CO2 Level Hits Record High

The Scripps Institute of Oceanography at UC San Diego takes daily measurements of the atmospheric CO2 levels on Maua Loa, HI. This is the oldest continuous measurement of atmospheric CO2 and is known as the Keeling Curve after the Charles David Keeling who started the measurements back in the 1950s. On March 15, it measured the CO2 level to be 403.10 parts per million (ppm). This is the highest level ever recorded at Mauna Loa. But, don't worry too much, this record will be broken many times this year.

CO2 Heat Trapping Observed

The good news is the bad news for deniers just keeps rolling in. It's been a bad few days for the deniers.

First, one of their darlings was exposed as being a liar and fraud when records were released showing how Willie Soon was paid millions of dollars to produce anti-science papers, referred to as 'deliverables.' No one that is familiar with Soon is surprised by the news, I'm sure. But, it was really nice to see the confirmation of what everyone already knew. It was a real blow to the denier industry.

Now, there is a new report that, I hope, will be equally as damaging to the anti-science crowd. A team of scientists are reporting in the journal Nature that they have directly measured CO2 caused heat trapping. What they did was to use a decade of measurements looking straight up through the atmosphere. These instruments took measurements of both the CO2 level and the amount of radiative trapping. Plotting the two showed a definite connection between the two, exactly as 150 years of physics predicted.

As was reported,

In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun's radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said. Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.

"The data say what the data say," Feldman said. "They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites."

Of course, the deniers will try to put some kind of spin on this, but the facts are there - increasing levels of CO2 cause trapping of heat in the atmosphere. The science is settled and it is conclusive.

Groundhog Day

Today, Groundhog Day is just another reason to have a party. No complaints about that from me, I was at one last night and we had a pretty good time. But, in antiquity, the equivalent of our modern-day ritual was serious business.

Before there were supermarkets with food supplies, people had to make careful plans on how to get through the winter. A mistake could prove fatal and often did. It was vitally important to know about the change of seasons.

This is how astronomy got started because the seasons are a result of the planet's tilt on its axis and rotation around the Sun. They didn't know about those things in ancient times, but they knew the stars, Sun and Moon changed in the sky on a regular basis. By observing over a period of time, virtually every ancient culture throughout the world figured out the two solstices and two equinoxes and how the seasons changed relative to those four days. We find ancient observatories everywhere devoted to identifying these days. In addition, the four days between, the cross-quarter days, also became important. People with knowledge of these eight days were powerful and respected. They were the ones who told everyone when to plant, when to harvest, when to do just about everything according to the seasons. This is probably how ancient priesthoods got started.

The winter and summer solstices (about December 21 and June 21) as well as the vernal and fall equinoxes (about March 21 and September 21) are well known today, with some small variation in the exact day. The cross-quarter days are not as well known, but are still mostly observed under many different names. The best known one is probably Halloween, midway between the fall equinox and the winter solstice. The cross-quarter day between the summer solstice and the fall equinox occurs in the first week of August and was referred to as first harvest. There are still some cultures that observe this day, but not many. In olden times, villagers would tithe a portion of their crop to the village to help everyone get through winter. The cross-quarter day between the spring equinox and the summer solstice occurs at the beginning of May, is known as May Day in modern times and is observed as a celebration of spring and fertility. That leaves the cross-quarter day between the winter solstice and the spring equinox - now known as Groundhog Day.

When we track the winter months we find the coldest days occur around the end of January and the beginning of February - right at the cross-quarter day. As a result, some cultures said spring started on the cross-quarter day (known as Imbolc in Germanic countries). Other cultures said it started on the equinox in March. To resolve this, the cultures in Norther Europe began a system of weather prognostication involving badgers or bears. If the day was cloudy and a shadow was not seen on Imbolc, spring had arrived. Otherwise, spring wouldn't start until the equinox. This, of course, was very serious business for these people. If they ran out of food before spring they were in real trouble. Starvation and famine were not unusual.

When the Germans immigrated to United States, they brought the tradition with them, but began using groundhogs instead of badgers. Now, with modern supply systems in place, it is just another way to have fun.

But, there is something amiss - spring is coming earlier.

As we have seen, there are many ways to define 'spring.' One way is when the dormant plants come back to life. This is particularly convenient because the active/dormant cycle with plants results in an up and down pattern to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This allows us to measure onset of plant active and dormant phases by examining the rise and fall of CO2.

For the period of 1955 - 2002 we see the spring decrease of CO2 level is occurring earlier and this indicates spring plant activity is starting earlier and earlier. The observed rate of change is about -1.2 days per decade earlier for first leaf date, -1.0 days per decade earlier for first bloom, -1.4 days per decade for the last day below 5 degrees C and -1.5 days per decade for last spring freeze date. Consistently, we are seeing spring moving backwards by between 1.0 and 1.5 days earlier ever decade. For the six decades since 1955 this translates into an earlier spring onset of between 6 and 9 days. This is known as 'season creep.'


You might be tempted to say, 'Less winter! Wonderful news.' But, that would be a mistake. For instance, we need winter snowpack to get us through the dry seasons in summer. Less winter means less snowpack and that translates into problems with water supply. Also, the population of many pests are not being knocked down by winter temperatures the way the used to be.

Also, not all plants and animals adjust to the change equally. This is a real problem when two different species depend on each other. If plants depend on certain birds to cross-pollinate them, and the birds depend on the nectar of the flowers, they need to be together when the plants are flowering. If the plants start flowering earlier and the birds don't adjust their migration pattern, the flowers may be dying off by the time the birds get there. This, obviously, would be bad for both plants and birds - and anything that depends on those plants and birds later on.

In fact, we see this is actually happening.

Once again, climate change rears its head to remind us, even when we engaging in a relic ritual, that things are changing. The good news is Groundhog Day is based on astronomy and not climate, so we don't have to ever worry about it getting earlier.

Guest Submission: CO2 doesn't Cause Warming

NOTE: Per the submitters request, the word 'forcing' has been replaced with 'stimulating' in his submission.

Dan Pangburn

I see a mismatch in the meaning of the word 'forcing'. Replace all of them in my post with the word 'stimulus'. Forcing as used by most, if not all, others is the time-integral of 'stimulus'.

Dan Pangburn• Jan 11, 2015

An analogy exists between average global temperature resulting from stimulus and the level of water in a bucket containing a hole in the bottom being filled with a hose. If the inflow or hole size is suddenly (or gradually) changed to a different value the level of water would slowly change until equilibrium between inflow and outflow was reestablished. The water level would change according to the time-integral of the difference between inflow and outflow. Likewise, average global temperature depends on the time-integral of the net effect of stimuli.

