Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 22:49:01 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:28:56 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

It might not happen, but it cannot be excluded either. Millions of people
needlessly dying will certainly cause unrest and massive amounts of
migration on a scale we haven't seen so far. Certainly there will be wars
over this too. And it's those side effects which could be a danger to our
civilisation. Some nukes detonated, in India or Pakistan, or in the
Middle East, could be enough.

It's already happening. There are small scale resource conflicts
happening all over. The most far reaching for most of the world is the
Syrian civil war, which probably would not have occurred but for
anthropogenic drought.

Are you saying that our civilisation already is collapsing?

Well, some subcultures are collapsing. Our major cultures are not, but
they are certainly stressed, and that stress is almost certainly going
to increase.

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 06:37:23 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 22:49:01 +0200, Paul Schlyter

Are you saying that our civilisation already is collapsing?

Well, some subcultures are collapsing. Our major cultures are not, but
they are certainly stressed, and that stress is almost certainly going
to increase.

It'll be alright. As long as the supreme court doesn't ban volcano wedding cakes or red comb-overs on pseudo-religious grounds. Talk about turning the other cheek! Love thy neighbor? Not if he has a red comb-over, we wont! Inverted bløødy hipsters!

Haven't you noticed the similarity between flying molten lava and red haired, temperamental personality cults? Mar-a-Fuego? This is the Devil's own work! The sky is falling! What do we want? We want a refund on our afterlife insurance scam payments! And, we want them now!

I'm still waiting for the second coming of Perseus! Hades has had his own way for far too long! Time to raise the seas and extinguish the lower orders.. Let those with the means move to the higher ground they so richly [sic] deserve. Bring on the Towering inferno! Bosch had it right! No, not that Bosch. THIS Bosch! ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased,

It indeed is ... biased towards the truth.

I disagree.

Do you prefer some other kind of bias?

I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might
affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN
from doing the CLOUD experiment.

even to the point of denigrating skeptics

Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok.

In your not-so-humble opinion.

with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since
they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad
hominem rather than to the discussion.

And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth?

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red
herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than
carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect.
Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes
an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than
what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect
is less than what the climate models predict.

On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something
else?

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm
results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2.
Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by about
1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a decrease of
2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a decrease of about
3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models assume a linear effect,
whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear.

3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's
albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200
years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise.

The fact that most of the "climate skeptics" among scientists have
turned out to be in the pay of oil companies, though, is indicative.

And "climate scientists" work for governments, which they rely on for
their paychecks.

Which makes them much more unbiased than if they get their paycheck from
some private company with a business agenda. You do recognize that
researchers are humans too which must make their living somehow, don't
you? Give one example of making your living in a way which makes you more
unbiased than if you get your salary from the government.

I worked most of my career on gov't contracts so you bet I was biased.

If dissenting views have trouble getting published in orthodox peer-
reviewed venues, that usually says something about the quality of the
work involved;

Or it says something about the bias of the "peers."

Precisely that argument is used by flat earth activists....

That's bull****. Don't mention that crap again or this discussion is over.

So you don't like peer review. With what would you like to replace it? No
review at all?

Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled
by one faction.

I could has easily accuse a "conspiracy" of preventing chemical journals
from publishing papers on the chemical (as opposed to nuclear)
transmutation of lead into gold.

The true sciences are much more "settled" than climate change is. We know
A LOT about the energies of the nucleus versus electron energy levels.
There are no "big problems" hanging out there in chemistry, and there are
few in physics.

"Most" is one thing. "Nearly all" is another.

Funny, I know a few PhDs in science ranging from physicists to soil
scientist who claim AGW is bunk and politically motivated. I know none
who are AGW advocates. So my own "survey" is in stark contrast to the
claims bandied about by the advocates.

How many of those are climate researchers?

Physicists are used to simple problems where fundamental effects are
researched. In addition, physicists are used to systems they can perform
experiments on. They are not used to very complex systems like the Earth
with its atmosphere and its climate. which they can only observe, not
experiment on.

Exactly my point. If you can't do experiments or give accurate
predictions then it's not a true science.

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society
towards less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would
downgrade heavy industry, and thus impact the military defense
capabilities of the United States of America.

Indeed, but there are other consequences. Anthropologist Carleton Coon
pointed out that civilization itself is determined by converting
available energy into social structure, so less dependence on energy
means a debasing of society.

Furthermore, the developing countries are where the increasing CO2
emissions will be coming from, so it is pointless to harm the USA
in a fanatic process of self-immolation.

