The Good News and The Bad News on Climate Change

On Friday, at my university, we were fortunate enough to have a very well know climate science researcher speak, Michael Mann.  IF the name sounds familiar it’s because he was the one that produced the famous “Hockey Stick” graph that appeared in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters journal in 1999 (I wonder how many graphs have their own Wikipedia page!).  The graph of course was much maligned by climate change deniers funded by various lobbying groups, but has since that time proven to be quite accurate and verified by other researchers.  His was also among the e-mails leaked in the scandal called “climategate” which, despite the spin of deniers from out of context e-mail excerpts, has been debunked by the scientific community.  It was a great opportunity to hear from someone who has been at the heart of promoting scientific research on climate change, while also dealing with a great deal of political controversy and pseudo-science promoters who try to claim human-induced climate change is a hoax.  Like many climate scientists he has reached a point where he no longer finds it very useful to reach out to the public with facts and figures.  Numerous research articles have concluded that now, views on climate change are governed by political ideology rather than directly arguing with the science behind human-induced climate change.  I found the talk quite illuminating since I too have reached the same conclusion that scientific evidence seems to carry little weight when having discussions with people about the issue.  I also found it illuminating to learn more about the political state of affairs in the U.S. right now, so I wanted to share some good news and bad news takeaways for those of you concerned about our Earth.

The Good News

One thing that I thought was a good take away is that if you are a person debating or discussing this topic with a friend, relative, stranger whatever, that talking about the scientific consensus is probably the most helpful thing you can do.  Obviously there are always going to be contrary people, but for many there is still a misconception that this is a split issue, and research demonstrates that a lot of minds are changed by pointing out how much consensus there really is.  For more conservatively minded people reminding them that there are more economic benefits to doing something to not doing something, and that climate change also represents a national security issue is also important.  Fortunately there is already a faction of the military addressing climate change from this perspective.

The other bit of good news is that there is a great deal of plans in place by scientists and engineers to start dealing with climate change.  Basically the scientific community is prepared, and are simply waiting for the political will to be able to spring into action.

Michael Mann also said there are a lot of Republican members of congress who are closeted climate change supporters.  They accept the scientific evidence and feel that it is important to do something about it.  Why are they in the closet, well they have learned the lesson of Bob Inglis.  He was a SC congressman who served from 2005-2011 and came out for doing something about climate change from an evangelical Christian perspective.  He said the scientists were right and as Christians we should be caring for God’s creation.  If you are a Christian this is a valid position to take and is supported by scripture.  Bob Inglis ended up losing by a landslide in the Republican primary as his opponent was support by the Koch brothers.  Michael Mann and Bob Inglis are good friends and so I believe this political inside information to be plausible and valid.  In some ways by releasing him like that, conservative America has opened up a can of worms and Mr. Inglis now promotes doing something about climate change from both a Republican and Christian viewpoint.

The Bad News

Well the bad news is also related to the good news.  It makes me concerned, not only that the massive money of the Koch Brothers and energy companies lobbying against solid science is preventing us from taking action that will help this planet, but also that we have so many Republican people in congress without the political courage to stand up to the money.  It seems if they all banded together I am not sure what the likes of the Koch Brothers could do, if all of a sudden all of those people in congress lost their next elections suddenly. It would sort of “show their hand”.  I guess it upsets me that the people we elect can be so intellectually dishonest and live with themselves.

I asked Michael Mann what the political tipping point would be to make all these Republican congress people come out the proverbial closet.  He said that it would take the Republican party to crash and burn in this next election.  Only by losing the executive branch and the senate (and possibly the house) would make them turn around and start to support more environmental concerns.  The problem is that this election is looking a lot closer than it should be.  A small margin of victory by Clinton isn’t going to cut it.

What is clear is that whatever your political stance, climate change is in your best interest and it behooves you to vote for politicians who do have the courage to fight for this planet.  Given Gary Johnson, and Trump’s stance on climate, these are really not viable options.  And most importantly make sure you vote for people in the senate and the house who accept the scientific consensus on climate change as well.