In 'The Inconvenient Truth', Al Gore asserts that the graph which shows that CO2 level and temperature go up and down together indicates that climate change is caused by CO2 change. Actually, with application of valid science, this graph PROVES that CO2 does not cause climate change.

Whatever the stimulus, it relates to the rate-of-change of temperature, not the temperature itself. If global warming was caused by CO2 (it isn’t), warming rate (rate-of-change of average global temperature) instead of (as usually presented) the temperature itself would vary with the CO2 level. To be valid, the comparison should be between the temperature and the time-integral of CO2 level and/or the time-integral of any other factor(s) (such as TSI) proportional to energy rate.

Thus any co-plot of CO2 level and temperature or any other implication that average global temperature depends directly on CO2 level is misleading and physically and mathematically wrong.

An analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.co...derives a physics-based equation which, using the time-integral of stimuli, accurately calculates the uptrends and down trends of average global temperatures irrespective of whether CO2 change is included or not. The paper at this link discloses:

1. A reference which provides historical evidence that CO2 change does not cause climate change.

2. The two factors that do explain climate change. The correlation is 95% with measured average global temperatures since before 1900; including the current plateau. The analysis also predicts the ongoing down trend of average global temperature.

3. An explanation of why any credible CO2 change does not cause significant climate change.

The two factors are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

==

Nasty weather is natural. It is happening someplace all the time and always
has. Vivid graphics on TV make it look ominous and omnipresent. Some mistakenly blame humans for it.

Climate change is natural. The last change is that it stopped warming.

Response:

This claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming was submitted in the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge and addressed here. The claim about the rate of change of temperature rise was also submitted and I dealt with it here. But, I will deal with both of them again.

This comment was full of so many false statements I decided to make a guest post out of it. Let’s start at the beginning and work our way through this one.

First, I have problems with your bucket analogy. As the water pressure increases, the flow through the hole will increase, but it is very simple to have a situation where the inflow far exceeds the outflow to the point equilibrium is never reached until the water is flowing over the top of the bucket. You are incorrect in your assumed statement that the climate will reach equilibrium between energy inflow from the Sun and energy outflow from a cooling Earth. There is nothing to show that any equilibrium needs to be reached. In fact, nonequilibrium is the normal state of nature. Nothing you state demonstrates any outcome at all, not to mention the outcome you desire.

By this point in time, the science of CO₂ forcing is so overwhelming that I am truly amazed anytime a denier tries to pull this argument out. If you examine the data and the science, it is more than abundantly clear that CO₂ causes global warming. Take a look at these articles at RealClimate.org for a detailed explanation.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

Actually, application of valid science PROVES CO₂is causing global warming. Sorry. They only way you can otherwise is to reject the science. But, I also know there is absolutely no amount of science or evidence that will ever change your mind. I'm just hoping I can reach someone that hasn't chosen to reject science.

Then you discuss the rate of change of temperature. I don’t know where you got this argument that the rate of change is the important issue, but that is a 100% false argument. You are both wrong and irrelevant in this argument. No, the issue is change in temperature. Is the temperature going up, down or staying stable? That is the only relevant question and anything else is irrelevant. Do we care if it is warming really, really fast, or just really fast? In both cases, it is warming. By your argument, the only case you can make is that the damage due to climate change will take a little longer to occur. But, you never show any evidence that your claim is valid. Either way, you are wrong to suppose this is the major issue.

But, as it turns out, you are also wrong about that rate of change. The rate of global warming is actually increasing and has been for decades. What you want to do is examine the surface temperature of the last few years and ignore the 97% of the warming. Further, you want to ignore the forty years of warming and focus on just a few years. You want to examine 3% of the warming over 30% of the time period and try to make a scientific case out of that. Many people will buy into that argument, but it is not scientifically valid. Come back when you look at 100% of the warming over the entire 45 years we have been concerned with. Take a look:

Yikes! It sure looks like global warming is continue to me. Not only that, but the rate of change has been increasing, as well. If your claim was correct, the bars would be getting smaller and even go negative. Instead, they continue to be positive and to continuously get larger. To come to any other conclusion is to reject science.

And, to make the claim, as you do, that the temperature and CO₂ level should have a 100% correlation, but then turn around and argue about natural cycles is a completely false argument. No climate scientist (at least, no credible one) will ever say natural cycles are not continuing. There is ENSO, PDO, AMO, solar cycle, solar variability, and many more natural cycles occurring. Also, there are feedbacks, both positive and negative, that will affect the temperature. Positive feedbacks include rising atmospheric moisture, clouds at night and rising levels of other green house gases, such as methane. Negative feedbacks include clouds during the day. What makes you think you can assume all of those factors have stopped and don’t show up in the temperature record? You have really failed the ‘do the homework’ standard and severely damaged your credibility with that statement. Just to use your bucket analogy (to show how bad all of your statements are) if we increased the flow into the bucket and it reached equilibrium, the rate of change of outflow would decrease until the rate of change reached zero (the definition of equilibrium). By your argument, there has been no change in the rate of inflow into the bucket – even though your argument started with a change in the inflow! Wow! Poor logic!

Yes, natural cycles and feedbacks occur and are continuing, even as manmade global warming continues. The presence of natural cycles in now prohibit the presence of manmade factors, and vice versa. These natural effects will affect the temperature record and result in less than a 100% correlation between the CO₂level and the temperature. As an example, CO₂ levels have increased about 43% since the late-1950s, but the enhanced greenhouse effect has increased by roughly 1% (Thank goodness!). Sometimes the temperature will go up faster than the CO₂ level. Sometimes, it will go up more slowly. So what? When we look at the long-term trend, what we see is the temperature goes up with the rising CO₂ levels and this trend continues even when we average out the short-term variations in the climate. More CO₂ = higher temperatures. That much has been positively proven. I am sorry if you can’t accept that, but that is the proven science and you have to reject science to come to any other conclusion.

That article you references is so ridiculous you should be embarrassed to cite it. Do you REALLY think our problem is a new ice age about to occur? If you are that desperate, just ask and I will review the paper as a submission, but really, this is a preposterous paper directed towards the gullible. But, if you really want to make me take up my time, I’ll be glad to debunk it.

Yes, weather is getting more severe. All sources agree about that. Or, take a look here. Or, here.

