4 ms·

CO2 absorbs in three spectral lines out in the infrared, keeping the quantum mechanics and molecular spectroscopy simple, one line for each of bending, twisting

CO2 absorbs in three spectral lines out in the infrared, keeping the quantum mechanics and molecular spectroscopy simple, one line for each of bending, twisting, stretching of the molecule. The photons the CO2 absorbs are supposedly mostly just those radiated by the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth heated by the photons direct from the sun. Lindzen argues why this absorption is not affecting the climate. It's a long way from that molecular spectroscopy to the climate effect claims of the alarmists. The analysis in the movie Swindle... from Lindzen and others explains clearly.

pjc50 7y ago
> In an 8400-word official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film [Swindle] dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change. Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria. Do you have any sources that haven't been ruled misleading by OFCOM?
- graycat 7y ago
  The political stuff at the end was interesting. I noted the remark "there's money on the table ...". Obviously (i) there's a lot of politics in this subject and (ii) politics, with a lot of "hidden agendas" and backroom deals, is tough to explain. So, the explanations of the British politics was interesting. But that doesn't explain the US politics, or that in France, Germany, etc. I don't know anything about OFCOM. Here in the US we totally refuse to pay any attention at all to any such organized criticism of the press, Web sites, documentaries, fictional stories, video clips, etc. I don't think the US has anything like OFCOM, but if we did nearly all of us would ignore it. In the US, if some people don't like some of the movie, then they get to make a movie, white paper, Web site, whatever, to point out where the movie was wrong. I'd eagerly pay close attention to any even half way well done debunking of the movie. To me the most important remarks were from Lindzen at MIT. Other than that the review of the data, last 2000 years or so and the ice core data back ~1 million years, was credible. In particular, in his movie, Gore misread the ice core data, e.g., the 800 year lag; to me that 800 year lag junks both Gore's movie and Gore. I also liked Wunsch's contributions, e.g., colder ocean surface waters absorb more CO2 and warmer waters can release CO2. But I've heard before that Wunsch didn't like his statements used in the movie: My guess on why is that he didn't want to get involved in the politics. I can understand that. For Lindzen, he's been retired, i.e., no longer seeking grant money, for some years, maybe when the movie was made. I didn't like the part of the movie with their cartoon of photons hitting the earth and, according to the cartoon, essentially reflecting. Nope: The main effect is supposed to be the photons directly from the sun being absorbed by and warming the surface of the earth and, then, MORE photons released by the surface from the effect of Planck black body radiation. So, that released Planck radiation has a frequency distribution depending on surface temperature (my ugrad physics prof was big on that distribution). Then at the surface temperatures involved, the peak and some large fraction of the radiation is out in the infrared (my ugrad physics prof was big also on infrared, e.g., had a USAF contract "To further the science of the infrared", smart USAF!), in particular out where the three absorption spectral lines of CO2 are. Net, it's apparently mostly or nearly entirely that Planck radiation that the CO2 absorbs, not "reflected" radiation or direct radiation from the sun. For the effects of the CO2 warming, I listened to Lindzen and his remarks about the troposphere. I find credible the argument and data that the temperature changes of the past 2000 years or so are from changes in the rates of sun spots. There were some significant temperature changes, e.g., warming that let grapes grow in England and cooling that froze the Thames River and the Delaware River when Washington crossed it, etc.; CO2 changes don't fit the data at all, but sun spot data does. Definitely the causes were not CO2; the best guess so far is sun spots. To me far and away the stake through the heart of the alarmists has to be the wild predictions of major warming that didn't happen. E.g., the model predictions and the subsequent observed data are compared at http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg In short, nearly all the predictions were wildly wrong. The main test of science, from Newton to Einstein to the Higgs, is to make predictions that come true. When predictions are wildly wrong, we junk the proposed science. Various people, including even F. Dyson, have offered explanations on why such a large fraction of the models failed so badly; explanations (the dog ate my homework) aside, the predictions were junk. The predictions were so bad that we have to suspect gross scientific incompetence or deliberate fraud -- in either case we should be angry. I am. To me those predictions are good evidence that the alarmists are pushing a flim-flam, fraud, scam. Maybe a lot of the alarmists are traditional convenient idiots, but the whole alarmist movement looks like a house made of paper about to fall. The alarmists want to fight climate change by taking some $trillions of money from taxpayers. I do not believe that human activities are having a significant or harmful effect on climate and vote NO. You can go along with the idea of spending $trillions if you want. The smart politics way to go is to pretend to be concerned about "climate change" and seem virtuous while understanding that Trump is slowly cutting off the US "climate research" money flows, junking the Paris Accords, pushing "clean coal", fracking, and the fossil fuel pipelines, and the whole movement is on the way of the hulu hoop. More time, money, and effort will be wasted, but the $trillions will never be allocated. In the meanwhile, to me, Gore, Bloomberg, AOC, the IPCC, and the rest of the alarmists look motivated by politics and/or money, refuse to look objectively at the science, and are proposing what would be huge harm and wastes of time, money, and energy. I find that those proposals of harm and waste wildly wrong, outrageous, contemptible, and so explain here. But my explanations are changing no minds at all; my attempts to be objective are for nothing. I'm wasting my time and HN points. That so much of the HN audience is going along with the Gore scam, etc., is surprising to me, but live and learn. My explanation is that the core of the alarmists are driven by money and power and the rest are convenient idiots driven by social concerns, tribalism. I can see some of why: Skeptics can get dumped on. Here at HN I just lose points, but elsewhere people could lose jobs, have their tires slashed, etc. A big question is just how did the climate tribalism get going; i.e., with his obviously silly movie, e.g., the 800 year lag, how did Gore get the movement going? It can't have been just social. Instead at the core it had to be "follow the money" -- some people made big bucks or hoped to. Whatever, it's all on the way to dead now. I'm shocked and severely disappointed at much of the HN audience. But it will all come out okay; the Green New Deal is becoming the poster child for dementia!!!

