After weeks and months of press coverage seemingly Through the Looking Glass, Paul Krugman has sent us a breath of fresh air this morning in the New York Times Magazine, entitled “Building a Green Economy“. Krugman now joins fellow NYT columnist Tom Friedman as required reading in my Global Warming for English Majors class at the University of Chicago.
There is a lot here to comment on and discuss. The extinctions at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, for example, were mostly limited to foraminfera, single-celled shelly protozoa living at the sea floor, not really a “mass extinction” like the end Cretaceous when the dinosaurs got feathered. The Gulf Stream is not the only thing keeping Northern Europe warmer than Alaska. Krugman’s four reasons why it’s dubious to compare costs of climate mitigation to adaption didn’t include the unfairness, that the people paying the costs of climate change would not be the same ones as reap the benefit of CO2 emission. He also seems to have missed the recent revelation that what really matters to climate is the total ultimate slug of emitted CO2, implying that unfettered emission today dooms us to more drastic cuts in the future or a higher ultimate atmospheric CO2 concentration, which will persist not just for “possibly centuries”, but almost certainly for millennia.
But despite a few off-notes, reading this very nicely written, beautifully laid out and argued piece felt like getting a deep sympathetic body massage after a bruising boxing match. Thank you, Mr. Krugman.
You must be thinking of some other Fermi, Gilles:
http://www.google.com/search?q=fermi+paradox+radio
“Wind energy doesn’t amount to more than 20% because the turbines haven’t been built. I checked the ERCOT grid just now and wind was 6,225MW of 38,760MW total demand.”
First, you’re confusing installed power and produced energy. As the load factor of windmills is only 25 % , the proportion of wind produced energy is probably two or three times less, around 5 % (i didn’t check). And that explains basically why the will never exceed 20 %. Because once the installed power exceeds the minimum of demand, you have the risk of producing excess energy for nothing, which raises mechanically the marginal cost of new setups. But if you’re limited to the minimum of the demand curve, then you will produce on average only 25 % of the minimal demand, that is 25 % of the ratio of minimal to average demand. So basically you’re limited to these 20 %.
Personally I am not really disturbed by large windmills, esthetically I mean, and noise and possible effects on birds are probably not worse than other industrial devices. But I think it is fair to recognize that they will never be a solution to the fundamental problem of fossil fuel exhaustion.
Gullible is assuming that the vale is the installed value and not the expected value. Most installations cite the power production NOT the maximum power.
Just like Solar PV panels are labelled with the expected lifetime rating and, since they degrade slowly, they produce more power than they are rated at the beginning.
But fundamentalists for fossil fuels will never see that renewables are a replacement.
They love the money too much.
Gilles 352: As the load factor of windmills is only 25 % , the proportion of wind produced energy is probably two or three times less, around 5 % (i didn’t check). And that explains basically why the will never exceed 20 %. Because once the installed power exceeds the minimum of demand, you have the risk of producing excess energy for nothing, which raises mechanically the marginal cost of new setups.
BPL: What does it cost to produce more energy than you need with a windmill?
I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
HK : please read your own references before posting about Fermi paradox.
CFU : first my name is Gilles and I don’t see why using a ridiculing nickname helps in anyway to give credence to what you’re saying. Actually it’s just the opposite : it seems that you are not confident enough to be able to argue with rational arguments, without insulting or ridiculing your interlocutor. But I’m not the first one to tell you that. Unfortunately, it has an exact opposite effect to what you think.
Reading again FCH’s post, he may have referred to instantaneous power. No idea what his MW mean – it is just not contradicting my statement about the average power production over one year.
Because you’re ridiculous, gullible.
Why else?
Tell you what, you start being sensible and listen to people when they tell you things or show you stuff and I’ll start treating you with some small amount of respect.
Deal?
Gilles @ 352:
No, that was the ACTUAL OUTPUT, not the nameplate rating.
Which is also pronounced “You’re wrong.” And I’m not going to explain why the rest of what you wrote is also wrong, but it’s also wrong.