No, global warming has not stopped. If it has stopped, how do you account for the fact that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded? How do you account for the fact that 2014 set this heat record without having an El Nino or any other natural cycle that boosts global temperatures? How do you account for the fact that what use to be an extraordinary global temperature is now routine?

I’m sorry, your comments truly passed the ‘reject all science’ standard. Go back and do some more homework.

NoTricksZone Review - Too Many Tricks in Denier Article

Someone left a comment and asked me to take a look at an article appearing on the NoTricksZone website - Why There Is Global Warming. I agreed and did a review this morning. Basically, it was light work over my morning hot tea. You would think a website named 'No tricks zone' would avoid using any tricks. Sadly, that was not the case.

This article starts out with one of the most tired of all denier claims – if manmade global warming is real, how can you explain periods in the past that experienced global warming? The false argument here is the assumption there is only one way to cause global warming. I’ve discussed this false argument many times and you can read a posting about it here. But, let me summarize the argument and illustrate how it is a false one:

There was global warming in the past;

There is global warming today;

Global warming in the past was a naturally occurring cycle;

Therefore, global warming today is a naturally occurring cycle.

Let’s put this same argument another way to see how false it is:

Pneumonia kills people;

Gun shot wounds kill people;

Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;

Therefore, gun shot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

The fallacy is that the second does not follow from the first. There are more ways to kill someone than just naturally occurring diseases. The same way, there are more ways to cause global warming than naturally occurring cycles.

The biggest problem with this claim is that, yes, there are naturally occurring cycles and those cycles are continuing today (in addition to manmade effects), but today’s naturally occurring cycle is a cooling cycle. If it were not for this naturally occurring cooling cycle, we would be in even worse shape than we are. I find it very interesting that every time someone pulls this argument out, they never discuss even the possibility that the natural cycle right now might be a cooling one, they automatically assume it is a warming one without any science to back them up.

Also, the graphic showing the warming/cooling cycles is in error. Here is a more scientifically valid temperature plot for the last 11,000 years. The blue arrows get in the way, but you can still clearly see the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and can compare them to today’s temperature trend. It is a really different story when the facts are presented correctly.

Source: Climate Snapshots

The author of the NoTrickZone article then makes the case that manmade global warming can’t be real because the world is too big for us to change the temperature. Really? We can’t change the world? Take a look here:

Source: SIO

This is the Keeling curve and shows atmospheric levels of CO₂. The ziggy part to the right shows the measurements taken since the late-1950s on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The line-graph prior to that shows the CO₂ levels as they have been reconstructed from proxy data. Wow! I would say we have managed to change the world. What’s that you said? You’re not convinced? Then, try this one. This is the data for the last 800,000 years. We’re the spike on the far right.

Source: SIO

At no time in the last 800,000 years has the CO₂level been anywhere near today’s level. The cause of that incredible spike? Manmade emissions.

So, yes, we can most certainly change the environment.

Also, the claim works against itself because we are not the ones warming the planet. The author claims the Sun and Earth are so large we cannot change the temperature. Well, it is the Sun that is heating the planet and causing it to warm, not us. We are merely causing it to cool down less rapidly. The Sun warms the planet’s surface and that heat is then radiated out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb this heat, in the form of infrared radiation, and slow the process down. As we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the cooling process gets slower. All the while, the Sun keeps warming the planet even more. So, you see, the author is actually making the case for manmade global warming.

Then, there is a bunch of false statements in the form of “Fun Facts about Carbon Dioxide.”

First false statement. “Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO₂ that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.” Notice the author is trying to fool you by discussing the amount of carbon, instead of the carbon dioxide. This is an attempt to try and make it look less serious and is a deception. We are not concerned with carbon, per se. We are concerned with carbon dioxide. Why didn’t he address that issue? After all, this part of the article is titled, ‘fun fact about carbon dioxide.”

In addition, his numbers are still wrong. Try these numbers on for something more credible.

Source: Yale Climate Connections

Today, we are emitting in excess of 35 billion tons of CO₂per year. That is a lot more significant than saying we are emitting 6 billion tons of carbon. But, do the math. The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 units (16 units for each of two oxygen atoms and 12 units for one carbon atom). Therefore, carbon makes up 27.3% of the mass of carbon dioxide. Apply that percentage to 35 billion tons of emissions and you get over 9.5 billion tons of carbon – that is more than 50% larger than the number the author states. By the way, we have other products that have carbon in them that are not included in this figure. Incorrect figures and deceptive practices, that is not a good start.

Next false statement: “At 380 parts per million CO₂is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂-impoverished” See the Keeling curves above to see how today’s levels compare to historic levels. There is no comparison at all. Today’s levels have not been seen within the last 800,000 years, at least. Were there periods further back in history that had higher levels? Yes, there were. The Cambrian Period 500 million years ago had levels in the thousands of parts per million.  But, no one alive today would want to live during those times. Simply because some time hundreds of millions or billions of years ago had higher CO₂levels does not mean it would be hospitable to modern human life. And, it is not relevant to the discussion of today’s climate.

And, please explain to me how he justifies saying today's levels are 'minor.' Is he saying they are minor because they are .04% of the atmosphere? If so, then he is being deceptive because that .04% has a very significant impact. Take a look at this one example of the impact from those levels. An over-the-counter pain killer is a lot smaller percentage of your body weight than .04%, but it also has a big effect. So does alcohol at levels far below .04% of body weight. The claim that it is minor simply because it is 'only' .04% of the atmosphere has no scientific validity. 

Another false argument: “Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it.” Raw sewage is a nutrient, also and has been used in some countries for thousands of years to fertilize farm fields. Do you want it in your drinking water and do you want to breathe fumes from it? So, why does this argument not apply to CO₂? Once you get too much of something, it becomes a pollutant. We now have so much CO₂ that the environment cannot deal with it. CO₂ has become a pollutant.

Next false argument: “CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans.” No. Again, take a look at the Keeling curve above. The vast majority of CO₂ produced is produced by natural processes. The vast majority of CO₂ produced, by both natural and manmade sources, is absorbed. But, about 50% of manmade CO₂ remains in the air (see the Keeling curve again). By the way, that CO₂ that is being absorbed by the oceans is causing them to become more acidic. And, that’s also bad news

Finishing up with one last false statement: “If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate” 

So, this person’s argument is that manmade global warming isn’t real because it would take too much money to fix it. That is not a scientifically valid argument. And, it is incorrect, too. Also note that he makes this argument after saying, earlier in the article, we are too small to be changing the planet. Wait a minute! If our emissions are so small, why can’t we do something about them? And, if they are so big we are unable to do anything about them, how is it they are so small they can’t change the environment? He’s playing two sides of his own argument. And neither one of them is valid.