Finally I also want to help promote Michael Mann’s new book.  It gives a much more in depth discussion than my little summary here.  He also teamed up with a satirical cartoonist from the Washington Post who provides some good humor throughout the book.  The book address things like ethics, politics, the money and ideologies behind climate science deniers, logical fallacies, and of course some basics about the science.  I highly recommend it.




The book discusses tipping point in the climate system which are points which there is no quick return from and can lead to rapid disaster.

44 thoughts on “The Good News and The Bad News on Climate Change

  1. … we have so many Republican people in congress without the political courage to stand up to the money.

    IMO, it isn’t so much they won’t stand up to the money … it’s that they can’t keep from pocketing it! Greed is a very persuasive force.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. There are definitely ones like that. I suspect these closeted Republicans are not so much getting richer from Koch money but they are financing the campaigns to get them reelected as opposed to financing campaigns against them in primaries.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Excellent post Swarn! That graph you embedded is one of my favorites! What I find utterly mind-boggling and freaky scary are the timelapse photo images of our polar ice-caps, Greenland and Iceland icesheets, etc, from 1970’s, 1980’s…2008 thru today’s images, and there is no denying this planet isn’t EVEN the same planet! Not in the least! 😦

    What’s really super sad about pockets of humanity and climate change is that politicians and those of the population WITH the wealth & resources (monetary & otherwise) won’t truly concern themselves with giving up their methods of profits UNLESS it hits their pocketbooks and bottom-lines directly. And it may be too late by then.

    Thank all great human virtues and people like Michael Mann and other scientists & climatologists, huh!? 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Good points Professor thank you. That’s what I try to also bring to the discussion, the cost to those with less means. It’s a pretty big gamble to go against scientific consensus and promote inaction when so many lives stand to suffer, even if they are not our own.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Another fantasic post Swarn! You are swinging for the fences of late. Good stuff.

    I have to wonder though, all of the dense simpletons out there that cannot understand exactly what we are looking at here. I mean it’s like science is trying to tell the world the sky is falling, and because we can’t see air they just can’t believe it. How do you convince someone of the importance of this issue when they won’t believe it until they see it? And you can’t see it until it’s too damn late…

    Sometimes I wish I was a smug little dumbass, oblivious to all the world save for that under my own roof. I can see the attraction to just knowing everything you think you know is right. It sucks being plugged in to reality.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Ignorance does indeed seem like bliss sometimes. I do think that if the politicians on both sides become united about climate change more people will follow as many tend to do. There is already a majority of the public who do accept the science but have different ideas about how to deal with it. This is the conversation we should be having. It’s long overdue.


  4. Thank you. Thank you. Just read that we’ve lost half the animal species on earth since 1970. It was on the Internet, and I haven’t fact-checked so grain of salt, but massive numbers of species are going extinct. So, glad you had a little good news nod here.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Mann could have meant 50% gone from what we have today? But I suspect the other number you read is a bit off. I did read an estimate that since man first set foot out of Africa we have killed off 50% of all the animal species that existed at that time to now. Which gives you a flavor for how fast the extinction rate is hastening if we don’t act on climate change.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Thanks Swarn, and I’m with you all the way on this, of course. I know I’ve recently lost the argument here on your site about voting Green/Stein, so won’t reiterate it, save for repeating your own words within this very piece: “it behooves you to vote for politicians who do have the courage to fight for this planet.” 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I certainly tread the world lightly, professor, and never use my private jet if the trusty helicopter will suffice. Anyway, this election of yours, talk about the lesser of two evils, eh? I’ve got a horrible feeling Trump’s going to edge it if he doesn’t fluff his lines in these TV debates. Then again, I’ve got a horrible feeling Hillary will if he does. :/

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have NEVER understood, even when I forced myself to digress cognitively, why anyone in their right mind believes or behaves in such a way as to think life works on ANY binary system — computers being the exception! Why then has the U.S. persisted (ignorantly) on essentially a two-party system!? Are we not capable of thinking beyond A or B? Are we not capable of thinking beyond black or white? Are we NOT capable of thinking beyond just male or female!? ARE WE NOT even capable of seeing the neverending variety and diversity and evolutions of everything on this planet, including all 7.45+ billion homo sapiens and all 22+ million (probably 40+ million different animal species!)… each one not quite the same as any other!?

