So, according to Wiki and his newer published “opinions” he has done his research and has changed his mind. That seems pretty clear. It appears to me he has new data, new analysis etc. Is that even possible in the scientific community? I would hope so!
He’s a geophysicist, not a Meterologist.
Yet temperatures and carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.
Do you see the correlation? Me neither.
So does that make him wrong? It appears so.
Those are the fundamental, immutable, dogmas of your religion… But, that does not explain why there have been several recent many-year periods where CO2 has increased but the global temperatures remained stable or the period during the Earth’s history when CO2 was 10% of the atmosphere. That is when “global warming” suddenly became “climate change” which is yet another distortion.
1 Like
I hear you. But there are more scientists out there who are actually grappling with the “consensus” than you may know. A degree of propaganda from both sides of the argument are winning some minds. But, not every skeptic is a product of FOX news.
I for one am a skeptic of all regurgitated information that has a profound impact on our lives. In fact, I am bias to the point of likely embracing the counterpoint first. Therefore, at this point in the argument, I am of two minds. I want to pursue renewable energy and less pollution. However, I do not want to drive people into despair or poverty in doing so (in which our political leaders are perfectly capable of doing for nefarious reasons having nothing to do with saving the planet)
1 Like
Yeah, there is the rub. The correlation is not the science we need.
So, his argument and others is similar to what Brian is saying. At the atomic level CO2 does not have the ability to increase the heat or diffuse it the way it has been described by the greenhouse effect.
You must increase the amount of radiation entering the atmosphere, basically turn up the heat. I read an example of this idea once. I am not sure if I agree or understand the science enough but I am trying.
Place a heating pad at 70 degrees under a blanket. The blanket will never exceed 70 degrees. Unless you turn up the heating blanket or add more thermal radiation from above (such as the sun shining down on the blanket).
The greenhouse effect charts show radiation entering the atmosphere and the earth temps are a constant at approximately 15 C. How does the blanket get warmer? The only way is for the sun to get hotter or less filtering of the sun radiation (ozone). Another thing to remember, heat only travels from hot to cold.
I seen this come across the news today. How do you reconcile the USDA (which is led by a Biden appointee) spending $50 million to prop up the pork industry if the administration wants us to eat bugs? Wouldn’t they be happy just to see the industry die away? 
1 Like
I agree. The Biden administration (at least on paper) has shown no signs of curtailing the meat industry in the US. But, eating bugs aligns with so many of their climate goals it is hard to comprehend how they just ignore it. IMO, one reason they ignore it is because they are hypocritical virtue signalers.
From your link…
Earth Cannot Be Warmed by Its Own Radiation
Greenhouse-warming theory posits that average global surface temperatures rise when increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb increasing amounts of infrared radiation from Earth. In other words, the surface of Earth is warmed when Earth’s lower atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation emitted at Earth’s surface. This rise in temperature is estimated to be between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C. when the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is doubled.
But we observe clearly in Nature that no body of matter can be warmed in any way by absorbing its own radiation. Such warming is not physically possible. If it were possible, bodies of matter could, under the right circumstances, spontaneously heat up—something we all know does not happen. We would have an inexhaustible source of free energy—something too good to be true.
Seriously, I thought it was clear that the origin of the infrared radiation originated from the Sun, not the Earth itself. The sun is the inexhaustible free source of energy.
Yeah, not sure where you are going with this but the earth is heated by the sun and then radiates this heat. And, as is in my heating pad illustration, the covering blanket cannot generate more heat than what is radiated to it.
Imagine two bodies of solid matter positioned next to each other. Each at the same temperature. Each potentially absorbing identical radiation from the other. Neither can become hotter. Neither will get hotter, no matter how long you wait. Both bodies can lose heat to cooler surroundings, but neither can absorb heat from the other body as long as both bodies are at the same temperature.
So, how is the atmosphere heating the earth when its heat is derived from the earth?
Heating up of the earth must come from something else other than trapped gases. Is the sun brighter? Less filtered? Is the sun heating the gases and not the earth?
I do not know very much and I am not really arguing. My original point was there is some interesting information that is not mainstream that deserves some consideration by some pretty smart people. Considering the consequence, maybe it should all be available for public consumption.
Here is a good infographic to help explain it. It’s not that the earth is seeing more heat from its atmosphere or that more heat is coming at us than before. The difference is that less heat can escape the earth’s atmosphere. Think of a car sitting in the sunlight with the windows rolled up, vs the windows rolled down.
1 Like
Ah yes, thank you Ryan! And this is where the rubber hits the road, where I get lost but is what Brian, Bob and others were describing; that the CO2 is not capable of doing this by matter of simple physics. That the green house gas effect is flawed in its principle. And that other gases and events are more likely the culprit such as ozone depletion, water vapor and volcanic activity.
1 Like
I have no idea about all the deep scientific stuff really. In my opinion, the signs of a warming earth are all around us. I leave it up to the people way smarter than me to figure out why, lol.
2 Likes
Well, the answers are probably in the middle which is a good thing. Because we have the climate deniers vs the climate change worshippers pulling back and forth. End result? Modest, reasonable changes to our behavior.
1 Like
Yep. Good to have a balance and debate. We can’t change on a dime.
You’re the eternal devils advocate, Brian. It seems to me that you are not that concerned about the accuracy of the counterpoint view just as long as it contradicts mainstream.
End results; We’ll all be dead before it matters, and I’ll still be cooking on my gas stove and have my duel fuel furnace. 
2 Likes
And… if you chose to not have children then who cares really? amirite? 
My wife says that if I want to keep eating regular it be best not to screw around with her gas range. 
In any case I sure do hope some mind was changed… 
I don’t know Thomas, I think it’s already starting to matter, with insurance companies pulling out of California because of wildfires, and rumors about Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama all in their sites next due to flooding.
Then take into account the Billion dollar events that cost all of us taxpayers regardless of where you live, and sadly, these events are getting more frequent and more severe.
But I also plan on keeping my NG stove, NG furnace, NG water heater, NG dryer, and my NG back-up generator for the foreseable future, or until it becomes economically feasible to switch to green tech. Although I now have an electric lawn mower and all my yard tools are all electric as well, only my snow blower is gas, but I only use it once or twice a year, so hard to justify getting an electric one at this point.
Speaking of wildfires, anyone else in the northern states getting a little smoked out the last few days?
Not a picture of my area, but it has been bad a few days and expected to be bad all summer by me.
1 Like
