(An online correspondence in the ‘comments-section’ of a fervently pro-Anthropogenic Global Warming weblog over the period 13 November to 20 November, 2006).

(http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing.html).

07 Nov, 2006.

ANONYMOUS: I have been searching online for any evidence that human produced CO2 causes warming. After searching hundreds of sites discussing Global Warming, I have been unable to find anything. In fact, based on observational data it seems unlikely that there is a very close correlation for the following reasons: (...). Basic research could be conducted and published to establish a causal relationship, but the lack of any initiative to do so indicates to me that it is well known that the results would argue counter to the claims. Experiments that would help might include: 1. (...); 2) In a controlled environment, radiation (in the same wavelength as being reflected from the earth) could be aimed at a gas mixture similar to our environment, and CO2 could be increased and decreased at proportions representing current changes (radiation reflected could be measured to see what the results might be expected in nature). I, for one, could be convinced if basic research were conducted. The lack of it indicates a complete lack of a scientific basis for the argument.

*

13Nov06

ANONYMOUS: I have been searching online for any evidence that human produced CO2 causes warming. After searching hundreds of sites discussing Global Warming, I have been unable to find anything. [... snip ...].

COBY BECK: Considering that answers to all your questions are available right on this site, I guess that is not surprising.

RICHARD: Whereabouts on this site is the answer to the following (from the snipped section) then? Viz.:

• [quote]: “2) In a controlled, radiation (in the same wavelength as being reflected from the earth) could be aimed at a gas mixture similar to our environment, and CO2 could be increased and decreased at proportions representing current changes (radiation reflected could be measured to see what the results might be expected in nature”. [endquote].

COBY BECK: Not that I think you are really trying, but you should read the IPCC TAR report, linked in the sidebar. It is required reading for anyone with any interest in climate change. It includes all the basics you are under the misimpression have not been done.

RICHARD: Whereabouts in that report is the basic experiment expressly detailed (in the snipped section now re-presented above) to be found? The reason for those two specific requests is as follows: 

• [Coby Beck]: “In the case of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, what we do have is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) that is based on well established laws of physics ...”. [endquote].

According to Mr. Spencer Weart a few years after Mr. Svante Arrhenius published his hypothesis in 1896 Mr. Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it.

Unless and/or until replicable experiments to the contrary have been conducted then ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ remains a falsified hypothesis (and thus not a theory), does it not?

14 Nov, 2006.

COBY BECK: (...) you should read the IPCC TAR report, linked in the sidebar. It is required reading for anyone with any interest in climate change. It includes all the basics you are under the misimpression hae not been done”. 

RICHARD: Whereabouts in that report is the basic experiment expressly detailed (in the snipped section now re-presented above) to be found?

COBY BECK: I recommend starting on this page: 

(www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/277.htm.)

  ...and following up on the reference papers. They either are or will lead you to the primary research you are interested in.

RICHARD: Thank you for the prompt reply. Those reference papers, upon being followed up, neither are nor lead to any such basic experiment as expressly detailed; to wit:

• [quote]: “2) In a controlled environment, radiation (in the same wavelength as being reflected from the earth) could be aimed at a gas mixture similar to our environment, and CO2 could be increased and decreased at proportions representing current changes (radiation reflected could be measured to see what the results might be expected in nature)”. [endquote].

Whereabouts, then, in that report is the basic experiment expressly detailed?

* 

HANK ROBERTS: And at the AIP History page. There’s a difference depending on air pressure; to simulate the actual effect you need a tube divided so some of the CO2 is at pressure like that at top of atmosphere. 

RICHARD: Whereabouts is that experiment to be found (as in who conducted it and when and where)? 

*

HANK ROBERTS: As for CO2 itself, the old measurements made at sea-level pressure had little to say about the frigid and rarefied air in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where most of the infrared absorption takes place. In the early 1950s precision measurements at low pressure, backed up by lengthy computations, showed that adding more CO2 really would change how the atmosphere absorbed radiation. While the total absorption might not change greatly, the main site of absorption would shift to higher, thinner layers. And as Callendar had explained, shifting the “screen” in the atmosphere higher would mean more radiation going back down to warm the surface. 

RICHARD: Four (similar) points are immediately obvious: 

1. Whereabouts are *the replicable experiments* to be found which demonstrate that most of the infrared absorption takes place the frigid and rarefied air in the upper reaches of the atmosphere? 

2. Whereabouts are those early 1950s precision measurements to be found which demonstrate that adding more carbon dioxide really would change how the atmosphere absorbed radiation? 

3. Whereabouts are *the replicable experiments* to be found which demonstrate that the main site of absorption would shift to higher, thinner layers? 