          And yet, for around 200 years our political system has been either A or B, that’s it. 😮 Hah. Riddle me that will you!??? Isn’t that level of critical-thinking, deduction and/or inference for kindergarten grades? Can you imagine if everything in daily life was ONLY one of two choices in grocery stores, on car lots, in movie theaters, good or evil, at bars for cocktails, genres of music or fine arts, in sexual or marital partners, NOTHING in between! Que the fantastic 1998 film Pleasantville.

          On those antiquated medieval thoughts, please excuse me while I go hurl my breakfast. 😳

          Liked by 3 people

    1. I agree with you that Stein is one of those candidates. And in that vein, since climate change is a nonnegotiable item for me…Trump and Johnson are out. But Hillary dies accept the science as well and since Stein would have little influence in the legislative branch my guess is Hillary has a chance to be more effective. But I could be wrong.

      Liked by 2 people

            1. Indeed. By the way, I just came across this article from Scientific American which rates the candidates based on not only their scientific knowledge of issues but also their ideas for how to achieve certain goals regarding scientific issues. To me what’s most stark is how very little idea Stein has in implementing any of her ideas, even if she has good ones. Her lack of political experience is definitely a problem.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Thanks Swarn, I took a look, and the first thing that struck me was SA’s statement: “We received nearly two dozen responses from readers.” – nearly two dozen; is that really a viable sample size, 21-23 readers of a magazine? There’s no doubt that Hillary is incredibly well briefed, so her answers are always going to be on the money. This is my problem with consummate politicians like the Clintons. They know all the right rhetoric, and they have the slick answers to get them elected, but when in power, do they actually follow through? [“If you can smile and have the right rhetoric—Reagan did that, too—you get away with it. All you’ve got to do in politics is say the right thing, even though your whole record is contrary, and you’re on your way.” – Ralph Nader]

              Anyway, to the essence of what needs to be done, and as Naomi Klein points out:

              “A new paper from Oxford University, published in the journal Applied Energy, concludes that for humanity to have a 50-50 chance of meeting the temperature targets set in Paris, every new power plant has to be zero-carbon, starting next year. That is hard. Really hard. At a bare minimum, it requires a willingness to go head-to-head with the two most powerful industries on the planet – fossil-fuel companies and the banks that finance them. Hillary Clinton is uniquely unsuited to this epic task. While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for.”

              And to a more general perspective, though from a Socialist, like myself:

              “Self-identified liberals such as the Clintons and Barack Obama speak in the language of liberalism while selling out the poor, the working class and the middle class to global corporate interests. But they are not, at least according to the classical definition, liberals. They are neoliberals. They serve the dictates of neoliberalism—austerity, deindustrialization, anti-unionism, endless war and globalization—to empower and enrich themselves and the party . . . Our political elites, Republican and Democrat, were shaped, funded and largely selected by corporate power in what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a coup d’état in slow motion. Nothing will change until corporate power itself is dismantled. . . The Democratic Party was never the party of the people. It functioned, at best, as a safety valve during periods of discontent. It made possible modest reforms. It was tolerated by the elites because it set the limits of dissent. It permitted a critique of the excesses of the system but never a critique of capitalism, the structures of power or the supposed virtues of those who exercise power.”


              I quite possibly stand further to the left of the political spectrum than you, my friend, and I think it’s clear I’m a good deal more cynical when it comes to mainstream parties and their figureheads. I take that position in part because I see how neoliberalism has failed us, to the point of virtual collapse of the world’s financial system (soon to happen again), and yet in spite of that, next to nothing has been done to prevent the same recurring – only next time, the central banks will have fired all their ammo (QE/ZIRP). I don’t believe any one party yet has all the answers, but I do believe the current paradigm, and those who support it, are not to be entrusted with the weal of the people.

              Still going to watch the debate tonight with real interest though! 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I don’t disagree with your views on politics. I’m from Canada remember and am far to the left of where Clinton stands, but my views in this election are based on the realty that we’re stuck with only a handful of choices. Either I put my faith in Clinton, or I get democrats to view Stein and Trump wins. In terms of climate change, Sanders was the best person for the job having both the political savvy and vision to try and get things done, but that’s no longer a choice. I see what Canada is doing under Trudeau and the liberal choice they made and America is so far away from electing someone like that for a leader. So maybe the odds are against Clinton to get the job done, but I know Trump and the Republican party will not should thy win. I’m also not willing to gamble the environment and a number of other social issues on my idealism that Stein politically suits me better.

              Liked by 1 person

  6. I listened to a radio programme recently talking about what the town of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan is doing to prepare for an ever increasing number of forest fires. It’s ironic that while towns and cities are spending money to prepare for and recover from more extreme weather events due to global warming, the premier of the province is vehemently opposed to a carbon tax (which, in my opinion, is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas production). There seems to be a real disconnect between willingness to pay the cost of the effects of global warming, but not being willing to pay the cost of addressing the problem.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yep. It has shown by economist that the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost to act, even though many legislators who deny climate change will use the costs as an excuse not to act on climate change.


      1. My grandmother used to say “A stitch in time saves nine.” Although she wasn’t the originator of that phrase, she was a wise woman, nonetheless. Sometimes it’s difficult to not venture down neural pathways that hold negative thoughts about the priorities of humanity. It appears to be the (culturally induced?) nature of humans to not make changes until significant damage and/or harm has taken place.

        Great post, Swarn.

        “This is not yet a scientific age.” –Richard Feynman

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Well said. I think also that there is also that constant battle between what in the short term seems prudent compared to thinking about things in the long term. As humans we need to be able to open our scope to the greater expanse of time both in terms economics and more importantly to realize that some problems like climate change are accumulations over great expanses of time, and are not things that we can experience day to day or even year to year. Climate change is a problem beyond our perception in many ways, but not beyond our understanding, and so our excuses grow thin for not acting other than willful ignorance.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thank you, Swarn. You wrote: “Climate change is a problem beyond our perception in many ways, but not beyond our understanding, and so our excuses grow thin for not acting other than willful ignorance.”

            I couldn’t agree more. I was stunned after I read the data from the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change conference, and forgive me for plugging one of my info videos, which I published not long after I read the data. Sadly, we now know, based on feedback loops, that it’s far worse than scientist realized back in 2009.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. nickreality65

    The Great Climate Change Bamboozle

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    H. L. Mencken

    Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?

    Mankind’s modelled additional atmospheric CO2 power flux (W/m^2, watt is power, energy over time) between 1750 and 2011, 261 years, is 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo reflects 100 W/m^2 (+/- 30 & can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 (+/- 8). Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.

    One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net W/m^2 balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses included in the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming (+/- 12.3 W/m^2). Of course Dr. Trenberth says they are wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years. (“All of the net TOA imbalances are not tenable and all except CFSR imply a cooling of the planet that clearly has not occurred.”)

    Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.

    As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

    BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.

    “The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process (e.g. CAGW) as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”


    1. Thank you for reading, but unfortunately you seem to be fairly misinformed. You can take it how you like that I am not going to address every one of your points. But what I will address is a basic lack of understanding you seem to have about radiation in the atmosphere.

      There are 342 W/m^2 that come from the sun. Earth’s albedo is already taken into account to produce this number. Almost 97% of the energy makes it to the troposphere as there is very little atmospheric absorption. Without an atmosphere, the energy that makes it to the surface would only keep the average temperature on Earth 255 K. With the greenhouse affect 288 K. This is the difference between there being life on this planet and not. So the atmosphere provides an additional 33 K of heating that wouldn’t be there otherwise. The principle greenhouse gas is CO2, and so doubling the C02 in the atmosphere is significant. But you can also think of it that given that the sun and atmosphere prevent us from being at a temperature of the cold of space (4K) that means those 342 W/m^2 provides 284 K worth of heating (1.2 W.m^2/1 K of heating). So CO2, if you were correct with that 2 W/m^2 of human contributed CO2, that’s 1.67 K of heating. And actually is in line quite well with the 3-4 K of warming expected by a doubling of the C02 from pre-industrialization values.

      Here’s the thing. You have a lot of money waiting for you. So if you really feel like you’ve got it all figured out I suspect you present your work to Exxon. They are looking to pay scientists big money who can actually take down the 1000’s of scientists who have done research across the Earth Sciences to show that human-induced global warming is real. This is where the money is to be made. Big oil has far more money than renewable energy, and there is far less competition for that money. You’ll not only be rich, but you’ll also be able to prove scientifically that everybody is wrong. Scientists, just so you know, tend not to really want to be part of the crowd, but would rather have the fame that comes with making a discovery nobody else has made. But by all means, please keep thinking there is a big conspiracy of scientists.

      And yes, you may have the same qualifications as Bill Nye, but that in no way implies that you know as much as Bill Nye. Since while degrees are important, it’s also important that you sound like you understand what you are talking about. Bill Nye sounds like he understands the climate. You, do not.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. nickreality65

    The 342 W/m^2 does NOT include the albedo, but is before the albedo. The albedo reflects away about 100 W/m^2 leaving 240 W/m^2 to enter the atmosphere. The atmosphere absorbs about 80 W/m^2 or one-third which is a long way from “…very little…” 255 K results from inserting 240 W/m^2 in the S-B BB equation which applies at the ToA of 100 km and not at the surface. The atmosphere does not create any additional energy because that violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and at that amount is trivial. Your application of air’s specific heat of 1.2 W/m^2-C is spurious at best. Whoever handed you this crap doesn’t know what they are talking about.


    1. You are correct. I forgot that when I calculate the radiative equilibrium temperature of the Earth I already take into account the albedo first…which is 342 multiplied by 0.7.

      But that fact actually makes the 2 W/m^2 by carbon even more significant.

      I am well aware of BB equilibrium temperature does not include the atmosphere. When you include the atmosphere that’s how you get an additional 33K of heating. I never claimed that the atmosphere produces more energy, but it retains more of of that 342 W/m^2 that would normally be lost to space once radiated as IR from the surface. 255 K is the average temperature of Earth without the atmosphere? So what is causing the average temperature to be 288K instead? Greenhouse gases. Adding more of them causes more heating. It really is that simple.

      I never claimed the specific heat is 1.2 W/m^2/C is not a specific heat…it is to show you that even 1% increase in the amount of energy we get can easily result a global average temperature change. Given the increased rate of carbon input into the atmosphere that additional heating by greenhouse gases will continue to rise and easily account for the 3-5 K of predicted warming by 2100.

      I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science nobody handed me this crap. You say that 0.04% is a trivial amount of carbon, yet it has a greater contribution of warming than any greenhouse gas which is as mentioned before, the greenhouse effect is what causes our temperature to be above the radiative BB equilibrium temperature, unless you’d like to posit another theory on the matter. Carbon is also the most populous greenhouse gas. it is actually by mass 0.0582% by mass, where as water vapor is only 0.01% by mass in the atmosphere. So again, I see you have tried to understand it, but you really need a much deeper understanding of the basics of the atmosphere to really understand how heating and cooling happens.


      1. nickreality65

        Well, it appears that Akismet has lifted my exile to spamland. The following might be a duplicate because previous attempts says it’s a duplicate, but I think it was just trapped in spamland. Let’s see if these intro comments let it post.

        The atmosphere presents a resistance to heat flow just like the walls of a house and Q = U * A * dT which says a dT is needed to move heat through the atmosphere, which is ludicrous thin, and just like a voltage difference is needed to push current through a resistor. That’s why the surface is warm just like the inside of your house is warm thanks to the furnace.

        It’s now moot because Trump is going to drive a wooden stake into CAGW.