pjc50 7y ago

> In an 8400-word official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film [Swindle] dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change. Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria. Do you have any sources that haven't been ruled misleading by OFCOM?

graycat 7y ago
The political stuff at the end was interesting. I noted the remark "there's money on the table ...". Obviously (i) there's a lot of politics in this subject and (ii) politics, with a lot of "hidden agendas" and backroom deals, is tough to explain. So, the explanations of the British politics was interesting. But that doesn't explain the US politics, or that in France, Germany, etc. I don't know anything about OFCOM. Here in the US we totally refuse to pay any attention at all to any such organized criticism of the press, Web sites, documentaries, fictional stories, video clips, etc. I don't think the US has anything like OFCOM, but if we did nearly all of us would ignore it. In the US, if some people don't like some of the movie, then they get to make a movie, white paper, Web site, whatever, to point out where the movie was wrong. I'd eagerly pay close attention to any even half way well done debunking of the movie. To me the most important remarks were from Lindzen at MIT. Other than that the review of the data, last 2000 years or so and the ice core data back ~1 million years, was credible. In particular, in his movie, Gore misread the ice core data, e.g., the 800 year lag; to me that 800 year lag junks both Gore's movie and Gore. I also liked Wunsch's contributions, e.g., colder ocean surface waters absorb more CO2 and warmer waters can release CO2. But I've heard before that Wunsch didn't like his statements used in the movie: My guess on why is that he didn't want to get involved in the politics. I can understand that. For Lindzen, he's been retired, i.e., no longer seeking grant money, for some years, maybe when the movie was made. I didn't like the part of the movie with their cartoon of photons hitting the earth and, according to the cartoon, essentially reflecting. Nope: The main effect is supposed to be the photons directly from the sun being absorbed by and warming the surface of the earth and, then, MORE photons released by the surface from the effect of Planck black body radiation. So, that released Planck radiation has a frequency distribution depending on surface temperature (my ugrad physics prof was big on that distribution). Then at the surface temperatures involved, the peak and some large fraction of the radiation is out in the infrared (my ugrad physics prof was big also on infrared, e.g., had a USAF contract "To further the science of the infrared", smart USAF!), in particular out where the three absorption spectral lines of CO2 are. Net, it's apparently mostly or nearly entirely that Planck radiation that the CO2 absorbs, not "reflected" radiation or direct radiation from the sun. For the effects of the CO2 warming, I listened to Lindzen and his remarks about the troposphere. I find credible the argument and data that the temperature changes of the past 2000 years or so are from changes in the rates of sun spots. There were some significant temperature changes, e.g., warming that let grapes grow in England and cooling that froze the Thames River and the Delaware River when Washington crossed it, etc.; CO2 changes don't fit the data at all, but sun spot data does. Definitely the causes were not CO2; the best guess so far is sun spots. To me far and away the stake through the heart of the alarmists has to be the wild predictions of major warming that didn't happen. E.g., the model predictions and the subsequent observed data are compared at http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg In short, nearly all the predictions were wildly wrong. The main test of science, from Newton to Einstein to the Higgs, is to make predictions that come true. When predictions are wildly wrong, we junk the proposed science. Various people, including even F. Dyson, have offered explanations on why such a large fraction of the models failed so badly; explanations (the dog ate my homework) aside, the predictions were junk. The predictions were so bad that we have to suspect gross scientific incompetence or deliberate fraud -- in either case we should be angry. I am. To me those predictions are good evidence that the alarmists are pushing a flim-flam, fraud, scam. Maybe a lot of the alarmists are traditional convenient idiots, but the whole alarmist movement looks like a house made of paper about to fall. The alarmists want to fight climate change by taking some $trillions of money from taxpayers. I do not believe that human activities are having a significant or harmful effect on climate and vote NO. You can go along with the idea of spending $trillions if you want. The smart politics way to go is to pretend to be concerned about "climate change" and seem virtuous while understanding that Trump is slowly cutting off the US "climate research" money flows, junking the Paris Accords, pushing "clean coal", fracking, and the fossil fuel pipelines, and the whole movement is on the way of the hulu hoop. More time, money, and effort will be wasted, but the $trillions will never be allocated. In the meanwhile, to me, Gore, Bloomberg, AOC, the IPCC, and the rest of the alarmists look motivated by politics and/or money, refuse to look objectively at the science, and are proposing what would be huge harm and wastes of time, money, and energy. I find that those proposals of harm and waste wildly wrong, outrageous, contemptible, and so explain here. But my explanations are changing no minds at all; my attempts to be objective are for nothing. I'm wasting my time and HN points. That so much of the HN audience is going along with the Gore scam, etc., is surprising to me, but live and learn. My explanation is that the core of the alarmists are driven by money and power and the rest are convenient idiots driven by social concerns, tribalism. I can see some of why: Skeptics can get dumped on. Here at HN I just lose points, but elsewhere people could lose jobs, have their tires slashed, etc. A big question is just how did the climate tribalism get going; i.e., with his obviously silly movie, e.g., the 800 year lag, how did Gore get the movement going? It can't have been just social. Instead at the core it had to be "follow the money" -- some people made big bucks or hoped to. Whatever, it's all on the way to dead now. I'm shocked and severely disappointed at much of the HN audience. But it will all come out okay; the Green New Deal is becoming the poster child for dementia!!!