West Texas wind is frequently a huge fraction of the total ERCOT production these days. Not that it affects me — much of my power comes from my roof, and if I build my solar lab, even more will since the electricity has to go somewhere.
Wind power is here and is growing. Sucks being you, I suppose.
BPL @ 354:
I suspect that you don’t know enough about how grids work to know that making more than you need has a cost associated with it. It’s called “Balancing Energy” and “Regulatory Services”.
Fortunately, the grid operators are learning how to do that on the cheap with “Demand Response”, and I’ve got about 2 dozen patent applications at the PTO that deal with things I can’t even describe. But they are very cool, they work and they make it possible to go all the way to 100% on renewables.
And for Gilles’ benefit, I’m a member of the fairer sex — click link on name and see a picture of me along with a free rant.
CFU :”Tell you what, you start being sensible and listen to people when they tell you things or show you stuff and I’ll start treating you with some small amount of respect.
Deal?”
I’m afraid you misinterpreted my remarks. I don’t care very much of getting some “small amount of respect” from somebody like you, and I won’t do any effort to please you- it was just an incident remark on the effect you’re producing : giving the impression of somebody who is not confident enough to expose calmly his arguments and who needs to use insult and contempt instead. But that’s your business after all.
FCH : too bad that you don’t want to elaborate. Maybe texan winds have some special properties that are quite different from all the other ones in the world ? if you know it, could you please indicate me the current values of :
* the ratio of maximal wind power to installed power
* the ratio of maximal wind power to minimum demand
* the load factor (ratio of average power to installed power)
* the ratio of minimum demand to average demand
and how high do you hope these ratios can increase ?
sorry FCH for the “he”. In French we say “weaker sex” but “fairer sex ” sounds actually much better. I notice that you seem to be convinced that peak oil is close – I wouldn’t be so confident however that hybrid cars and windmills are enough to save us. Apart from that, as I said, I have no particular affective relationship with windmills, neither love, nor hate.It’s just a way of producing electricity, after all.
“I’m afraid you misinterpreted my remarks.”
You mean you’ll keep comprehension and rationality at their current value of negative.
Ah well, stay well gullible.
Gilles @ 359:
The problem is that your questions embody the conclusions you want to reach. Wind is financially viable under the existing values for all of the things you mentioned — that’s why they are irrelevant. So, whatever the values =are=, wind is financially viable for those values. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t be building turbines the way they are.
Where “Wind” has problems, most of those problems can be solved with geographically distributing the turbines. The other problems have to do with up and down regulation — keeping consumption versus production balanced instantaneously. Again, that’s a pretty simple feat and there are some cool technologies being developed in those areas.
And I’m sorry I can’t give you more details — I really do have something on the order of 2 dozen patent applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (www.uspto.gov) dealing with this problem and the solutions are very confidential until those applications get published. The solutions my co-inventors and I came up with are so revolutionary, in some instances, that even hinting at what we did would give away the goodies. What I =can= tell you is that I have every confidence we can get the grid to 100% renewables, as well as provide services such as “Black Start” capability.
The tough problems aren’t bulk power — that’s just fields and fields of turbines, then you have a zillion megawatts of power and you manage it. The tough problem is up and down regulation — matching production to consumption. “Black Start” is another issue we looked at and I think we solved it in a fairly creative manner.
FCH : The tough problems aren’t bulk power — that’s just fields and fields of turbines, then you have a zillion megawatts of power and you manage it. The tough problem is up and down regulation — matching production to consumption.
Bulk power is also an issue because you don’t need only energy to sustain the society, you need CHEAP energy. Building zillions of windmills that would be essentially useless most of the time would be dramatically expensive, since the cost is entirely due to the infrastructure. And the problem begins with the first windmill that is build above the needed capacity : I mean,the first windmill that produces power that nobody (including possible abroad customers) needs. Who is willing to cut off its own production to manage the inclusion of this one ? I mean, it’s rhetorical of course , one over 100 000 is not a big deal, but the more you build, the more you have this kind of issues.