Yep -- "harm the USA" -- that's the main preoccupation of climate deniers.
They think it's better to make our civilisation collapse than to
"harm the USA". But they'll shoot themselves in the foot, since a
collapse of our civilisation **also** will "harm the USA"....

If the US collapses the world will be thrown into chaos, so your argument
is baloney. You seem to be a George Soros sycophant.

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually
is the alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating
consequences, while it's the risk of doing nothing that's small.

Exactly. I'm not saying to do nothing, but I am saying to take it slow,
improve the climate models, gather more data and move incrementally
toward reducing greenhouse gases (but not water vapor :-)

If you were an extraterrestial, observing the Earth from space, you could
argue like that. But you are a human living on Earth and whatever happens
here will affect you too. The situation here on Earth is a bit more
urgent than you realize. Waiting a century or so (which would be required
to meet your demands) is very likely waiting too long...

As I have demonstrated, you are dead wrong about that.

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:27:42 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

As I have demonstrated, you are dead wrong about that.

Take away your obvious bias and what do you have left? An self-declared belief in unicorns.

The "alternatives" offer lots of good ways of spreading the gift of cleaner energy with a largely deprived, global population. Affordable energy frees children from slavery to study by artificial light. It allows women to avoid a long walk to the ever dwindling forest to gather fuel for the open fire in the center of their crowded hovel.

Your way ensures most of the planet endures decades more "exhaust" pollution and the well known health issues. Your way ensures despots around the world can afford armed forces and security services to keep billions of real people suppressed. All paid for with oil paid for by Western democracies. Sauce for the goose? Or are they mostly too black and too far away for your knee-jerk, Christian values to kick in?

Your way ensures the entire world has its nose to the grindstone to pay for constantly escalating, quarterly "energy" profits. Your way ensures massive inequality around the globe while the billionaires crush any political "wavering" against _their_ status quo. Your way ensures women will remain downtrodden, third class citizens. Barely existing in an underclass below the social status of men's pets and their expensive toys.

You do the maths. China thinks the maths of "alternatives" makes good sense.. Why are Western countries targeting solar panels for importation charges? Why are they not jumping at the chance to get cheaper solar panels on every roof? They don't make any themselves so it's not a competition. Do they look at flat TV panels the same way?

Democratization of energy production away from big corporations would seem beneficial to the masses. Energy poverty is a chronic Western disease as well. Countless pensioners die of cold each year in Europe. So what political pressures are _really_ at play here? DO they hope for an early "expiry date" to save on government pensions?

Your maths is only good for counting your "allowance" from a dirty energy provider. How else can you demand a century's delay in tackling _today's_ very real social issues? Or are all those black people to far away to be worthy of your empathy? Sympathy would typically be expecting rather too much from a "practicing" Christian. What does an expert Christian look like? A bit too much like your fabled Jesus?

Why are solar panels only fitted on upper middle class homes enjoying generous feedback tariffs? When the vast majority of ordinary people cannot even borrow the cost of installation from the bank? To be guaranteed full repayment and a nice profit on their borrowed "investment" in only three to five years? Why was it far too expensive to maintain this guaranteed investment for the "lower orders?" A few solar panels on posh roofs doesn't dent AGW. It empowers the already wealthy. A big, fat, tax cut on _their_ cost of living. To be spent on further, imported luxuries.

One man's Tesla S is a mere gnat bite on AGW's bum. A billion electric cars, charged with wind and solar, will change global society in far more ways than we can possibly imagine. Solar could ease the damage to society from the coming AI robots. Mass unemployment can be turned into productive creativity when the millstone of paying through the nose just to keep warm [or cool] is lifted.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased,

It indeed is ... biased towards the truth.

I disagree.

Do you prefer some other kind of bias?

I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might
affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN
from doing the CLOUD experiment.

The CLOUD experiment seems to be alive and well. And while the
contribution from cosmic rays in forming clouds in our atmosphere might
be interesting, I don't see the relevance of it to the AGW question.
After all, the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth is quite
independent from our emissions of CO2.

BTW which climate researchers have tried to stop the CLOUD experiment at
CERN? Please name a few of them, preferably with relevant references.
ANd, yes, they should be researchers in climate science, not zealot
advocates of any kind. Zealit advocates are hardly interesting -- they
are a matter of psychology and mass communication, not of the Earth
sciences.

even to the point of denigrating skeptics

Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok.

