Slaying Slayering Slayers?

Well, this is what happens when a bunch of skeptics don’t have any wormy lunatic watermelon Malthusian misanthropists to beat up on…….

Mike has recently had a problem posting comments on this blog….. he’s not the only one having problems posting.  I can’t post at Roy’s.  I don’t know why….. I hope it doesn’t have anything to do with me getting drunk and typing my thoughts….. Fingers crossed

Recently, Dr. Singer had an article critiquing both warmists and what he calls “deniers”.  I’m a bit pissed about that.  He didn’t “name names”.  Fine.  But, he might as well have.  But, Dr. Singer missed in a bit of his “science” as well.  Dr. Spencer felt obliged to chime in.  I wish he wouldn’t have.  Anthony ported his traffic to Dr. Spencer.  I wish he would not have.  I don’t see this as productive.  Before I go any further, I’d like to state that if I were into hero worship Dr. Roy Spencer would be my hero.  I’ve nothing but respect and admiration for him.  Turns out, I’m not into hero worship…..  In his post, I don’t disagree with any of his technical assertions.  That said, he over simplified and his post was beneath his usual high standards.  I disagree with the way he generically applied the term GHG, as if they all act similar.  So, while, perhaps, he was technically correct, a person may gain incorrect conclusions from the way he was wording some of the points.

Dr. Singer , in his article, which seemed in desperate need to classify all those who disagree with him, stated, among many other senseless posits,

“Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature.  But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly.  Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels.  Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning.  To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.”

That, by itself, shows how much of the scientific community and the public are woefully ignorant of the properties of CO2.  When I posted Dept of Commerce Didn’t Get The Memo On Spectrometry, I had hoped for someone to pop by and give a bit more illumination on it.  I try again, and hopefully, I’ll provide some illumination as well.  I’ll borrow the graphic Dr. Spencer had in his post.


Look carefully at that graph.  I typically reference the spectrum in μm (top graph) while others use the wavenumber (bottom).  Look at the referenced “windows“.  This is energy escaping the earth.  Now, in the Commerce post, we’ve already discussed the differences of H2O and CO2.  H2O absorbs pretty much across the spectrum with the exception of about 3.5 to 5.75μm, and weakly from  7 to about 11 μm.  CO2, again, absorbs in very narrow bands.  It is a GHG in theory only.  Remember the solar input at the low end is the same as the earth’s output at the low end. (or it appears that way)

CO2 only absorbs two relevant bands…. from 14-16μm, and a very narrow 4.1μm.  3μm and below isn’t relevant.  1) Because solar input is in that range as well, and 2) again, H2O overwhelms whatever little CO2 could possibly do. Now, look again at the window.  Is 4.1μm anywhere close to it?  Look at the 14-16 range.  It’s already not generally exiting the atmosphere at that range.  Look at the Kelvins exiting the earth at the range of 14-16…. 220 Kelvins…… or -63.4 ºF!!!!  Yes, CO2 is hotting us up because it’s preventing minus 63ºF from exiting our atmosphere.  No, that’s not how it works.  But that seems to be the argument.  That’s not where the energy is leaving the earth!!!!  WTF is CO2 suppose to do about the 8-13 range?  What about the 18 and above?

I honestly don’t know, and don’t know how to know (yet), how much energy is exiting or being constrained in the 4.1 range.  But, considering the breadth of the range, it doesn’t matter much.  It would be like trying to heat your house with a laser pen….while your window is wide open!!!  It’s a stupid argument.  But, sadly,we have world famous scientists rattling their heads about GHGs as if CO2=H2O=N2O….. etc…. that’s fcktarded.  Note to world famous skeptical climate scientists….. quit being fcktarded.  Annoyed  Don’t ever do that again.  Leave the rattling while drunk to me…..

The point I’m trying to make is that the term Greenhouse Gas, is a silly expression.  It is a descriptive term which is horribly inaccurate.  Further, it lumps, as Dr. Singer and Dr. Spencer attempted to do, very different things into the same box.  It is wrong to do that, both socially and scientifically.  If the discussion is about CO2, then talk about CO2, and quit blathering about GHGs as if they were all the same thing.  They are not.

Dr. Spencer stated, “The arguments between us and the anti-greenhouse advocates often become technical and devolve into disputes over the 1st or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, whether photons really exist, whether a carbon dioxide molecule which absorbs IR energy immediately releases it again, whether outer space is an ‘insulator’, etc. Lay people quickly become overwhelmed, and even some of us technical types end up feeling ill-equipped to argue outside our areas of expertise.”

Yes, it’s difficult.  Try gaining an area of expertise instead of whining.  I’m having a hard time with it myself, but, that’s why you guys are world famous scientists, and I’m just a layman.  Laymen…. what does that term mean anymore?

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Slaying Slayering Slayers?

  1. Anything is possible says:

    LOL! I think you may be confusing Fred Singer with Jerry Springer!

    Dangerous stuff, alcohol…….

  2. suyts says:

    Well, dang…. in spite of my fingers conflation of Singer/Springer……. I thought the post quite provocative and reasoned. …. it’s strange, some posts I think will generate discussion …. not so much….. other posts, I just use as some informative piece to stow information and ….. wow.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I never get into arguments about IR as I don’t know enough to argue. But, Spencer & Braswell 2010 measured 2XCO2 at 0.6 C, and Lindzen and Choi 2011 measured it at 0.7 C.

    As I’ve said before that fits my analysis. But what we are all measuring is a correlation between logarithmic CO2 concentration and temperature. No more, no less. That doesn’t mean it is a true correlation, just that there’s nothing else we can think of that could have caused the correlation. Dr Spencer I believe would agree with this.

    So, it there is a warming signal that correlates with CO2 fine. Act on it. But the direct measurements are such that increasing pCO2 to 3000 ppm would only add 2 C to global temperature. Stuff all, as we’d say here in Oz.

    So whether there is a greenhouse effect or nothing but an adiabatic effect the result is still the same. Do nothing! Let the few remaining penurious climate scientists argue and write papers about it, and stop spending my taxes for nothing useful!

    • suyts says:

      Agreed. Like I stated, I don’t think this is all that productive. And, I agree, all should agree to argue the minutia when all of this is over…. for those of us who relish a good argument….. 🙂

  4. OT

    You might be a redneck if………. you attack a camera because you really want people to think the Tea Party is racist. Chris rock has issues.

  5. Well, I’ve been a member of the laity so long I don’t remember what the other side is like. My dad’s clergy, & some of his old college friends are, but I’ll be damned if scienceizers are going to call themselves clergy without a divinity degree & ordination.

  6. miked1947 says:

    To me it is not a question of is or is not. Neither have been proven and there are other possible explanations.
    They are blowing smoke up your A$$ talking about relative stable CO2 in historic records. Those records do not exist and Stromata records show wide variations in CO2 concentrations throughout the ages that they claim relative stability.
    Is the earth round or flat?
    Is the theory of gravity complete?
    Does E=MC Sq in reality?
    It is all relative. My cousin told me so! 😉

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s