that the amount of radiation absorbed by CO2 and transferred to the atmosphere immediately surrounding it (thus its GHG function) can be usefully compared with the amount absorbed by water vapour. This Ratio(CO2:H2O), you say is the product of three factors:-Ratio(CO2:H2O) = A x B x C
where A = the average volume ratio of the two gases in the atmosphere, B = the ratio of the blackbody radiation occuring at the wavelengths absorbed by the two gases, and C = the number of collisions made by a molecule of each two gases and the energy thus transferred. You calculate Ratio((CO2:H2O) = 0.0086.
From this you conclude that if the global surface temperature is 32.8ºC above the blackbody temperature, the warming contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere is 32.8 x 0.0086 = 0.28ºC.
To this finding you add the caviat that clouds add a complication to a simplistic use of this ratio. You also mention the altitude profile of CO2 not being a factor (although I was unaware of there being such a profile of any significance – eg see Foucher et al 2011). You do fail to mention a whole bunch of other stuff which will prevent the use of such a simplistic analysis, stuff which all others have considered which is why they don't attempt what you are doing here.
@239, your comment "When we double the CO2 values, the temperature will rise .57 deg. C." is presumably describing the total CO2 warming resulting from a CO2 concentration of 550ppm relative to 0ppm. (Note the accepted extra primary warming from a doubling of CO2 (eg 275ppm to 550ppm) is currently given as 1ºC which is greatly different from your 0.28ºC fixed for all 275ppm rises.)
@241 you present what I consider a misguided appreciation of science along with your credentials which are an irrelevance. You say that you “understand a bit about the world” but I do wonder if your understanding is of a bit that isn't useful to this analysis you perform here. -
Rudmop at 00:09 AM on 25 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
michael sweet,
In science, there is no benefit to be had by forcing the validity of a clearly presented model down the throat of other scientists. Science does not work by one scientist or a group of scientists forcing people to accept a clearly thought out model. My model is steeped in thermodynamics and KMT, as well as quantum mechanics. My model does not violate any of the laws, and it serves as an alternative answer to a model that has failed on its predictions. What is unique about it, is that it considers the climate soup we wallow in on the surface. It considers the direct and frequent measurements we take globally and precisely on our weather stations. My model has no need to consider downwelling and upwelling IR photons, because it uses the results of their influence on the climate to calculate the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. So there is no need for me to give you two reasons or a hundred reasons of why I need to convince you to accept anything. I trust that you are a scientifically literate person. I trust if you know and understand the laws of Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics. You will be able to convince yourself of the validity of any scientific model that any scientist presents. When the science illiterates try to force their beliefs and views to force others to adopt these views, then they will lose any credibility they had hoped of having. True scientists don’t have beliefs and don’t have to force others to believe. True scientists also understand the potential of presenting a false model and expecting other scientists to dignify their credibility. As a scientist, all I have is a successful patent on a cleaner that is unique like no other, a science degree in Biology with a chemistry minor and a Master of Arts in Secondary Education. I am credentialed in the Life Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, the Geosciences and I have taught school for 26 years in subjects ranging from 7th grade life science to High School Advanced Placement Chemistry and Physics; Currently I teach Aerospace Engineering, 8th grade Physical Science, Physics and Advanced Placement Physics. Besides researching and learning the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the probable working of Quantum mechanics, I enjoy reading science Journals that arrive from AAPT and ACS, of which I am a member. As well, I like to turn nuts and bolts in my free time. I enjoy fixing stuff when it breaks, like the plumbing, air conditioner and the mechanical stuff on my hybrid car. I’m simply saying besides being a professional in my field, I understand a bit about the world. -
deivis_bluz at 00:08 AM on 25 February 2017As EPA head, Scott Pruitt must act on climate change
So scientists don't debate objective "reality". We put light first and then give it a name (sound). So we don't feel changing body and consider changing scenery as reality. We consider changing thoughts and senses as proof. Our lives are so imbalanced by impressions and so stressed that we want more objects i.e. measurements. And this want is the cause of disturbance that we call climate change. The cause and solution of disturbance is not CO2. I think doubts of Scott Pruit will improve our understanding of causes and solutions of climate change.
Prev 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 Next