In your not-so-humble opinion.

Do you disagree with me? DO you think deniers are ok?

with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since
they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad
hominem rather than to the discussion.

And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth?

Are you commenting on yourself?

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red
herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than
carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect.
Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes
an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than
what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect
is less than what the climate models predict.

On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something
else?

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

This is not a climate model but merely a radiation model.

Yuu wrote "this effect is less than what the climate models predict"
where youwrote "climate models" in the plural form. So you must have
examined more than just one model which isn't even a climate model. Which
climate models are you referring to here? All existing models, without
exception? Or only some models -- which ones?

Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm
results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2.
Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by about
1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a decrease of
2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a decrease of about
3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models assume a linear effect,
whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear.

3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's
albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200
years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise.

I played around with it and it was fun. However, it gives you the upwards
IR radiation as seen from an altitude of 70 km, well above 99.9% of the
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. And what you see there is the
radiation from these greenhouse gases, not from the ground. Look at the
diagram to the right, which shows the radiation intensity as a function
of wavelength (or wavenumber). Although the ground temperature is 300K,
the upward radiation temperature from 70 km altitude never reaches 300K.

So what you see here is the radiation balance between the Sun and the
upper atmpsphere of the Earth. OF COURSE the upward IR heat flux at this
altitude is quite independent of the number of ppm's of CO2, as you
noted. The heat flux from the Earth into space must, on the average,
naturally equal the incoming light and heat from the Sun. This says
little about the temperatures at or near the ground, which is what
concerns us humans who live on the ground.

You would obtain a similar result at Venus: the upward IR radiation from
Venus is on the average the same as the incoming light and heat from the
Sun - revealing little about the oven-like temperatures on the surface on
Venus.

This radiationb model also gives the ground temperature as very nearly
300K (299.7K to be precise). But that value seems to be hardwired into
the program - you can change it by switching from "Tropical atmosphere"
to "Midlatitude Summer" or "Subarctic Winter" or 3 other choices. But
apart from that it seems completely unaffected by e.g. the amount of CO2
I choose. I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground
temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by
even 0.1K. So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that
"changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature".

The fact that most of the "climate skeptics" among scientists have
turned out to be in the pay of oil companies, though, is indicative.

And "climate scientists" work for governments, which they rely on for
their paychecks.

Which makes them much more unbiased than if they get their paycheck from
some private company with a business agenda. You do recognize that
researchers are humans too which must make their living somehow, don't
you? Give one example of making your living in a way which makes you more
unbiased than if you get your salary from the government.

I worked most of my career on gov't contracts so you bet I was biased.

You failed to give an example of making your living in a way which makes
you less biased for research.

If dissenting views have trouble getting published in orthodox peer-
reviewed venues, that usually says something about the quality of the
work involved;

Or it says something about the bias of the "peers."

Precisely that argument is used by flat earth activists....

That's bull****. Don't mention that crap again or this discussion is over.

Did I step on an aching toe of yours?

The argument "bias of your peers" is often used by **anyone** who wants
to oppose the mainstream - as if general agreement by itself always is
something bad. But if we never reach any general agreement, we will be
unable to perform any kind of action which requires resources beyond what
an individual or a small group can provide. Is that your ideal?

So you don't like peer review. With what would you like to replace it? No
review at all?

Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled
by one faction.

Such as the faction claiming that a Perpeetum Mobile is a physical
impossibility? :-)

I could has easily accuse a "conspiracy" of preventing chemical journals
from publishing papers on the chemical (as opposed to nuclear)
transmutation of lead into gold.

The true sciences are much more "settled" than climate change is. We know
A LOT about the energies of the nucleus versus electron energy levels.
There are no "big problems" hanging out there in chemistry, and there are
few in physics.

"Most" is one thing. "Nearly all" is another.

Funny, I know a few PhDs in science ranging from physicists to soil
scientist who claim AGW is bunk and politically motivated. I know none
who are AGW advocates. So my own "survey" is in stark contrast to the
claims bandied about by the advocates.

How many of those are climate researchers?

Physicists are used to simple problems where fundamental effects are
researched. In addition, physicists are used to systems they can perform
experiments on. They are not used to very complex systems like the Earth
with its atmosphere and its climate. which they can only observe, not
experiment on.

Exactly my point. If you can't do experiments or give accurate
predictions then it's not a true science.