We can, in fact, do something about global warming. The first thing we need to do is get people to stop making false arguments like this article.

CO2 Concentration Exceeds 400 ppm

A significant milestone was passed in May, 2013 when the the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million (400 ppm) for the first time in recorded history. This was the highest CO2 concentration in more than 800,000 years. Despite the significance of the event, deniers downplayed it by saying it crossed over the 400 ppm threshold only 'briefly.' There was some truth to that because it stayed above 400 ppm for only a few days before it began it annual decline. But, where were these people when it stayed over 400 ppm for about four months in 2014?

Now, the bad news is we have already reached the 400 ppm level this year. The daily average reading from January 1, 2015 was for 400.37 ppm.

Source: SIO

NOAA actually reports it as 401.56 ppm. We can expect it to fluctuate up and down, so it won't stay above 400 and, in fact, NOAA reports the level as 399.91 ppm for January 2nd. But, the earliest it reached this level in 2013 was in May. The earliest it reached this level in 2014 was March. And, now we are seeing this level in January. There can be no doubt we are nearing the time when the CO2 level will never again drop below 400 ppm. My guess? 2016 will be the last year that will ever have CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. At least, for the next thousand years, or more. Here is the two-year plot of CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

Source: SIO

But don't forget, the new fossil fuel industry tactic is to tell you this is a good thing and we should be doing more of it. What do you think?

Guest Submission: Greenhouse Gases Fraud II

This submission is in reply to my response to the submitter's previous guest submission on greenhouse gases. See my response below.

Bill Andrews

January 1, 2015

Mr. Keating, YOU and the IPCC have put forth the Hypothesis, NOT ME. YOU are saying that burning releases CO2 (science agree), but YOU and the IPCC are saying that CO2 gas in the atmosphere is NOT blocking heat from the sun cooling the earth, you say it is causing heating to the Earth's surface temperatures.

IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THE EXPERIMENTATION TO PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS. I don't have to prove anything, you do. Physics says what your Hypothesis claims is impossible, and examination of natural systems on earth and in the solar system shows your projections are not happening. Venus is cold not hot with its 95% CO2 atmosphere. The exact OPPOSITE of YOUR hypothesis.

The scientific method requires YOU to prove your Hypothesis that CO2 gas in the atmosphere will cause warming on the earth. To prove this scientifically, you need to either:

1. Set up and experiment demonstrating that it is possible, in a controlled laboratory setting, for an insulating gas to allow heat through it, without diminishing its total heat. This is impossible as we both know, insulators insulate. A thermal insulator will stop some heat. An infa-red camera recording the experiment will show that when you turned on the thermal heating element, thus introducing your simulated sun heat into the gas, that the gas THEN, started to emit infa-red light in all directions, thus deflecting that heat away from the target earth. The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us, that the infa-red heat the gas is emitting is the heat that entered the gas from the thermal emitter, the gas is not burning a fuel and making the heat, the heat is exogenous to the insulation gas.

YOUR hypothesis states heat enters through the insulation gas unaffected, but then where it is radiated back out by the earth, it is blocked partially from leaving giving the earth a greater heat balance.

So please, direct me to the published scientific article in which YOU or the IPCC proves this hypothesis? I"d like to read this violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics and of Conservation of Energy. I'm sure the rest of the world is interested in these violation as well.

What experiment did you do to prove your hypothesis?

YOU are making the claim, you must prove it scientifically.

Or

2. Demonstrate vie observation of the natural world, that this hypothesis is supported by observed facts.

I've noted that Venus, an observed fact, has a solar temperature of only -444 degrees F. YOUR hypothesis states that it should be suffering from a run-away-greenhouse effect because of all that CO2 in its atmosphere, but it is not, it is very cold. The insulation gas has insulated the surface of Venus from the sun's heat, as all thermal insulators will do.

Science DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW manmade CO2 based greenhouse gas warming is NOT real, YOU must prove that it is. You must explain:

1, WHY Venus is so cold when it has so much CO2 in its atmosphere; and

2. How it is possible for the sun's heat to magically pass, undiminished, through the earth's blanket of insulating CO2 gas, as it enters the earth's atmosphere, and yet then be blocked by the same insulating CO2 gas, when it tries to leave.

I have read no such paper proving this hypothesis. Tell me or show me YOUR scientific experimental results, or the published article in which you have announced these results?

No such article exists as we both know, and no such experiment has been successfully conducted, as we both know.

I will give you an opportunity to refute the observed facts and the Law of Conservation of Energy by explaining to me now, how with no scientific experiment and no observed facts your hypothesis is correct?

Or to the contrary. Tell me how nature and the law of Conservation of Energy have not proven that CO2 gas greenhouse effect is impossible?

What errors are there in my post or math? You didn't state your grounds for stating:

"You are incorrect in supposing you did anything to show man made global warming is not real."

You merely state the though with no scientific support. Just like people who state that God created the earth 30,000 years ago, Evolution deniers!!!

Interesting that you, a supposed scientist, have lowered yourself to their deflection arguments rather than providing me with scientific data to back up your argument Father Keating.

I eagerly await your scientific reply, though I'm expecting a religious argument from you instead.

I await your reply Father Keating.

Best
and Happy New Year!

Response:

There is a lot of false statements here. Let’s begin with the first sentence. No, it was not the IPCC, or even me, that showed the science on global warming and climate change. You are clearly under a massive misunderstanding on both global warming and the IPCC.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international scientific organization that was set-up, by international request, under the auspices of the U.N. Its purpose is to consolidate the massive amount of research being done and to produce an assessment report. It does no research of it own and did not originate the concerns of climate change. In fact, the reason governments asked for it is because of the growing concerns over global warming and climate change. This is why I find it perplexing that so many deniers get foamy at the mouth at the mention of the IPCC.

Let’s set the record straight – the IPCC does not do scientific research, it produces periodic assessment reports of the international research that is being done. The fact the assessment reports run into thousands of pages is an indication of just how much research there is. The science has been going on for about 150 years and there was already a scientific consensus long before the IPCC was ever organized. Watch this video for a very good presentation on the history of the science:

And, climate change is not a hypothesis. Global warming and climate change is a fact and the science behind the conclusion is very well supported and proven. The reality is the conclusions on climate change and global warming are the result of many independent theories, each of which has been tested and verified over many decades and centuries. Deniers want to call it a hypothesis and want someone to produce a single scientific paper putting it forth, but that isn’t the way it works. Climate science is the single most complicated science because it involves all disciplines of science, even down to quantum mechanics and particle physics. Thinking of climate change as being a single theory is like thinking of a sky scraper as a single, manufactured piece of material rolling out of a factory.

You state that it is ‘you’ that has to do the experimentation. By ‘you’ I am assuming you are referring to the plurality of the scientific community. Strange that you would automatically put yourself outside of the realm of science like that. But, you are correct, the scientific community must do experimentation to verify the science. As I said above, this effort goes back about 150 years and even that original research was built on previous experimentally demonstrated science.

It is true that greenhouse gases do not block out the sunlight. This is because those molecules are transparent to sunlight. We can demonstrate this experimentally. Look outside during the daytime. Do you see things? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you have experimentally proven that enough of the sunlight gets through the atmosphere to reach the ground.

Now, do another experiment. Stand in the sunlight for a period of time (how long is up to you). Does being in the sunlight make you get warmer? If the answer is ‘yes,’ then you have experimentally proven that incoming sunlight warms the surface.

For our next experiment, I want you to go into the shade out of the direct sunlight. Are you cooling down? If the answer is ‘yes,’ you have experimentally demonstrated that a body warmed by the sunlight will reradiate the energy.

Now, go into a dark place as you are cooling off and look at yourself in a mirror. Are you glowing in visible light? If the answer is ‘no,’ then you have experimentally proven that reradiated energy is in a different wavelength than the incoming visible light that you absorbed.

By experimentation, we have now proven that solar energy passes through the atmosphere, heats the surface, that energy is then reradiated and it is reradiated at a different wavelength than the originally absorbed radiation.

This is the key to understanding global warming because there are molecules that do not absorb visible light, but will absorb other wavelengths of light. In this case, the specific radiation we are interested in is infrared light. Greenhouse gases will absorb infrared light but not visible light. These molecules, just like your body, will reradiate that light. The difference between these molecules and the surface is the greenhouse gas molecules will reradiate it at the same wavelength they absorb – IR wavelengths. This radiation was emitted by the heated surface and was originally going in a generally upwards direction and would have gone out into space if nothing had gotten in its way, but something did (i.e., greenhouse gas molecules). Now, those molecules of greenhouse gas will reradiate it again, but now it is going in a random direction. Approximately half will go up and half will go down. Once reradiated, those photons of IR light can then be absorbed by something again, just to be reradiated yet again. In this way, greenhouse gases slow the cooling process of the surface. But, don’t forget that sunlight is still coming in and continues to add to the energy in the surface.

This, and much more, has all been demonstrated experimentally. So, you see, scientists have done the hard work. Now, it is YOU that has to accept we have done our share. YOU cannot say scientists have to prove it and then IGNORE the results when they come back. The scientific community has fulfilled its obligation in this matter. YOU have not.

As for Venus, how is it possible for you to claim the temperature on Venus is minus 444 degrees F? The amount of scientific literature on this topic is truly massive and the confirmed surface temperatureof Venus is nearly 900 degrees F. There is no dispute in the scientific community on this issue.

I can tell you, if you are going to believe Venus is minus 444 degrees F, you will have ZERO credibility in the scientific community. You might as well discuss how aliens built a city on Mars.

The science has been proven and it has been proven conclusively. Those results are available for anyone that wishes to do their homework. I think I have addressed every one of your questions either here in this response, or in response to challenge submissions. You can see a list of those submissions here.

One last thing, I have tried to be as civil as I can to you. Please respond in kind. You have no idea of what my religious beliefs are and they would be irrelevant in any case. Stick to the science. You may address me as Dr. Keating, Professor Keating or Mr. Keating. You can even address me as Christopher or Chris. But, keep your uncivil bigotries to yourself.

Guest Submission: The FRAUD of Greenhouse gas global warming

My response can be found at the end of this guest submission.

From: Bill Andrews

Date:12/31/2014 11:13 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: DOGW.email@gmail.com

Subject: The FRAUD of Greenhouse gas global warming.

How do you do.

The FRAUD of Greenhouse Gas emissions raising the temperature of the Earth can be proven false by two distinct methods. 

   1.  By examination of what Insulators are and do; and,

    2.  By examining planet VENUS.  

IF Greenhouse gases can warm a planet then Venus should prove it.  Venus is wrapped in a 50km thick layer of 95% CO2!  If that much CO2 can't warm VENUS, then the Earths messily 0.06% CO2 can't either.

Enjoy reading Science, for a change.  And remember, 

DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.  VERIFY EVERYTHING PEOPLE TELL YOU., AND DO THE MATH YOURSELF!!!!

NICE PEOPLE LIE TOO, VERIFY!!!!!!

PART 1.

INSULATORS,  WHAT THEY DO FOR YOU.

in•su•late

ˈinsəˌlāt/

verb

1.   protect (something) by interposing material that prevents loss.

As the definition above indicates, and insulator is a "material", which protects you from what is on the other side of the material.

We use insulators in many ways.  Some insulators protect us from sounds.

Others from the electrical flow in wires or machinery.  In our lesson we are going to only be speaking about THERMAL INSULATORS.

A Thermal Insulator is any material that is used to REDUCE or STOP HEAT TRANSFER. 

The Third Law of Thermo-dynamics tells us that Heat moves from High concentration to Low concentration; or, from hot to cold.   This process is know as THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.

The most common form of thermal insulation in peoples lives is the insulation in their homes. 

Your home has insulation in the outer walls and roof, and possibly in the floor as well.  This keeps the heat of summer OUT of your house.  In the Winter it keeps the heat IN your home.

The gases and water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere do the same thing for the Earth that they do for your home, they insulate us FROM the Sun's heat and light rays, cooling the Earth and protecting us from the harmful high energy rays that cause skin cancer. They also help keep us from loosing waste heat, especially at night when we are facing away from the sun.

The important question is, what is the total NET EFFECT of the insulating going on in the atmosphere?

Does it block out more heat than it helps to keep in, thus cooling the Earth? or, 

Does it capture more heat than it blocks out warming the Earth?

The answer to this question is simple, isn't it?  

The Sun:  big burning ball of gas,  VERY hot.

The Earth:  Cold rock floating in space, warmed by the Sun.

The Sun sends in 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth re radiates out each day, and most of this heat stays here.  That's not surprising is it?

If the Earth radiated all the Sun's heat out each day, then the Earth would be Zero degrees Kelvin every morning, since there would be no heat because it all radiated away at nigh.  All water would freeze solid every night, and life on Earth would be impossible, plants would all die of frostbite and mankind would never have come into existence.  

For water to remain liquid, it MUST HAVE SOME HEAT to keep its temperature above freezing. 

The heat that radiates out is Earth's WASTE HEAT.  The heat that is not absorbed by the Earth's life and seas.  

So for every 1 degree of heat the gases and water vapor help keep in at night, the sun sends in 30,000,000 degrees of heat.

Thus, if there is a 1% insulating gas in the atmosphere, it will stop 1% of the heat entering and leaving from entering or leaving.  BUT the amount of heat blocked out will always be 30,000,000 times greater than the heat reflected back in.  

Thus, the NET EFFECT of any insulating gas or vapor in the atmosphere will always create a greater COOLING effect than a warming effect, since the net effect is it will keep far more heat out than in.    

So let me ask you a question?

Tell me, what the Earth would be like if Mankind put a perfect 100% insulator into the atmosphere?

Yes it would keep in all the heat already in the Earth's atmosphere BUT, it would also block out ALL of the Sun's heat and light from entering as well,  Eternal Night!  

What would that be like?  Would it create a Runaway Greenhouse effect, or a very cold and dark Earth with no life on it?

Or think of it like this:

In the fall as harvest time nears, farmers are always afraid that an early frost will set in and kill their crops.  Whenever news of a cold spell is in the air, the Farmers all pray for warm weather, or Cloud cover if it does gets cold.  

WHY clouds?  

Water vapor is the MOST insulation gas of them all and clouds are all water vapor. 

When the sky is overcast, completely covered in clouds at night, the waste heat radiated from the ground into the air is partly captured by the water vapor and redirected towards the earth.

This helps to keep the ambient air temperature higher.  With no cloud cover the heat would find it much easier to shoot out into space and the Earth would cool much more rapidly.

BUT during the day, when the heat is coming from outside our atmosphere, from the Sun, clouds have the opposite effect.  Clouds lower the temperature by blocking out the sun's heat from entering the atmosphere.  Here in sunny Southern California an August day can drop from the mid 90's to the low 70's with a cloud bank overhead.

Clouds don't create a global warming effect do they? And water vapor is thousands of times more insulating than CO2!   Clouds block out the Sun cooling the Earth.  Even though the earth is radiating heat back out during the day just like it does at night.  The heat radiated back towards the Earth by the clouds just isn't enough to make up for the lost heat the clouds have blocked out of the atmosphere.

Whatever the thermal insulator in our atmosphere is, the result will always be the same.  If we block out the Sun's heat we will be colder.  No other result is possible.  We get our heat from the Sun, heat blocked out is lost and cannot be made up for.

PART 2

THE VENUS LIE.  FRAUD BY OMISSION.

The most common lie told by global warming advocates is that the Earth will become like Venus if we continue to put CO2 into the atmosphere, it will be incredibly hot they say, because Venus is!!!

In Part 1 I argue that that it is impossible!  It's impossible for Venus to be hot, it has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, and not just that, but it is 50 kilometers thick.  Over 5 times the thickness of the Earth's Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere.  

THAT much CO2 will almost completely block out the sun itself!!!  So how can Venus be hot?

To find out let's look at Venus and see if its 50km thick atmosphere of insulating CO2 gas is cooling or heating the planets surface shall we?

According to NASA's web site [http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus] Venus' has a temperature of 864 degrees Farenheit [F] (462 degrees Celcius [C],735 degrees Kelvin[K]).

That's...hot?!?!?!

According the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association web site [https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-earths-surface-temperature], the average temperature of the Earth in 2013 was 57.2 degrees F (14 degrees C, 287 degrees K).

I seem to be wrong don't I?  Venus is much hotter than the Earth, when I said it should be much colder because all that CO2 would insulate the planet's surface from the Sun's much greater heat at only 2/3rds the distance of the Earth from the sun.  

Boy do I feel dumb!

Or...maybe I don't, what do you think?

Well now, the title of this second part does mention "fraud by omission".  That means that someone isn't telling you everything you need to know to understand that you are being lied to, defrauded. 

I'll presume you want to know what I know, so I'll tell you how they are defrauding you.

Do you remember leaning in high school science a little law know as GAY-LUSSAC'S LAW? 

You might have learned it as the PRESSURE TEMPERATURE LAW.

It tells us that pressure and temperature are directly related.  Any change in one creates an identical change in the other. 

This relationship was discovered by the French Chemist/Scientist Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, and he published his findings 1702. 

In short it tells us that there are TWO TYPES OF HEAT.  One is temperate heat, while the other is Pressure heat.  

Heat and Pressure are in fact... the same thing!  They are measures of the amount of Kinetic Energy in a gas.  

You can increase the Kinetic energy of a gas by :

1. Compressing it into a smaller space, or 

2,  By burning a fuel and heating it.

When we are speaking of man made global warming, we aren't speaking about Pressure Heat, we are talking about temperate heat from the Sun.  

How does the concept of Pressure Heat apply to Venus?  It is how they are lying!

The Earth's atmospheric pressure is 1 (one) atmosphere (atm).

Venus however, has an atmospheric pressure of 90 atms!  Ninety times greater than the Earth.

That's a lot of Pressure heat!

So if we are to know the Solar Temperate Heat of Venus, we need to remove all that Pressure heat.  Thankfully, Gay-Lussac drew up the formula for doing just that, it is this:

P1/T1 = P2/T2.    

This says that the Starting Pressure (P1) [in atmospheres] divided by the starting Temperature (T1) [in degrees Kelvin] is equal to the ending Pressure (P2), divided by the ending Temperature (T2).

If you prefer multiplication to fractions it is written this way:

P1 x T2 = P2 x T1

The starting Pressure times the ending Temperature is equal to the ending Pressure times the Starting Temperature. 

Makes perfect since... right?

So, let's do the math and find out if I'm lying, or the climate changers are lying shall we? 

We want to know the temperature of Venus at 1 atm like the Earth.  So we are looking for T2, the ending temperature at the lower pressure of 1 atm.  We need to rewrite the formula to find the ending temperature T2 of Venus which looks like this:

T2 = (P2T1)/P1.  