I stated that nowhere wind power produces more that 20 % of the total average power of the grid (including interconnections to account for import/export). Is it true, or false ? do you have a counterexample ? and you cited Texas, please indicate me the figures for the ratios I asked you, whether they are relevant or not : they always will have some value !
Gilles: And the problem begins with the first windmill that is build above the needed capacity : I mean,the first windmill that produces power that nobody (including possible abroad customers) needs.
BPL: Use the extra electricity to generate hydrogen and use it for fuel. Or to desalinate water. Or to pump water uphill to run turbines during times when the wind quits.
And where did you get the idea that there’s only a limited demand for electricity? If that’s so, how come we keep building more and more and more generating capacity?
BPL : If you produce so expensive hydrogen that nobody would buy it, I doubt that investors will be very happy. You surely know how cheap hydrogen is produced. For the other part, it is not a question of limited demand, but of installed power for a given demand : it’s the limiting factor for the proportion of average energy produced.
Interestingly enough, demand for electricity in OCDE seems actually to have peaked these last years due to economic crisis. Let’s wait and see if it starts increasing again .. if.
Gilles 363: I stated that nowhere wind power produces more that 20 % of the total average power of the grid (including interconnections to account for import/export). Is it true, or false ?
BPL: False, since Denmark was up to 23% at last count. I suspect you chose the “no more than 20% figure” because that was the Danish fraction at the time.
I was interested in the comments of Mr. Chuck Booth on D. Dowd Muska’s review of my book “Global Warming for Dim Wits.” I would have preferred it if Mr. Booth had actually reviewed the book rather the reviewer or the author. Mr. Booth mentions that while my apparent research centered on Xray crystallography and superconducting ceramics over the years that some how negated any expertise that I might have in other areas of physical chemistry. The implications are that I might not understand the physical chemistry of the greenhouse gas effect because I haven’t published any papers on the subject in peer-reviewed journals over the past ten years. I should point out that I have published any papers on Xray crystallography or superconducting ceramics in the past ten years either. Nevertheless, you better believe that my work on the greenhouse gas effect has been peer reviewed and then some. Moreover, I understand and can teach courses in quantum physics. The greenhouse gas effect and global warming science doesn’t even come close to this in complexity. It still remains to be proven that global temperatures would be any different from what they are today, if humans did not exist on this planet. Until that is done, the idea that humans can affect the climate of the planet is untested science.
Gilles, I’m really bemused that you seem to think that redundancy in generation capacity is only needed with wind power or other renewables. “Reserve” is needed regardless, yes?–and that doesn’t render the whole enterprise uneconomic.
At the least, this concept of comparative redundancy cost needs to be quantified.
And in any case, as I’ve said before, technologies for storing power are developing rapidly, so we must expect that the intermittency issue will be addressed, and will not be limiting at current levels indefinitely.
James R. Barrante (367) — Well, you are about 60+ years out of date.
And not very observant, either. Look arond you. Are not lots of people burning fossil fuels? Then what happens to the CO2?
Jeez.
But maybe you heavily exadurate your expertise. Read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, first link in the Scienc e section of the sidebar and find any errors at all to tell us about.
Go ahead.
JRB 367: It still remains to be proven that global temperatures would be any different from what they are today, if humans did not exist on this planet. Until that is done, the idea that humans can affect the climate of the planet is untested science.
BPL: You think the composition of the atmosphere would be IDENTICAL with humans absent from the beginning? Or is it that you think the composition of the atmosphere can’t affect the surface temperature? And you claim to understand climate science?
Which is hotter, Earth or Venus? Why? Please be quantitative and show your work.