That's your definition. But I'll get along with it for awhile -- so let's
say that climate science isn't a "true science" since we cannot put a
hundred Earth's under a hundred glass covers in the laboratory and
subject them to different influences (e.g. increase the CO2 in half of
them and not increasing the CO2 in the other half), and then wait several
centuries to observe what happens. We will never be able to do that, so
in that respect climate science, or any other Earth science, isn't a
"true science" in the same way that e.g. particle physics is. We only
have one single Earth.

So now that we've agreed to label climate science "not a true science",
how do you suggest we should deal with this situation? Should we ignore
climate science completely and let Nature subject us to anything which
may appear in the climate of the future? Even though climate science is
not a "true science", it is still the best we have (or else it would
already have been replaced with something better -- any suggestions for a
replacement?). So why not make the best use of it?

Regarding your suggestion "wait for more data" - that's not always a
feasible option. Consider a village on a slope of a volcano which shows
signs that it may soon erupt. Should that village be evacuated or not? If
we wait until the volcano actually does erupt it will be too late and
most of the villagers will die. How would you act in such a situation?
Would you act differently of some of the villages also were your personal
friends? Having someone as your personal friend **will** make you biased,
that is a well-known fact in the courts all over the world.

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society
towards less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would
downgrade heavy industry, and thus impact the military defense
capabilities of the United States of America.

Indeed, but there are other consequences. Anthropologist Carleton Coon
pointed out that civilization itself is determined by converting
available energy into social structure, so less dependence on energy
means a debasing of society.

Furthermore, the developing countries are where the increasing CO2
emissions will be coming from, so it is pointless to harm the USA
in a fanatic process of self-immolation.

Yep -- "harm the USA" -- that's the main preoccupation of climate deniers.
They think it's better to make our civilisation collapse than to
"harm the USA". But they'll shoot themselves in the foot, since a
collapse of our civilisation **also** will "harm the USA"....

If the US collapses the world will be thrown into chaos, so your argument
is baloney. You seem to be a George Soros sycophant.

A collapse of our civilization would not just affect the US, it would
affect Europe and Asia just as much and have consequences there too. In
comparison, the collapse of the US could be relatively insignificant.
Unless of course some future Trump-like idiot president of yours starts
to detonate your nukes to "demonstrate" the "significance" of the US. Is
that your idea of showing the importance of the US?

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually
is the alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating
consequences, while it's the risk of doing nothing that's small.

Exactly. I'm not saying to do nothing, but I am saying to take it slow,
improve the climate models, gather more data and move incrementally
toward reducing greenhouse gases (but not water vapor :-)

If you were an extraterrestial, observing the Earth from space, you could
argue like that. But you are a human living on Earth and whatever happens
here will affect you too. The situation here on Earth is a bit more
urgent than you realize. Waiting a century or so (which would be required
to meet your demands) is very likely waiting too long...

As I have demonstrated, you are dead wrong about that.

You've not demonstrated anything. Babbling does not count as
demonstrating.

Anyway, so in your opinion we can continue emitting CO2 as before without
any grave consequenses - correct?

However, the Earth's supply of fossil fuel isn't infinite. With our ever
increasing demand for it, we'll run out of it within a century or so. And
that would certainly "harm the USA" - what's your opinion about that?

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:24:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased,

It indeed is ... biased towards the truth.

I disagree.

Do you prefer some other kind of bias?

I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might
affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN
from doing the CLOUD experiment.

The CLOUD experiment seems to be alive and well.

Now is not when the AGW advocates trid to prevent it from happening.

And while the contribution from cosmic rays in forming clouds in our
atmosphere might be interesting, I don't see the relevance of it to the
AGW question. After all, the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth
is quite independent from our emissions of CO2.

But it's not independent from global temperature.

BTW which climate researchers have tried to stop the CLOUD experiment at
CERN? Please name a few of them, preferably with relevant references.

I read it on the web but I can't find it now. Funny how those things
disappear.

ANd, yes, they should be researchers in climate science, not zealot
advocates of any kind. Zealit advocates are hardly interesting -- they
are a matter of psychology and mass communication, not of the Earth
sciences.

Indeed, and I find a LOT of zealots in the AGW camp.

even to the point of denigrating skeptics

Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok.

In your not-so-humble opinion.

Do you disagree with me? DO you think deniers are ok?

That depends upon what they're denying, but calling someone a denier doesn't
mean they actually are one.

with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since
they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad
hominem rather than to the discussion.

And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth?

Are you commenting on yourself?

Do you have trouble reading English?