We just moved P1 to  the left side of the formula, which reversed the multiplication to division. 

Now we put in the numbers which looks like this:

T2 = (1atm x 735K)/90atm

1 times 735 = 735.  

735 divided by 90 is 8.166666K.

So  T2 = 8.166666K  which is -264.983334 degrees C, or -444.969994 degrees F!!!!!!!!!!

Well looky here.  When we remove all of Venus' Pressure Heat, the Solar Temperate Heat from the Sun is only MINUS (-)444.969994 degrees Fahrenheit.  

Isn't the average temperature of the Earth (57.2 degrees F) warmer than minus 

(-)444.969994 degrees F?  

I think it is!

AND THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IF WE PUT THAT MUCH CO2 INTO EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE AS WELL!!!

It will block out almost all the heat from the Sun and turn the Earth into an ice cube!

NOW DO THE MATH YOURSELF!

Don't trust me, nice people lie too.  Verify I'm telling you the truth. Google Gay-Lussac's law and make sure I didn't cheat.  Get the temperature and pressure of Earth and Venus, then do the math yourself, you've a calculator and computer use them.  Chumps trust people, Verify everything you are told, don't be lazy.  

AND NOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH!

You may now thank me.

Response:

I have seen this one making the rounds in bits and drabs. This is the most complete version that I have see, though. Without resorting to hyperbole, this is one of the most anti-science claims I have ever seen. Truthfully, this submission exemplifies why I say the only way you can be a denier is to reject science.

Mr. Andrews stated, “Don't trust me, nice people lie too.  Verify I'm telling you the truth.” No problem.

Part 1: Insulators

This has become a very common false claim by deniers – if CO₂absorbs heat, then that means it is absorbing the Sun’s radiation and actually cooling the planet. Not surprisingly, the first person I heard making this claim was an executive in the coal industry.

If you had any doubts about the validity of Mr. Andrews’ claim, this one line should convince you it is totally crazy:

“The Sun sends in 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth re radiates out each day, and most of this heat stays here.  That's not surprising is it?”

He says to get your calculator out and do the math yourself. Well, let’s see, daily incoming heat is 30,000,000 times the amount of outgoing heat and let’s multiply that by 365 days a year and that comes out to…. I can’t read it because the entire room has erupted in flames! My calculator has melted in the charred remains of what used to be my hands!

If thirty million times as much heat comes in every day as goes out, then the total amount of energy will climb at an astonishing rate. The amount of heat going out has to be close to the amount coming in or the planet will not just warm up, it will incinerate – literally, at Mr. Andrews’ quoted rate. It is very important to the planet to have a net heat balance of zero, meaning just as much heat goes out as comes in. What greenhouse gases have done is to alter that balance very slightly in the positive direction. This is enough to change the climate because one day’s worth of incoming heat from the Sun is roughly equal to 100 years of total human energy production (at current rates). We get a lot of energy from the Sun, so even a very small change in how much is retained makes a difference. Thank our lucky stars it isn’t a factor of thirty million different.

Mr. Andrews then states,

If the Earth radiated all the Sun's heat out each day, then the Earth would be Zero degrees Kelvin every morning, since there would be no heat because it all radiated away at nigh.  All water would freeze solid every night, and life on Earth would be impossible, plants would all die of frostbite and mankind would never have come into existence.

This is very similar to the situation on the Moon. The temperature gets very high in the sunlight, but very cold in the shade and at night. The important part is what he isn’t telling you here and you have to wonder why he leaves it out. Why doesn't this happen here on Earth? The reason we don’t go to zero Kelvins every night is because we have an atmosphere and it holds heat in. At some point in the past, a small amount of heat was retained by the atmosphere. In theory, the atmosphere would eventually reach thermal equilibrium where the amount coming in is equal to the amount going out and the temperature would be steady. Of course, the situation is constantly changing from a multitude of causes and thermal equilibrium is never perfectly achieved, but the planet is very close to it as a whole. That means there is a heat reservoir in the atmosphere that prevents us from freezing at night. Picture being in a bed with a blanket over you. At first, you might be cold when you get under the blanket, but then it warms up and you reach some constant temperature. You have achieved a thermal equilibrium where the amount of heat entering the blanket from you body is equal to the amount of heat radiating out through the top. If this didn’t happen, you would continue to get hotter and hotter. Then, suppose you get up to get a drink of water. When you come back to bed you find the blanket is still warm. It has acted as a heat reservoir and it takes time for it to lose its retained heat. The atmosphere works the same way. It gets heated during the day (by infrared radiation from the surface, not the sunlight). When nighttime comes, it will retain that heat for a while and any additional IR radiation coming from the heated surface. Given enough time, it would continue to cool down to unpleasant levels, but that would take many days or months (the polar regions do this when they experience long a nighttime in winter).

Simply put, if we didn’t have an atmosphere, the planet would be about 33 degrees C lower than it is currently. The net effect of the atmosphere keeps us warm, not cold.

His final statement in this section is,

Whatever the thermal insulator in our atmosphere is, the result will always be the same.  If we block out the Sun's heat we will be colder.  No other result is possible.  We get our heat from the Sun, heat blocked out is lost and cannot be made up for.

This is a false argument. He is giving you only one option – block out the sunlight and we will be colder. What he is not saying is colder than what? If you stand in the shade in the middle of a summer day you will be colder than if you are standing in the direct sunlight. That does not mean you are cold. Yes, clouds in the daytime helps keep us cooler by reflecting sunlight back into space. They also keep us warmer at night by trapping heat that would otherwise radiate back into space. The total role of cloud cover in the climate change mix is not fully understood and it is sometimes called the ‘wild card of climate change'.

Part 2: Venus

It doesn’t take Mr. Andrews long to make a false statement:

The most common lie told by global warming advocates is that the Earth will become like Venus if we continue to put CO2 into the atmosphere, it will be incredibly hot they say, because Venus is!!!

There are a few people warning about a possible Venus scenario, but the general scientific population discounts that possibility. Oneresearcher that investigated this found we would need to go to CO₂ levels of about 30,000 parts per million (ppm). We are currently at about 400 ppm. It would take burning about 10 times as much oil, coal and gas as exist to reach that level. So, is it possible? Yes. Can we cause it to happen by burning fossil fuels? No, we can’t.

He finally says something I agree with,

I seem to be wrong don't I?  Venus is much hotter than the Earth, when I said it should be much colder because all that CO2 would insulate the planet's surface from the Sun's much greater heat at only 2/3rds the distance of the Earth from the sun.  