        You think my BSME insufficient. I can say the same for your PhD. It’s just he said/he said arguments between “authorities.” It’s the facts and science that count and yours are wrong.

        340 W/m^2 ISR arrive at the ToA (100 km per NASA), 100 W/m^2 are reflected straight away leaving 240 W/m^2 continuing on to be absorbed by the atmosphere (80 W/m^2) and surface (160 W/m^2). In order to maintain the existing thermal equilibrium and atmospheric temperature (not really required) 240 W/m^2 must leave the ToA. Leaving the surface at 1.5 m (IPCC Glossary) are: thermals, 17 W/m^2; evapotranspiration, 80 W/m^2; LWIR, 63 W/m^2 sub-totaling 160 W/m^2 plus the atmosphere’s 80 W/m^2 making a grand total of 240 W/m^2 OLR at ToA.

        When more energy leaves ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will cool down. When less energy leaves the ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will heat up. The GHE theory postulates that GHGs impede/trap/store the flow of heat reducing the amount leaving the ToA and as a consequence the atmosphere will heat up. Actually if the energy moving through to the ToA goes down, say from 240 to 238 W/m^2, the atmosphere will cool per Q/A = U * dT. The same condition could also be due to increased albedo decreasing heat to the atmosphere & surface or ocean absorbing energy.

        The S-B ideal BB temperature corresponding to ToA 240 W/m^2 OLR is 255 K or -18 C. This ToA “surface” value is compared to a surface “surface” at 1.5 m temperature of 288 K, 15 C, 390 W/m^2. The 33 C higher 1.5 m temperature is allegedly attributed to/explained by the GHE theory.

        BTW the S-B ideal BB radiation equation applies only in a vacuum. For an object to radiate 100% of its energy per S-B there can be no conduction or convection, i.e. no molecules or a vacuum. The upwelling calculation of 15 C, 288 K, 390 W/m^2 only applies/works in vacuum.

        Comparing ToA values to 1.5 m values is an incorrect comparison.

        The S-B BB ToA “surface” temperature of 255 K should be compared to the ToA observed “surface” temperature of 193 K, -80 C, not the 1.5 m above land “surface” temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The – 62 C difference is explained by the earth’s effective emissivity. The ratio of the ToA observed “surface” temperature (^4) at 100 km to the S-B BB temperature (^4) equals an emissivity of .328. Emissivity is not the same as albedo.

        Because the +33 C comparison between ToA “surface” 255 K and 1.5 m “surface” 288 K is invalid the perceived need for a GHE theory/explanation results in an invalid non-solution to a non-problem.

        ACS Climate Change Toolkit
        Trenberth et. al. 2011 “Atmospheric Moisture Transports …….” Figure 10, IPCC AR5 Annex III
        340 – 100 albedo = 240. Albedo is out of the equation so 240 ISR and 240 OLR are left to work out the balance.


        1. You’re right…it’s the science that matters. And yes I think your BSME is insufficient. Because if you actually had something, you could publish it, and be a millionaire. You see there is a great deal of scientific data that supports the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. If you were right, this would be a rather wonderful revelation that we’d all benefit from.

          Again the BB eqm temperature is what the temperature would if there was no atmosphere. There would be no ToA if we didn’t have one. My point is that with an atmosphere we have 33 K higher global average temperature because of the greenhouse effect. Of course technically the BB eqm temperature would be colder because our albedo would be even greater mostly covered in ice. Basically you seem to be saying that the greenhouse effect is insufficient to explaining our global average temperatures. I can tell you I’ve calculated the equilibrium temperature with the greenhouse effect and in absolutely corresponds to our global average temperature.

          So let me know when your publications comes out and you are able to challenge the 1000’s of paper that demonstrate AGW is real.


        2. I’m up late and perhaps lacking judgement, but why not…

          The atmosphere presents a resistance to heat flow just like the walls of a house and Q = U * A * dT which says a dT is needed to move heat through the atmosphere, which is ludicrous thin, and just like a voltage difference is needed to push current through a resistor. That’s why the surface is warm just like the inside of your house is warm thanks to the furnace.

          A mechanical engineer using Ohm’s law to explain atmospheric science is absolutely charming*. I’m considering putting it on a coffee cup. Although I wasn’t sure exactly where you were going when you said the atmosphere is like the walls of a house which is like a resistor, when you brought it home saying the surface is warm (from the resistor/wall/atmosphere) just like my house is warm from the furnace (actually my house has baseboard heaters…which are literally resistors…it’s coming full circle) it got me thinking about the furnace. What’s Earth’s furnace? The core! Where’s that in the IPCC’s Lysenkoistic calculations? The core is hot. I bet the BBT is OTC. Let’s get the AADE with some IADC to put down some ADT or maybe TTRD. That should buy back some W/m^2 and take a few K off the ToA or wherever you like to measure temperature.

          * My apologies to all the mechanical engineers who have a working knowledge of circuit theory. (i.e. Frank and Ted from Chicago)


      2. nickreality65

        Carbon isn’t a gas let alone a GHG. 1 C = 3.67 CO2.

        2.5 % = 2,500 ppmv H2O and 400 ppmv CO2 = 15,304 ppmm H2O and 476 ppmm CO2.

        That makes CO2 3.1% of water by mole/mass.

        By volume
        N2 – 78%
        O2 – 21%
        Ar – 0.9%
        Water Vapor – 0.01% to 4.24% (100 to 4,240 ppmv)
        CO2 – 0.04%

        More pesky facts & science.


        1. Yes I know carbon isn’t a gas. But we often talk about carbon, because it isn’t the O2 that absorbs infrared. Again you aren’t taking into account the residence time of water vapor and that the amount of water vapor in the air is a direct cause of temperature, not a driver of temperature.

          More pesky science and facts. Please try again. Again I encourage you to let oil companies see your brilliance and pay you big money to tell us all how the atmosphere really works!


  9. Thought I was reading The Onion here for a minute. So glad adults are in charge again, this bunk was really getting tedious. But by all means, please keep posting graphs, statistics, alarmist predictions and fiction from your like minded snowflakes…laughter is precious these days.


      1. Q = U A dT is THE fundamental ME heat transfer equation, NOT OHMs law, clueless PhD!

        Decades ago I earned and was awarded a BSME degree (same as Bill Nye) which requires demonstrated competence in chemistry, physics, heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, statistics, algebra, calculus, etc. Get the idea.

        I have applied that knowledge for over 35 years where my work has to actually work. I have followed CAGW since 1989 and have read related materials extensively. Much of my work has been peer reviewed on open climate change blogs, not just a closed system of good old boys. My postings are totally my own, not handed to me on a clipboard in some troll’s minimum wage cube, and as clearly noted several times based on IPCC AR5 and other references.

        There is nothing special about “climate” science. They have to follow the same fundamentals as everyone else.

        All these bogus thermodynamic gymnastics (cold to hot flow, perpetual looping, energy from nowhere), misapplications of S-B equations (Q=σ(T_TSI^4-T_surface^4) / 4 = σT_effective^4, non-participating media, relative areas, shape/view), the absurd multi-concentric atmospheric opaque molecular shells acting as thermal diodes or gated transistors are desperate attempts to justify two notions:

        1) That at 15C/288K/396 W/m^2 the surface/ground/earth loses heat, i.e. cools so rapidly (it doesn’t) that icy Armageddon would result if not for the 333 W/m^2 RGHE cold to hot perpetual loop downwelling from the sky which warms the ground (sky’s colder and can’t heat),—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

        2) That the earth is 33C warmer with an atmosphere than without,

        Two notions/theories that are either A) patently false and/or B) contradicted by physical evidence.


        1. I’ve argued with you before but to no avail… Believe what you will. It’s absolutely belief. But I’m not going to try and educate you. Stick to your peer-reviewed blogs. If you actually had something you’d be rich because oil companies would pay big money for actual evidence against climate change. But even oil companies know the greenhouse effect is real. I’m not going to spend effort trying to make you understand basic physics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s