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red
herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly
than carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an
effect. Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer,
so IF CO2 causes an increase in temperature, there will be more
greenhouse effect than what comes directly from the CO2. For some
reason, however, this effect is less than what the climate models
predict.

On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something
else?

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

This is not a climate model but merely a radiation model.

And you dishonestly believe radiation is irrelevant?

Yuu wrote "this effect is less than what the climate models predict"
where youwrote "climate models" in the plural form. So you must have
examined more than just one model which isn't even a climate model. Which
climate models are you referring to here? All existing models, without
exception? Or only some models -- which ones?

Oh, good grief! Did you do this:

Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm
results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2.
Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by
about 1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a
decrease of 2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a
decrease of about 3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models
assume a linear effect, whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear.

3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's
albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200
years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise.

I played around with it and it was fun. However, it gives you the upwards
IR radiation as seen from an altitude of 70 km, well above 99.9% of the
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. And what you see there is the
radiation from these greenhouse gases, not from the ground.

Yes, it does measure the radiation from the ground. Are you blind?

Look at the
diagram to the right, which shows the radiation intensity as a function
of wavelength (or wavenumber). Although the ground temperature is 300K,
the upward radiation temperature from 70 km altitude never reaches 300K.

The diagram on the right shows temperature vs. altitude. The one on
the LEFT shows intensity vs. wavelength for various temperatures.
And you seem to be criticizing something that is your fantasy.

So what you see here is the radiation balance between the Sun and the
upper atmpsphere of the Earth. OF COURSE the upward IR heat flux at this
altitude is quite independent of the number of ppm's of CO2, as you
noted. The heat flux from the Earth into space must, on the average,
naturally equal the incoming light and heat from the Sun. This says
little about the temperatures at or near the ground, which is what
concerns us humans who live on the ground.

Yep, you completely misread the model.

You would obtain a similar result at Venus: the upward IR radiation from
Venus is on the average the same as the incoming light and heat from the
Sun - revealing little about the oven-like temperatures on the surface on
Venus.

This radiationb model also gives the ground temperature as very nearly
300K (299.7K to be precise). But that value seems to be hardwired into
the program - you can change it by switching from "Tropical atmosphere"
to "Midlatitude Summer" or "Subarctic Winter" or 3 other choices. But
apart from that it seems completely unaffected by e.g. the amount of CO2
I choose.

Try changing temperature offset.

I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground
temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by
even 0.1K.

It's an INPUT parameter controlled by "Temperature Offset."

So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that
"changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature".

You are deluded believing that it is some kind of output. The output
is "Upward IP Heat Flux."

Upward IP Heat Flux is the important thing. Did you try putting in
ths values for CO2 levels that I did? Did you see that doubling the
present CO2 level to 800 ppm only increased the heat flux by about
3 W/m^2? Do you realize that such a difference is about the same that
the solar constant varies? Do you understand the implications of that?
Do you understand that cloud cover has a much larger effect than CO2?
Do you understand that it will take 200 years for CO2 levels to rise
to the point where CO2 will have as big an effect as solar variations?

I gotta go. Later.

The pseudo-intellectuals will talk about carbon dioxide and 'climate change' until they depart this Earth however planetary climate for all planets in the solar system is based on a relatively straightforward principle based on the degree of inclination within a spectrum. The Earth's climate would only change in the event of an increase or decrease in inclination towards and away from the plane of the orbital motion of the Earth.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif


The broad principles are already in front of researchers as the spectrum is between 0 degrees to 90 degrees signifying an Equatorial climate or a Polar climate respectively with combinations of both in-between depending on inclination.

It takes probably a number of major modifications to model the links between the motions of the Earth and the effects on the atmosphere but considering RA/Dec disrupts the daily cycle, the dual surface rotations responsible for the seasonal cycle, axial precession to the Sun as an annual event, research is wasted on a stationary 'greenhouse' Earth.

In two weeks it will be polar noon and polar midnight at the Poles or midsummer and midwinter in the respective hemispheres signifying one surface rotation in isolation (Polar day/night cycle) and in combination with daily rotation (seasons). People should love the exciting adventure but only dullness prevents society from this new approach. So be it .

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might
affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN
from doing the CLOUD experiment.

Came across a graph on this page:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...&post=35457821

Of course, the graph may have been cherry-picked, since it was exhibited by an
AGW supporter. But it certainly looks like even though cosmic rays do have an
effect when other things are equal - something else is happening now.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled
by one faction.

