1. The person to blame is Margaret Thatcher. Gore was just a minor politician, and, being an American, intellectually negligible, when he started banging on about Man Made Global Warming. But when Thatcher pushed the issue into international politics at the UN, he was able to ride on her coat tails and get well known.
2. "Hoist with" (Shakespeare's original" or "hoist by" (modern) his own petard. Not "on". A petard was a shaped explosive charge used for blowing gates open. Not "on".
1. Just trying to fight the Narrative with a bit of Science. On the other-other hand, as my brother always says, "First you must assign blame". Well, I see these figures of how "does it look like maybe they fit together?" being used today in Universities to teach climate "science"! It's probably a hopeless to fight Narratives anyway!
2. Yep, looked up that Hamlet saying also -- on the other-other hand, most people are probably as ignorant of the original saying as I !
It is interesting how the temperature has fluctuated over the eons. It's a good argument against man-made warming. The CO2 argument for man-made warming is pretty good too. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation (IR) as any engineering text on heat transfer will show. The youtube video with the title: "How quantum mechanics explains global warming - Lieven Scheire" gives a crude explanation of what is happening at the molecular level. Another one, includes calculations due to CO2 - it sounds about right, but I want to see the math in greater detail before I'm totally convinced. That video has the title: ""The Quantum Physics of Climate Change" by Brad Marston, Brown University". Both good to watch and I'd appreciate any comments about errors, etc. I'm trying to figure out if AGW is a real problem or not. Thank you.
Short Summary (My thinking from looking at this for the last decade and a half):
Over the ages, there has not been any correlation between CO2 and temperature; it is certainly true that CO2 has been much higher in the past (such that some say trees are almost starving to death today). More recently (the past few million years) we entered into a glaciation period, and these glaciations are periodic, about every 100,000 years. The CO2 also changes periodically with temperature. HOWEVER, the DATA all show that CO2 LAGS temperature, on average by about 800 years, but by about 15,000 years when the earth is cooling. In physics we believe cause comes before effect. And this periodic change in temperature we know is due to periodic changes in the earth's orbit. The effect of CO2 is almost saturated -- i.e., we are at the point of diminishing returns -- more CO2 hardly affects the earths temperature.
Is it a problem? I think not -- the earth has been hotter in this present interglacial period, and many degrees hotter in the previous interglacial period. What is clear is that in a few thousand years the earth will again have another Ice Age and CO2 will have no effect on that -- but humans and their ancestors have have lived through about 10 of them, at least.
I have about 20 postings describing the science of Climate Change -- you might enjoy reading them starting from the beginning; the latter ones build upon the earlier postings.
Agreed… the only correlation between CO2 and temperature that has been established was by Tony Heller. Mr. Heller has shown that the ADJUSTMENTS to raw temperatures by NOAA (which cooled early 20th Century recorded/measured temperatures and warmed later temperatures) can be directly tied to CO2 levels.
I understand the argument but the Princeton physicist William Happer, who has studied CO2 apparently for some sort of laser usage his entire career, disagrees. His argument is that CO2 is less a factor than the AGW crowd postulates because the HEAT IN THE SPECTRUM that CO2 absorbs is almost completely consumed by water vapor and the pre-existing CO2 already present (whether released from natural processes or from processes triggered by humans). In short, "sure, it has the capacity but there is insignificant residual heat within the radiation band that CO2 captures to be captured. In essence, your can have lots of prison beds but absent convicts to imprison the beds remain empty."
While I'm arguing that not CO2, but rather variations in the Earth's orbit, determine the Ice Age cycles, Happer is making a separate argument, which I agree with, namely that the effect of CO2 on global warming is already "saturated" -- namely that additional CO2 will have negligible impact on the environment.
I love the talks on CO2 and Global Warming by both Happer and Giaever -- both (nobel laureates) very smart and funny!
Even Margaret Thatcher isn't really to blame. In her 1989 speech to the UN she didn't actually claim a causative link bwteen CO2 and AGW, and she also mentioned solar and volcanic activity which you never hear about (from the alarmists) these days. She obviously also had some serious misgivings, as she published a kind-of-retraction the following year to downplay the role of CO2, but by then the damage had been done. Unfortunately her small hint had already been spotted by every scam artist and con man in the world, all of whom - like Al Gore - have gone on to make megabucks
And, some argue, that after the coal strike in 1984, she wanted to find a way to kill those unions and shut down coal mining (instead moving to Natural Gas). Global Warming due to Coal (CO2).
1. The person to blame is Margaret Thatcher. Gore was just a minor politician, and, being an American, intellectually negligible, when he started banging on about Man Made Global Warming. But when Thatcher pushed the issue into international politics at the UN, he was able to ride on her coat tails and get well known.
2. "Hoist with" (Shakespeare's original" or "hoist by" (modern) his own petard. Not "on". A petard was a shaped explosive charge used for blowing gates open. Not "on".
1. Just trying to fight the Narrative with a bit of Science. On the other-other hand, as my brother always says, "First you must assign blame". Well, I see these figures of how "does it look like maybe they fit together?" being used today in Universities to teach climate "science"! It's probably a hopeless to fight Narratives anyway!
2. Yep, looked up that Hamlet saying also -- on the other-other hand, most people are probably as ignorant of the original saying as I !
It is interesting how the temperature has fluctuated over the eons. It's a good argument against man-made warming. The CO2 argument for man-made warming is pretty good too. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation (IR) as any engineering text on heat transfer will show. The youtube video with the title: "How quantum mechanics explains global warming - Lieven Scheire" gives a crude explanation of what is happening at the molecular level. Another one, includes calculations due to CO2 - it sounds about right, but I want to see the math in greater detail before I'm totally convinced. That video has the title: ""The Quantum Physics of Climate Change" by Brad Marston, Brown University". Both good to watch and I'd appreciate any comments about errors, etc. I'm trying to figure out if AGW is a real problem or not. Thank you.
Short Summary (My thinking from looking at this for the last decade and a half):
Over the ages, there has not been any correlation between CO2 and temperature; it is certainly true that CO2 has been much higher in the past (such that some say trees are almost starving to death today). More recently (the past few million years) we entered into a glaciation period, and these glaciations are periodic, about every 100,000 years. The CO2 also changes periodically with temperature. HOWEVER, the DATA all show that CO2 LAGS temperature, on average by about 800 years, but by about 15,000 years when the earth is cooling. In physics we believe cause comes before effect. And this periodic change in temperature we know is due to periodic changes in the earth's orbit. The effect of CO2 is almost saturated -- i.e., we are at the point of diminishing returns -- more CO2 hardly affects the earths temperature.
Is it a problem? I think not -- the earth has been hotter in this present interglacial period, and many degrees hotter in the previous interglacial period. What is clear is that in a few thousand years the earth will again have another Ice Age and CO2 will have no effect on that -- but humans and their ancestors have have lived through about 10 of them, at least.
I have about 20 postings describing the science of Climate Change -- you might enjoy reading them starting from the beginning; the latter ones build upon the earlier postings.
Agreed… the only correlation between CO2 and temperature that has been established was by Tony Heller. Mr. Heller has shown that the ADJUSTMENTS to raw temperatures by NOAA (which cooled early 20th Century recorded/measured temperatures and warmed later temperatures) can be directly tied to CO2 levels.
I understand the argument but the Princeton physicist William Happer, who has studied CO2 apparently for some sort of laser usage his entire career, disagrees. His argument is that CO2 is less a factor than the AGW crowd postulates because the HEAT IN THE SPECTRUM that CO2 absorbs is almost completely consumed by water vapor and the pre-existing CO2 already present (whether released from natural processes or from processes triggered by humans). In short, "sure, it has the capacity but there is insignificant residual heat within the radiation band that CO2 captures to be captured. In essence, your can have lots of prison beds but absent convicts to imprison the beds remain empty."
Dear Mark --
I believe we are in violent agreement !
While I'm arguing that not CO2, but rather variations in the Earth's orbit, determine the Ice Age cycles, Happer is making a separate argument, which I agree with, namely that the effect of CO2 on global warming is already "saturated" -- namely that additional CO2 will have negligible impact on the environment.
I love the talks on CO2 and Global Warming by both Happer and Giaever -- both (nobel laureates) very smart and funny!
Happer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw
(Wow, it's still on GooTube! Giaever always gets scrubbed!)
Giaever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
(GooTube link, no idea how long it will stay active)
Even Margaret Thatcher isn't really to blame. In her 1989 speech to the UN she didn't actually claim a causative link bwteen CO2 and AGW, and she also mentioned solar and volcanic activity which you never hear about (from the alarmists) these days. She obviously also had some serious misgivings, as she published a kind-of-retraction the following year to downplay the role of CO2, but by then the damage had been done. Unfortunately her small hint had already been spotted by every scam artist and con man in the world, all of whom - like Al Gore - have gone on to make megabucks
And, some argue, that after the coal strike in 1984, she wanted to find a way to kill those unions and shut down coal mining (instead moving to Natural Gas). Global Warming due to Coal (CO2).