4. Whereabouts are *the replicable experiments* to be found which demonstrate that shifting the [quote] “screen” [endquote] in the atmosphere higher would mean more radiation going back down to warm the surface?

20 November, 2006.

HANK ROBERTS: PS, Coby, a plea to prune threads? There’s an awful lot of accumulated bafflegab in comments, along with the good answers.

20 Nov, 2006.

COBY BECK: Jump ahead to 1938, quote: “This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming. For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming”. IOW, the lower atmosphere gets warmer.

RICHARD: At least five points are immediately obvious: 1. An assertion is not science.

COBY BECK: It is an explanation of an observation and surely is a part of scientific method.

RICHARD: Thank you for replying. Since when has the mere assertion of an explanation of an observation (a public declaration of what an untested hypothesis could explain) been so surely a part of scientific method that it not only negates the experimental falsification of a previous hypothesis but elevates it to the status of a theory?

COBY BECK: Relax ...

RICHARD: As any admonition such as that is insinuative of an overwrought co-respondent it adds nothing to discussion (other than an insight into the character of the admonisher).

COBY BECK: ... it was just a first step. 

RICHARD: What is the point of providing a quote pertaining to an hypothesis when what is clearly being asked for is *the replicable experiments* which demonstrate that ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is indeed a theory (and not an hypothesis)?

COBY BECK: You have to start somewhere, with an idea, an explanation, an hypothesis.

RICHARD: As what was explicitly asked for was *the replicable experiments* which demonstrate that ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is indeed a theory (and not an hypothesis) what is the point of providing a quote pertaining to an hypothesis? 

COBY BECK: That was 70 years ago, it is not the end of the story. 

RICHARD: As the story has already been read through to the end, thoroughly, what is the point of providing a quote pertaining to an hypothesis when was specifically asked for was *the replicable experiments* which demonstrate that ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is indeed a theory (and not an hypothesis)? 

COBY BECK: Why are you so argumentative?

RICHARD: As any query such as this is insinuative of an argumentatious co-respondent it adds nothing to discussion (other than an insight into the character of the insinuator).

Here is the sequence so far:

1. What was explicitly asked for was *the replicable experiments* which demonstrate that ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is indeed a theory (and not an hypothesis). 

2. What was provided in its stead (with a gratuitous ‘sigh’ no less) was a quote pertaining to an hypothesis, copy-pasted from the very same page as an illustrative reason for asking for same was supplied from, complete with a presumptuous statement, an insinuative query and an imputative lecture into the bargain. 

3. When it was pointed out that the mere assertion of an hypothesis is not science an obfuscatory attempt was made to force-fit said assertion into being what was asked for. 

4. Upon that obfuscatory attempt to force-fit said assertion into what was asked for being queried an insinuendo (albeit disguised as a solicitous query) about argumentation, evidently designed to deflect attention away from the failure to provide what was actually asked for, was all that was forthcoming. 

If this comments-section sequence is a typical example of [quote] ‘How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic’ [endquote] then it is no wonder that all manner of epithets are levied at ... um ... at ‘Climate Believers’. 

*

RICHARD: ... one way to test that 1938 hypothesis (for example) would be to send a high-tech version of Mr. Knut Ångström’s ground-level experiment (the experiment which falsified Mr. Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 hypothesis) to the postulated height in the atmosphere ...

COBY BECK: Knut Angstroms experiment was flawed, it did not falsify the theory of greenhouse effect.

RICHARD: Please supply some references to this effect (preferably not your own writing).

COBY BECK: For your modified replication, what you need is a tube that is the height of the atmosphere, it needs to be such that IR does not escape or absorb through the sides. Then you see if the air at the bottom gets warmer when CO2 is increased.

RICHARD: As a tube the height of the atmosphere is an impossibility that instruction is simply risible. 

COBY BECK: Did you read the papers by Plass?

RICHARD: Yes ... did *you*? And the reason for this query is best exemplified by what follows (written in reference to an entirely different matter): 

• [Coby Beck]: “For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my head, I don’t know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. (...) I have come to the firm conviction that I do not have the technical background and/or time required to make a scientific judgment on this issue one way or another”. (http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html).

RICHARD: 3. Mr. Guy Callendar conducted no experiments to demonstrate that his understanding was evidence-based.

COBY BECK: This may or may not be true ...

RICHARD: According to the web page, from whence the above quote was obtained, it is indeed true Mr. Guy Callendar conducted no experiments. What he did, around 1938, was to compile measurements of temperatures from the nineteenth century on and find that a warming trend was underway. He evaluated old measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and concluded that, over the previous hundred years, the concentration of the gas had increased by about ten percent. This rise, he asserted, could explain the observed warming because he understood that, even if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place – and that, he calculated, would make for warming.

COBY BECK: ... but is irrelevant. 