Peer review is *always* controlled by "one faction", it could be argued. After
all, how many published papers on astrology or alchemy do you see in scientific
journals?

So opposition to AGW, like any unorthodox idea in science, can be smeared by
association very easily, if nothing else.

If the debate is to be conducted by people doing the science from scratch
themselves, it will be a very slow one. But I can't deny that the alternative,
of simply ridiculing the unorthodox for their outsider status doesn't prove
anything.

To me, though, the difference between an "independent variable" and a "dependent
variable" is often a fundamental thing. So it's highly plausible to me that
while the direct effect of carbon dioxide levels on the heat leaving the Earth
is so small as to be "lost in the noise", with everything else being out of our
control, or following predictable cycles, and with things like water vapor quite
clearly and obviously acting as amplifiers, not independent contributors, those
carbon dioxide levels could be what is causing change.

And while I would suspect the conclusiions of environmental activists,

and I'm aware of the extent to which political correctness has created a
unanimity of thought in liberal arts departments on college campuses,

back when I was a student myself in the 1980s, the rot had not started to set in
within the physical sciences.

I don't think that a legitimate researcher who found that there's no need for
undue concern about fossil fuel emissions just yet... would meet the same fate
as a researcher who claimed that he could prove that white people were more
intelligent.

Unfortunately, though, I can understand all too well why someone of a
conservative view might not be so sure.

So, while to me the surface appearance is that the AGW consensus is a legitimate result of the science, and it isn't because the environmental activists have taken control of the campuses and the journals, since the reputation of academia has been compromised, I am not really surprised that others may have different perceptions.

I am dismayed by this very much, as a society that has lost its ability to
perceive reality is likely to do itself in even before the effects of rising
global temperatures become noticeable. The current toxic political climate needs
to be fixed.

John Savard

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 11:36:44 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled
by one faction.

Peer review is *always* controlled by "one faction", it could be argued.
After all, how many published papers on astrology or alchemy do you see
in scientific journals?

I think that's a combination of excluded middle and straw-man argument.
I don't think any scientist advocates either of those "disciplines, and
lots of papers "out of the mainstream" are published in the journals.
Certainly, some scientists disagree with them and even ridicule them,
but they ARE published.

So opposition to AGW, like any unorthodox idea in science, can be smeared by
association very easily, if nothing else.

If the debate is to be conducted by people doing the science from scratch
themselves, it will be a very slow one. But I can't deny that the
alternative, of simply ridiculing the unorthodox for their outsider status
doesn't prove anything.

To me, though, the difference between an "independent variable" and a
"dependent variable" is often a fundamental thing. So it's highly plausible
to me that while the direct effect of carbon dioxide levels on the heat
leaving the Earth is so small as to be "lost in the noise", with everything
else being out of our control, or following predictable cycles, and with
things like water vapor quite clearly and obviously acting as amplifiers,
not independent contributors, those carbon dioxide levels could be what is
causing change.

But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water vapor,
including the solar constant variations.

And while I would suspect the conclusiions of environmental activists,

and I'm aware of the extent to which political correctness has created a
unanimity of thought in liberal arts departments on college campuses,

back when I was a student myself in the 1980s, the rot had not started to
set in within the physical sciences.

I don't think that a legitimate researcher who found that there's no need
for undue concern about fossil fuel emissions just yet... would meet the
same fate as a researcher who claimed that he could prove that white people
were more intelligent.

Unfortunately, though, I can understand all too well why someone of a
conservative view might not be so sure.

So, while to me the surface appearance is that the AGW consensus is a
legitimate result of the science, and it isn't because the environmental
activists have taken control of the campuses and the journals, since the
reputation of academia has been compromised, I am not really surprised
that others may have different perceptions.

I am dismayed by this very much, as a society that has lost its ability to
perceive reality is likely to do itself in even before the effects of rising
global temperatures become noticeable. The current toxic political climate
needs to be fixed.

John Savard

Indeed.

Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got his
ideas from.

I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app certainly
confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level, which will take
200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival solar constant
variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect, initially to reduce
heat flux into space, but long-term to produce cooling by increasing
earth's albedo.

The graph of temperature vs. cosmic ray flux seems to show no correlation,
but the flux data only goes to 2003. The flux decrease has only been
observed for about 4 years. Furthermore, the initial effect of increased
cloudiness has a warming effect, but the long-term trend is to lower
temperature due to decreased input from the sun.

Gary