Boy do I feel dumb!

I’m glad to hear that because it was pretty much what I was thinking. Unfortunately, he isn’t satisfied with that and has to continue on the downward slope.

When we are speaking of man made global warming, we aren't speaking about Pressure Heat, we are talking about temperate heat from the Sun.  

To get straight to the point, there is no such thing as ‘pressure heat.’ Mr. Andrews needs to do a little homework on the laws of thermodynamics.  He is engaging in a misdirection by employing what is known as the Gay-Lussac’s lawor Amonton’s law. What this law says is if you are given a gas that is isolated from any surrounding environment, the gas pressure divided by the gas temperature will always be the same. Thus, if you increase the pressure, the temperature must also increase at the same rate. If you double the pressure, the absolute temperature (measured from absolute zero) will also double.

This is what Mr. Andrews is calling ‘pressure heat’ and, again, there is no such thing. The reason is that this heat is already IN THE SYSTEM! We cannot create or destroy energy. When we compress a gas, the amount of energy in the gas remains the same, but now has a smaller volume to occupy and the energy density will go up. Another word for energy density is temperature. Pressure does not create any heat.

Mr. Andrews wants to say all of the heat trapped in Venus’ atmosphere is ‘pressure heat’ and if you remove that heat the temperature on Venus would be 265 degrees below zero Celsius. Mr. Andrews is actually somewhat correct, but not the way he wants you to think. This is where he is either stunningly ignorant of what he is talking about (very possible) or his in intentionally working to deceive (also very possible). His terms would actually be pretty valid if we were to take the atmosphere of Venus and suddenly expand it to 90 times it's current volume so the average pressure dropped to the atmosphere of Earth. This is how air conditioning and refrigeration work. What Mr. Andrews isn’t telling you (he does that a lot) is that once this expansion occurred, the incoming solar radiation would then heat it up again. Then, once it was heated, if you compressed it back to its original volume the temperature would sky rocket way past the original temperature. 

What he is also not telling you is that this could not occur. The atmosphere of Venus cannot suddenly expand to 90 times it's current volume. Gravity prevents that from happening. What he is also not telling you is the part about the gas has to be isolated from the surrounding environment. That cannot happen. We can keep the interaction to a minimum if things happen quickly, but no system can ever be completely isolated from its surroundings.

His claim that Venus is hot because of ‘pressure heat’ is 100% false and there is no science to even suggest such a thing.  He is merely trying to misdirect people into thinking CO₂ is not responsible for trapping heat. Sorry, Mr. Andrews, but you are completely wrong. CO₂ absorbs outgoing infrared radiation and reradiates it back out in random directions. This slows down the rate heat can escape the planet. The more greenhouse gases there are, the slower the energy will escape and the higher the temperature will rise. This is what is happening on Venus and it is what is happening on Earth.

 

Sorry, Mr. Andrews. You’re claims are not only invalid, but incredibly invalid.

You may now thank me.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to debunk this silly claim.

 

Time Magazine Was Right!

No, I didn't mean the article in Newsweek from the 1970s that misinterpreted what scientists were saying. I mean the Time magazine article from 1956 that said:

Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate.

The temperature of the earth’s surface depends largely on two minor constituents of the atmosphere: water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are transparent to the short-wave energy (light and near infrared) that comes from the sun, but opaque to most of the long-wave heat radiation that tries to return to space. This “greenhouse effect” traps heat and makes the earth’s surface considerably warmer than it would be if the atmosphere had no water vapor or carbon dioxide in it. An increase in either constituent would make it warmer still. Warm eras in the geological past may have been caused by CO₂ from volcanoes.

At present the atmosphere contains 2.35 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, existing in equilibrium with living plants and sea water (which tends to dissolve it). Up to 1860, man’s fires added only about 500 million tons per year, and the atmosphere had no trouble in getting rid of this small amount. But each year more furnaces and engines poured CO₂ into the atmosphere. In 1900, the amount was 3 billion tons. By 1950, it was 9 billion tons. By 2010, if present trends continue, 47 billion tons of carbon dioxide will enter the air each year. [actual @37 billion tons]

This will be only 2% of the total carbon dioxide, but if it is more than can be dissolved by the oceans or absorbed by plants or minerals, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere will tend to increase. The greenhouse effect will be intensified. Some scientists believe that this is the cause of recent warming of the earth’s climate. Dr. Revelle has his doubts.

In the future, if the blanket of CO₂ produces a temperature rise of only one or two degrees, a chain of secondary effects may come into play. As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO₂dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the greenhouse effect of the CO₂. Each effect will reinforce the other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth’s coastal lands.

Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earth’s CO₂ and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO₂ blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.

Time Magazine, May 28, 1956

Whoa! How is that? They predicted Superstorm Sandy 55 years in advance. And, deniers have been telling us all along that scientists were predicting a new ice age in the 1970s. Well, that's alright, because the deniers assure us there is no consensus among climate scientists on climate change. But wait! Take a look here at the report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President's Science Advisory Committee from 1965. Speaking of carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, the report stated (page 113),

The part that remains in the atmosphere may have a significant impact on climate: carbon dioxide is nearly transparent to visible light, but is a strong absorber and back radiator of infrared radiation, particularly in the wavelengths from 12 to 18 microns; consequently, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could act, much like the glass in a greenhouse, to raise the temperature of the lower air.

This was so phenomenal, President Lyndon Johnson sent it to Congress as a special message.
 
But, it continues. The history of climate science shows it was becoming increasingly clear during the 1960s and 1970s that fossil fuel emissions would change the climate. The NRC report of 1977, the JASON report of 1979 and the Charney report of 1979 all came to the same conclusion: carbon dioxide emissions would lead to global warming.

So, not only is there a consensus, but that consensus was reached over 40 years ago!

You mean, the deniers were lying to us? How could that be?

There is an excellent video of Naomi Oreskes discussing this history.  I highly recommend it.

The point being, the denier industry, led by the Three Stooges (the George C. Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heartland Institute - all stooges for the fossil fuel industry) have been heavily involved in a campaign to mislead the public. And, they are very skilled at this. These are the same people that led the fight to convince the public the medical research linking tobacco to heart and lung disease was flawed. Their work ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people by delaying regulation of tobacco products. Today, they are killing hundreds of thousands of people by delaying action on climate change.

Keep telling yourself these people have your best interest at heart.