367: James R Barrante says: “you better believe that my work on the greenhouse gas effect has been peer reviewed and then some. ”
What work? When I look you up in google scholar there is very very little. Almost no citations of any kind. One book that was cited 27 times. Another book that was cited 14 times. A couple of papers with 1 or 2 or 3 citations. I don’t see anything on the “greenhouse gas effect” except a book. Does google scholar not provide an accurate representation of your peer-reviewed publications? WIll some other index give a better indication of your work? If so, what index?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=James+R.+Barrante&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Dr. Barrante, the Google search for your book doesn’t find where you talk about the area where physical chemistry is most straightforward in showing rapid change from fossil fuel use (ocean pH change with increasing CO2, changing solubility of calcite and aragonite). What did you say about that problem? What search words should I use to find that in your book?
http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/FAQs/
The extra electricity question is easy to solve.
Big friggin’ tesla coils. Put up on ridges and let ’em spark. Bonus: most of the extra electricity will be at night, making quite the light show.
Hey, it’s gotta be unloaded, right? Let’s discharge it in the coolest way possible.
;)
Oh, never mind. I’ve found the comments you’ve left at science websites, like this one: http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/
You believe the Earth was created with an atmosphere of 90 percent CO2 and oceans, as this comment suggests?
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/off-balance-ocean-acidification-from-absorbing-atmospheric-co2-is-changing-the-oceans-chemistry/#comment-2185
Are you the Barrante who signed the OISM petition?
Scientist fight!
With respect, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Barrante has met the bar for published, peer reviewed work in the field of climatology and greenhouse gas effects.
This strikes to the heart of the problem with the matter of climatology; as soon as one scientist disagrees another says he’s unqualified to do so.
What if he isn’t? That means whomever made the claim is either lying or isn’t qualified himself – and by extension all the work done by that scientist.
And all the works that used those as a reference. The sweater on Global Warming is undone by the pulling of the thread.
If I was cited 36 times in the literature (in a positive way) from two books and three papers, I don’t think “What work?” would be a statement worth response, as it would be self evident.
James R. Barrante,
The first couple of chapters of your book are available online. I downloaded it and have perused it. It contains nothing but the same denialist zombie arguments we see all the time here. You have no work on climate that I have been able to find. Your writing shows no real understanding of the mechanism behind the current warming epoch.
So, since you really don’t have anything to teach anyone here about climate, perhaps you can help us with something else. What is it that makes a scientist turn his back on the peer-reviewed literature and the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence and pontificate on a subject far outside his expertise? Now that would be useful to know.
What Ray Ladbury wrote in comment #376.
375: Frank: what work? He claims to have published peer reviewed papers on greenhouse gases. I can’t find them. Please show them to me. His publication record is meager as far as reported by google scholar. It certainly doesn’t show any papers that i recognized as being on greenhouse gas warming. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, correct me by providing specific peer-reviewed papers he wrote on the greenhouse effect, not blather.
Results of an ISI Web of Science search on “Barrante J*”:
1. Title: CHARACTERIZATION OF PRIMARY SECONDARY AND TERTIARY ALCOHOLS USING PROTON MAGNETIC RESONANCE TECHNIQUES Author(s): BABIEC JS, BARRANTE JR, VICKERS GD
Source: ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Volume: 40 Issue: 3 Pages: 610-& Published: 1968 Times Cited: 8
2. Title: PRELIMINARY CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC STUDIES ON SYSTEMS CALCIUM-LANTHANUM-HYDROGEN AND CALCIUM-YTTRIUM-HYDROGEN Author(s): MESSER CE, MILLER RM, BARRANTE JR
Source: INORGANIC CHEMISTRY Volume: 5 Issue: 10 Pages: 1814-& Published: 1966 Times Cited: 6
3. Title: INTERNAL MOTION IN ORGANOSILICON-NITROGEN COMPOUNDS
Author(s): BARRANTE JR, ROCHOW EG Source: JOURNAL OF ORGANOMETALLIC CHEMISTRY Volume: 1 Issue: 3 Pages: 273-285 Published: 1963 Times Cited: 0
4. Title: ALKALINE EARTH-TANTALUM-OXYGEN PHASES INCLUDING CRYSTAL STRUCTURE OF AN ORDERED PEROVSKITE COMPOUND, BA3SRTA2O9 Author(s): GALASSO F, BARRANTE JR, KATZ L
Source: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 83 Issue: 13 Pages: 2830-& Published: 1961 Times Cited: 56
“Gilles 363: I stated that nowhere wind power produces more that 20 % of the total average power of the grid (including interconnections to account for import/export). Is it true, or false ?
BPL: False, since Denmark was up to 23% at last count. ”
Denmark is interconnected with larger grids, so you have to evaluate the proportion of global wind power to the global consumption of the whole grid. Its own production can exceed 20 % if it can sell it, but it couldn’t sell it if the others were also in overproduction. Globally, my threshold holds.
Kevin : I didn’t state it is uneconomic. I stated it starts to be uneconomic above some threshold. It may be true with other sources for different reasons as well (for instance nuclear is not adjustable enough to make 100 % of the power, but the maximal ratio, approximately reached in France, is around 80 %). So what’s your point ?
Frank Giger, While I agree that the matter of Barrante’s bona fides penetrates to the heart of the current debate, it does so in a manner that you might not like. I’ve also done a search, not just with Google Scholar, but also of Jim Prall’s comprehensive database of climate related publications and citations. Guess what. No James R. Barrante. Nada.
So to me the heart of the matter is that when a member of the lay public sees two scientists in disagreement, they look not at their publication records but instead seem to pick the one whose opinion most closely matches their own. So I will ask you: On what basis did you assume an equivalent level of expertise by Dr. Barrante in climate science compared to the thousands of climate scientists who form the consensus?
“BPL: You think the composition of the atmosphere would be IDENTICAL with humans absent from the beginning?”
Does he think that the oil wells would drill themselves out of the ground and catch fire? Does he think that the coal would be excavated by Giant Space Moles digging their giant underground cities?
Frank Giger:
If you are seeking expert opinion on climate and want to evaluate how expert an expert is how would you do it? A quick and easy way is the following. Type their names into google scholar and see what pops up. Here I perform the exercise for you for 2 Real Climate experts followed by Barrante.
Gavin Schmidt:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Gavin+Schmidt&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Ray Pierrehumbert
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=RT+Pierrehumbert&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Barrante
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Barrante&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Barrante’s publication record is pitiful next to those of Gavin Schmidt and Ray Pierrehumbert. Yet you choose to listen to Barrante and to ignore Schmidt and Pierrehumbert. Why?
I see no publications on the greenhouse effect by Barrante. He says that his work on the greenhouse gas was “peer reviewed and then some”. At this point I am forced to assume that Barrante’s work on the green house effect was rejected when it was “peer reviewed and then some” since I have been unable to find any record of it.
“Yet you choose to listen to Barrante and to ignore Schmidt and Pierrehumbert. Why?”
Because he likes what Brrante is saying and doesn’t like what Schmidt and Pierrehumbert say.
Or was that a rhetorical question..?
“Barrante’s publication record is pitiful next to those of Gavin Schmidt and Ray Pierrehumbert. Yet you choose to listen to Barrante and to ignore Schmidt and Pierrehumbert. Why? ”
Actually, I made no statement in agreement in disagreement with him, only pointed out that he qualifies as a contributing member of the field of climatology.
As to where I got his bonafides, it was from Mr. Pearson’s own reply that bemoaned the scarcity of citations in the literature.
Mr. Barrante may well be wrong in his analysis. This doesn’t mean he isn’t part of the legitimate circle of climatologists. The discussion isn’t on the merit of his positions but on whether or not he’s qualified to have them in the first place.
What is the bar for publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal before one is accepted as a peer-reviewed, published researcher? I would thing one would suffice.
As to “he’s not as good as Gavin, etc.,” it’s a dry hole. Every field has those that excell and rise to the top, those in the middle, and those on the bottom. The middling author with three published novels isn’t Jack London; but that doesn’t mean he’s not a novelist.
Not every doctor, for another example, is smart or skilled enough to work at John Hopkin’s. That doesn’t mean that ol’ Doc Thompson in his small rural practice isn’t a doctor, or that he should imediately be told he shouldn’t be listened to at a medical convention or Internet discussion.
Attacking ideas one disagrees with is one thing; that’s the stuff of scientific debate. Attacking the scientist himself because he disagrees is quite another.
This site has become obsessed with attacks on climatologists as people rather than on their ideas and the work provided. Shouldn’t it work both ways in comment section?
The Allegre article is how it should be; an attack on the ideas and methodologies put forward rather than a personal attack. Indeed, it starts with a clear statement that Allegre is a qualified scientist of high regard – and then tears apart what he writes in a logical manner using facts.
“Mr. Barrante may well be wrong in his analysis. ”
After all this and you haven’t even CHECKED????
“Attacking the scientist himself because he disagrees is quite another.”
Uh, ever listened to yourself? Or any of the other perma-trolls here on RC (or any RWN media host)?
lastly: “This doesn’t mean he isn’t part of the legitimate circle of climatologists. ”
Uh, no.
What does make him not a part of the legitimate circle of climatologist is that he’s not a climatologist.
Look at the papers and the journals he’s written in.
Chemistry.
On Chemistry.
Not climate.
Frank Giger says, “As to where I got his bonafides, it was from Mr. Pearson’s own reply that bemoaned the scarcity of citations in the literature.”
Uh, OK, Frank, this one is just too good to pass up. Here is John’s post in its eitirety:
John E. Pearson: “375: Frank: what work? He claims to have published peer reviewed papers on greenhouse gases. I can’t find them. Please show them to me. His publication record is meager as far as reported by google scholar. It certainly doesn’t show any papers that i recognized as being on greenhouse gas warming. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, correct me by providing specific peer-reviewed papers he wrote on the greenhouse effect, not blather.”
Now WHERE THE HELL do you extract from the words John wrote any indication that this man possesses any special expertise on climate or greenhouse gasses?
I mean, I don’t want to set the bar to high, but shouldn’t we at least require that someone has published a peer-reviewed paper or two on a subject before we admit him to the class of “expert”?
And if you have a researcher who has been publishing highly relevant, often-cited research, don’t you think maybe he might know just a wee bit more about the subject he’s publishing in that some shmuck we drag in off the street?
Come on, Frank, don’t defend the indefensible. You’re smarter than that!
Frank: I didn’t attack the scientist. I asked him and I asked you “what peer reviewed work on climatology”. Neither of you have presented any. What peer-reviewed paper on climatology has Barrante published? I cannot find any.
The Krugman article states the mainstream environmentalist view about how we know what needs to be done and that we just need to get the political will to do it. Unfortunately it is more than the political will that is needed. I have been long arguing that much that is considered appropriate is not seriously affordable, given the minimial effectiveness of such.
Today it is reported that “environmental groups” in Germany, whatever that might be, agree to some extent with my arguments. See Wired Magazine article that links to a Bloomberg story: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/05/german-enviro-says-evs-plunder-and-pollute/comment-page-1/#comment-76953
I threw in some comments there which might make it clear what I think, in case anyone might be unclear on my position.
> he qualifies as a contributing member of the field of climatology.
You left off any “because ….” — where did you find something he published in the area of climatology? The book for children doesn’t qualify, you know.
PS, recommended reading for Dr. Barrante:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/03/the-oregon-petition-a-case-study-in-agnotology/
FG 385: [J Barante] qualifies as a contributing member of the field of climatology.
BPL: He has no training in the field, has published no papers in the field, and makes statements about the field that are jaw-droppingly ignorant. How does this make him “a contributing member of the field of climatology?”
Wow! I really struck a nerve. Talk about being misquoted. First, I’m a physical scientist, not a climatologist. I never have claimed to have published papers in the field of climatology, nor on global warming. I would be curious to know how many papers Mr. Gore has published in peer-reviewed journals. Yet, believers seem not to question his expertise. I still wonder why it is so important to establish whether or not I’m an expert. Most individuals making the most noise about global warming are not experts. It is clear that their knowledge of physical chemistry of infrared radiation absorption is at best mediocre. Moreover, if you are looking for technical expertise in the “Dim Wits” book, you won’t find it. I made it quite clear (you really should read the book) that the book was written for individuals with little or no science training. As far as “jaw-dropping ignorant” statements are concerned, let me cite a few from some of my detractors. “Aren’t people burning fossil fuels? What happens to all the CO2?” Who cares! Our atmosphere is starving for CO2. It does not and never has controlled the climate – not on a planet covered with 70% water – oops, that pchem, sorry! I’ve studied Spencer Weart. He’s totally wrong! “The earth was created with an atmosphere of 90% CO2 and oceans.” I don’t believe I ever said that. How could I? I wasn’t there.
Finally, with all due respect, please do not classify me as a climatologist.
[Response: It’s a deal!–Jim]
I am neither concerned with or interested in what causes climate change. I can only tell you with scientific certainty what doesn’t. I’ll give all you experts a hint. It’s not a thermodynamic energy effect. It’s a kinetic effect. The globe is not a very good blackbody radiator. It reflects too much radiation. Oops. More pchem. Sorry!
[Response: Oh dear. – gavin]
“Come on, Frank, don’t defend the indefensible. You’re smarter than that!”
Come on, Ray, you’re smarter than that.
There is a beautiful quote by the Tin Man in the “Wizard of Oz” that describes the diatribe by individuals above. When asked by Dorothy how he (the Tin Man) could talk, if he did have a brain, the Tin Man replied (I’m paraphrasing) that he knew of numerous people who do an awful lot of talking without brains. Again, as is usual, if you cannot attack the message, you attack the messenger. It appears from my research on a number of you that you are all cut from the same bolt of cloth. So please do not insult me by trying to make me a contributing member in the field of climatology. Bad science is bad science, no matter where it originates. There is no evidence at all, supported by the scientific method, that proves human activity is responsible for global warming, cooling, or the demise of polar bears. And, please, don’t cite me examples such as “but the temperature really started to go up when we started to burn fossil fuels in the 1800s.” If one understood the physical chemistry of CO2’s role in the greenhouse gas effect, one would clearly understand that once the level of CO2 reaches 400 ppm, it no longer is a greenhouse gas. I’ve proven this in my book, but, of course, if you haven’t read the book . . .. This clearly is supported by historical data showing CO2 levels to be as high as 4000 ppm with temperatures the same as they are today. So, Mr. BPL, how much training in physical chemistry have you had? Let me point out that in my 43 years teaching physical chemistry, I never had one environmental “scientist” take the course. Too much math and physics.
[Response: And no doubt a little bit of magic too. How else could someone explain that CO2 absorbs upwelling IR really well at a concentration of 399.99 ppm but ceases to do so at 400.01 ppm? And why would that happen at exactly 400 ppm? Inquiring minds want to know… – gavin]
In a recent reference to the “Wizard of Oz”, I referred to a statement by the Tin Man. I meant Straw Man, but you all know that.
“394
James R. Barrante says:
4 May 2010 at 11:09 PM
Wow! I really struck a nerve. Talk about being misquoted. First, I’m a physical scientist, not a climatologist.”
So you’re really calling out Frank who said:
“385
Frank Giger says:
4 May 2010 at 3:32 PM
Actually, I made no statement in agreement in disagreement with him, only pointed out that he qualifies as a contributing member of the field of climatology.”
Frank has counted you as a climatologist.
People have complained TO FRANK that you are not.
Not to you.
to Frank.
“Who cares! Our atmosphere is starving for CO2. It does not and never has controlled the climate ”
So please explain the ice ages and the mechanism in and out of one without CO2 controlling the climate.
James R. Barrante says:
3 May 2010 at 2:57 PM
you better believe that my work on the greenhouse gas effect has been peer reviewed and then some.
James R. Barrante says:
4 May 2010 at 11:09 PM
I never have claimed to have published papers in the field of climatology, nor on global warming.
John E Pearson says: Whatever.