RICHARD: Since when have experiments to verify hypotheses been “irrelevant” to the scientific method? 

COBY BECK: Where is an experiment that has falsified this hypothesis? 

RICHARD: The onus is upon an hypothesiser’s apologist, who has elevated said hypothesis to the status of being a theory, to provide referenced quotes detailing *the replicable experiments* which verified same (and is most certainly not upon an interested onlooker, who is simply enquiring as to where any such verifications can be found, to provide referenced quotes detailing any replicable experiments which falsified same). 

COBY BECK: And experiments aside ... [snipped matters not pertaining to the questions at hand].

RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, Coby, nice try indeed. 

*

RICHARD: 4. A calculation in vacuo is not science.

COBY BECK: So?

Also, whereabouts on this web site (the site asserted by you to have available the answers to all the questions) is such an experiment as that to be found?

*

RICHARD: 5. That quote does not even remotely address the question (whether or not ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ remains a falsified hypothesis and thus not a theory).

COBY BECK: It shows why the early 20th century experiment you are hung up on is not falsification of AGW.

RICHARD: To characterise a co-respondent as being [quote] ‘hung up on’ [endquote] an experimental falsification of the hundred-year-old ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ hypothesis, simply because they respond in the context of a claim regarding a so-called theory [quote] ‘first conceived over 100 years ago’ [endquote], adds nothing to the discussion (other than an insight into the character of the characteriser). 

COBY BECK: You might find the four papers returned by this search informative: Plass on CO2 and atmosphere:

(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=co2+atmosphere+author%3Aplass&as_subj=phy).

RICHARD: First of all, one of the four papers is about the colour of the ocean. Here is the abstract:

▪ [quote] ‘Using a model which accounts for absorption and scattering processes, the colour of the ocean is calculated. A Monte Carlo method is used to follow solar photons through the atmosphere and into the ocean. Upward and downward fluxes are found for several atmospheric heights at wavelengths in the 0.4-0.7-micron range. The colour of the ocean near the horizon is governed by the colour of the sky reflected on the ocean surface. By excluding the light reflected from the ocean surface, the upwelling light from the ocean may be observed near the nadir. If the water contains a fixed amount of hydrosols, a deep, pure blue colour indicates relatively pure water while greenish blue or green colours indicate an increased amount of chlorophyll and yellow substances. Usually an increase in hydrosols causes a decreased purity in colour’. ~ (“Applied Optics”. Vol. 17, pp. 1432-1446. 1 May 1978).

The second paper is about the infrared transmittance of water vapour. Viz.:

• Title: “The Infrared Transmittance Of Water Vapour”; Authors: Wyatt, Philip J.; Stull, V. Robert; Plass, Gilbert N.; (Publication: Applied Optics IP, vol. 3, Issue 2, p.229; Publication Date: 02/1964).

The third paper is about laser radiation – and it, too, is in the Applied Optics journal (Vol. 5, pp. 149-154. Jan. 1966) published by “The Optical Society of America”.

The only paper specifically related to the subject of carbon dioxide (“The Effect of Pressure Broadening of Spectral Lines on Atmospheric Temperature”) is fourteen pages of mathematical calculations by Mr. John Strong and Mr. Gilbert Plass (pps 365-379, in “The Astrophysical Journal” of November 1950, Vol. 112, No. 3). And, even so, it is about calculating a net loss of heat radiation, from the various layers of the stratosphere, anyway. For example:

• [quote] “... radiation emitted upward from the wings of lines in the lower atmosphere is not strongly absorbed by the upper layers. Such radiation is thus free to escape to the cosmic cold. In this paper we calculate the net loss of heat radiation from the various layers of the stratosphere ...”. ~ (from page 365).

COBY BECK: ... which I was lead to via this paper: 

(http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/31525.pdf).

RICHARD: As that document clearly states that, between 1953 and 1959, Mr. Gilbert Plass developed [quote] ‘an early computer model’ [endquote] of radiative transfer and used [quote] ‘newly available digital computers’ [endquote] to replace [quote] ‘the older graphical methods’ [endquote] why would his work be considered to contain *the replicable experiments* being asked for – let alone sending a correspondent on a wild-goose chase through articles published by “The Optical Society of America”? 

If you have no such experimental evidence to hand which you can provide (such as appears to be the case), then please say so.

*

• [Editorial Note]: As Mr. Coby Beck never did respond – and Richard’s last response, immediately above, has since been deleted from the comments-section (mayhap during a thread-prune of ‘accumulated bafflegab’ as requested further above) – then so endeth a sad and sorry instance of ‘How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic’.

RETURN TO FACTS AND GROUPTHINK INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

ACTUAL FREEDOM HOMEPAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity