Guest commentary from Lauren Kurtz
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) was founded in September 2011 to defend climate scientists from harassing and invasive attacks via the legal system. Five years in, we’re expanding our efforts to reflect the new challenges scientists face, including increasing education and outreach work. Now more than ever, it’s important that scientists prepare themselves for how best to deal with political harassment or legal intimidation. Below are 10 things that every scientist should consider.
In addition, for those in San Francisco next week for the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting, please consider attending one of our events. We’re hosting a symposium on how open records laws have been used to attack scientists on the morning of Wednesday, December 14, which includes a talk from Michael Mann. Our booth in the Exhibit Hall (booth 1523) will also have free legal education materials, including our new Pocket Guide to Handling Political Harassment & Legal Intimidation. And as in years past, email lawyer@climatesciencedefensefund.org to schedule a free in-person consultation with a lawyer at AGU.
1 – Take a deep breath & remember other scientists have gone through this before
First remember that other scientists have been through this before and come out the other side. And while being the target of an attack is frustrating and intimidating, you are not alone. Groups like CSLDF exist to help defend, connect scientists under attack to other researchers who have been through this before, and ensure that scientists can keep their focus on their work.
2 – Call a lawyer if in doubt
If you’re worried that you’re becoming the target of harassment or intimidation, including receiving a request that seems politically motivated, seek counsel before you respond. Your institution likely retains legal counsel that you can contact, but it is important to remember that your institution’s counsel represents the institution’s legal interests, which may differ from your own.
You can always contact CSLDF, where our mission is to provide free legal counsel to climate scientists facing attacks as a result of their work. Call (646) 801-0853 or email lawyer@climatesciencedefensefund.org
3 – Understand whether state and/and federal open records laws may apply to you
One common legal attack on scientists has been through open records laws—the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or state equivalents. Intended (and mostly used) to promote transparency by allowing citizens to request copies of government records, these laws have also become a tool used to harass scientists. Publicly funded scientists have received open records requests for reams of documents, including emails, peer review correspondence, and preliminary drafts. Scientists employed by the government or by public universities, or who have received government grants—including National Science Foundation (NSF) grants—should recognize that open records laws may apply to them.
Understand whether state and/or federal open records laws are applicable to you. Reach out to your institutional counsel, the staff in your institutional records office, or a legal group like CSLDF who can help you understand the laws that may affect you.
4 – Separate personal and professional emails
Do not use professional email accounts for personal emails and vice versa. Separating personal and professional emails reduces the likelihood that personal correspondence will be affected by an open records request (which only applies to public records) or other legal action related to your work. Similarly, avoid any temptation to use your personal email account for professional correspondence. If it can be shown that your personal email contains professional records, this may result in you needing to turn over your personal email account to legal review. (Editor’s note: This is really important to minimizing time and effort that need to be devoted to dealing with requests or legal actions. Do it now.)
5 – Remember that emails are not always private
Emails may be disclosed due to open records requests or legal actions, or can be hacked. Be sure to conduct professional correspondence in a professional manner. If you are discussing a sensitive issue, consider having an in-person or telephone conversation instead of emailing.
6 – Understand record-keeping requirements
Employees and consultants at public institutions, including government scientists and public university researchers, should retain all public records. The precise definition will vary by state, but generally, these are documents relating to public business.
Be aware that grants may require that you follow specific record-keeping rules: for example, NSF grants stipulate that research data, including databases, must be shared.
Even if no strict document retention requirements apply to your situation, we recommend that you keep files for a few years, as anyone can be made to look bad when things are missing.
7 – Exercise discretion when talking to a journalist
Before agreeing to speak to a reporter or interviewer, research their work. Think carefully about how or whether to speak with a hostile journalist, as you are unlikely to change their opinions, and you may instead provide more fodder for an attack. (Also understand your institution’s rules for speaking to the press and otherwise communicating your research to the public, and when clearance requirements may apply.) If you do choose to speak to a reporter, come to the interview well prepared. Consider the questions you are likely to be asked and outline draft answers. For higher-profile situations, your institution’s public relations office or scientific society may be able to assist you with preparing your message. (Editor’s note: See also the UCS guide to talking to the media for scientists.)
8 – If you receive harassing messages, do not respond and do not delete
Do not respond to messages you feel were sent in bad faith – instead archive or save, in case you ever need evidence to prove that it happened, which is especially important if the situation escalates. Look for signs that the sender is wasting your time or seeking to provoke you, as a correspondent may be seeking to rattle you, use your response to malign you publicly, and/or use your response as a launchpad for further harassment. If you do respond to a seemingly valid inquiry, remember that any response you write may be forwarded or published online, and be cognizant of the time lost by caught up in endless back-and-forth arguments. (Editor’s note: See also the UCS guide to responding to criticism or personal attacks.)
9 – If you receive threatening messages, contact your employer / law enforcement
Report the threats to your institution (your supervisor and the human resources staff are probably the best starting points) as well as law enforcement. Contact a legal group such as CSLDF, especially if law enforcement becomes involved. A lawyer can help you navigate the situation.
10 – For more information on particular legal situations, check out our new Pocket Guide to Handling Political Harassment & Legal Intimidation
Our 16 page guide has more specific advice on how to protect yourself against and/or respond to political or legal attacks. As mentioned above, free copies will be available at our climate science & law symposium on the morning of Wednesday, December 14, and at our booth in the AGU Exhibit Hall (booth 1523). You can also join our email mailing list to be notified as soon as electronic copies are available on our website, as well as stay updated on other CSLDF developments.
KIA: I’m trying to determine if climate change, particularly AGW, is real or a hoax
BPL: If you have proof I or my colleagues were involved in a hoax, produce it. If not, STFU.
Mr Know It All
If you want to learn the essentials of climate science, go to skepticalscience.com and try their MOOC. After you’ve done that I’d be astonished if you still believe climate change is a hoax. In any case one does not “believe” a finding of science; “belief” is for religion, not science. For example, do you “believe” the Earth orbits the Sun or do you “know” that it does?
Few comments here are by climate scientists; some are by scientists but not climate scientists, and the rest are by people interested in climate science. The climate scientists who host the site chip in only occasionally to settle an argument. So you must expect that people here will not confine their comments to the science.
There have been no instances of bad behaviour by climate scientists. The so-called climategate incident was a deliberate effort by hackers to discredit climate science and climate scientists and to sabotage climate action at Copenhagen. They succeeded. What the scientists were saying in those e-mails was deliberately twisted, distorted, taken of context, and misrepresented. Subsequent investigations by various agencies vindicated the scientists, but this vindication does not seem to have penetrated very far into the collective consciousness of global society.
Finally, if you think discussions between scientists must be revealed to all and sundry, you have absolutely no idea of how science functions. There is no need. Everything ends up in peer-reviewed scientific papers. These are completely transparent. Authors have to provide all data on which they base their work, including any that might conflict with their conclusion, and they have to make clear how they analyzed the data. All this information is provided so that other scientists can replicate their findings.
Replication is the essence of the entire scientific enterprise. If 30000 scientists have over the course of a century verified a particular finding, why should non-scientists reject that finding? And why should the latter need to know all the arguments and discussions that went into establishing the finding when the scientific papers regarding the finding are a matter of public record? Any attempt at lying in science is soon unmasked; it is the ability of other scientists to replicate work that ensures that only the truth prevails — but sometimes that truth is inconvenient.
50 Mr. Know It All says: “I’d recommend the articles and the comments stick to science if you want to be taken seriously.”
Only if you meet the same exacting standards. :-)
re: “On whether scientists emails should be public I think a good argument can be made that if they are paid by the taxpayers, and if their work may contribute to influencing policies that costs industry a lot of money or destroys jobs, then yes, their emails should be scrutinized.”
Can we apply that equally to politicians, staffers and lobbyists and corporate Board Members too? Because – The stakes are too high to let people in closed back rooms have unchecked power to decide public policy without oversight from the people. – Right?
Because “many politicians pushing AGW DENIAL do not!” :-)
49 Keith Rogstad
Try
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change+feedback+loops&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=&oq=climate+change+feedback
and
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=climate+change+feedback+loops
Dan Da Silva and 50 Mr. Know It All says: “I’m trying to determine if climate change, particularly AGW, is real or a hoax.”
Could this apply?
The ‘Worldview’ Backfire Effect – beliefs vs evidence – real or a hoax?
https://youtu.be/CtSk03efSqQ
Or perhaps this? Consensus of Scientists – about the professional climate experts who walk the talk of the scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE
46 John Mashey, an interesting comment went:
‘Agencies claimed Peabody’s witnesses used a pattern of arguments that relied on four patterns of biased or flawed reasoning.
1. selective citation or “cherry-picking”
2. poor arguing and reasoning … was to misunderstand the science;
3. misleading pattern …, which they called “straw man argument.” …
4. and used by Peabody’s witnesses “attacking the messenger’ … aka adhom.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/07/peabodys-outlier-gang-couldnt-shoot-straight
It’s fairly easy to see & defend against these kinds of arguments. Especially in Court.
Titus,
Science is not about trust. It is about verification. By experts. That is because the non-expert is unlikely to possess the expertise–or frankly the stamina and interest–to do the verification. A scientist knows what science looks like, particularly science in one’s own field of expertise.
The reason there is no credible scientific opposition to the anthropogenic explanation for the warming we are seeing is that it is based on science that was validated over a century ago. Even in 1896, Svante Arrhenius understood the climate system well enough to predict the warming we are seeing. The rest is a matter of decimal places.
Why is it that global temperatures in the past rose to higher levels than today before industrial-scale belching of CO2?
Why did the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets melt before human activities were a factor?
Why are so many all-time high temperature records from the 1930s still standing when CO2 concentrations were much lower at that time?
What caused the medieval warming period to occur before CO2 levels were elevated; and why is it not a possibility that the same causes are driving temperatures higher today in exactly the same way?
[Response: On attribution – gavin]
#57–Why is it that ‘Mr. Know It All’ asks pretty basic questions as if they were ‘gotcha’ posers?
(Cue Alanis Morissette to perform her greatest hit.)
Mr. Know It All,
“…lends weight to the widespread view that AGW is a “religion” rather than legitimate science.”
People who fervently believe ignorant and backward platitudes about AGW being a religion and do so without scepticism deserve to be mocked. And someone who comes to a site like this and lectures on what gives weight to widespread views on AGW while ignoring the propaganda that is poured into supporting denialism, is tone trolling and concern trolling and in denial. The talking points that you repeat here have been dealt with repeatedly which only supports that conclusion.
From the about page:
.
(bold mine)
As has been pointed out to you, not every one commenting here is a climate scientist. If you want to learn something, start by reading with a sense of proportion what the climate scientists who run this site have to say.
And FYI, if something is true, it remains true whether you say it rudely or not.
(I won’t even get into why IMO the “president elect” deserves so richly to be insulted. Maybe if you inform yourself more broadly and thoughtfully you’ll begin to agree.)
“Science is not about trust.”
For the Public it is about trust. It’s important to see it (science and it’s implications) from the public’s point of view (and their different groups worldviews) – especially if you want them to vote according to the evidence and findings of science.
57 Mr. Know It All (sic)
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6).
It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that recent global warming is due to internal variability alone such as might arise from El Niño (Section 9.4.1). The widespread nature of the warming (Figures 3.9 and 9.6) reduces the possibility that the warming could have resulted from internal variability. No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed in the past few decades.
Read: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
Or more up to date is Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
A useful Fact Sheet Over 9200 scientific publications cited
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WG1AR5_FactSheet.pdf
Such is the science on the basic facts.
alt way of saying things:
“The very strong expert scientific conclusion is that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of global warming during the past several decades.”
“There has been widespread changes detected in temperature records of the land surface, free atmosphere and oceans. Along with consistent evidence of changes in other parts of the world’s climate system.”
“This combined evidence is substantially stronger than the evidence from observed changes in global surface temperature alone.”
“It is extremely unlikely (below 5%) that recent global warming is due to internal climate variability alone such as might arise from El Niño events.”
“The widespread nature of the global warming reduces the possibility that the warming could have resulted from internal climate variability. No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed and recorded in the past few decades since 1950.”
“Significant Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, unambiguously clear, and absolutely accurate. Since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millions of years.
– The atmosphere and oceans temperature has risen at unprecedented rates.
– The amounts of snow and ice have decreased significantly.
– Sea level has been rising consistently.
– The concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere.
– Concentrations of greenhouse gases dissolved in the oceans have increased.”
58 – Thanks for the Alanis Morissette link – she’s hoping for some AGW in that video! I’m just waiting for good answers to my “gotcha” questions. :)
59 – Thank you for proving my point with your last sentence in parenthesis.
60 – Agree with that!
61 & 62 – Thanks for those answers Thomas.
OK, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. I think the main basis of the AGW argument is in the radiation retarding properties of CO2 on outbound infrared radiation in the atmosphere; and on the resulting atmospheric warming due to relatively more radiation energy coming in versus going out. Is that about right? I’d like to see some detailed calculations on this – if the calcs seem good, that would give me a reason to be less skeptical of AGW. At first glance it seems unlikely that going from 350 to 400 ppm CO2 would give much of a temp rise, but I’m definitely open minded and want to look at it in detail. I know CO2 retards infrared radiation, but I want to see calcs quantifying it.
Where is a good place to look at detailed calculations on this?
Is the energy imbalance measurable using instrumentation on satellites and if so, where can I view the data? If such measurements are being made, do they measure the outgoing radiation at night and is it going up as the planet warms?
Yes, I’m a skeptic and I want to view the calculations. I’m not the only skeptic and I think there are extremely good reasons to be skeptical (what DID cause the ice sheets to melt – it’s not a trivial question) – particularly when radical economic changes are proposed to “save” us from impending doom. Not long ago “science” was predicting doom and gloom in the form of a coming ice age – I remember those predictions when I was in elementary school.
#57 you could try this recent RC article
Record global temperatures despite decades of a less powerful, ‘cooler’ Sun — stefan @ 14 November 2016 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/
Global temperatures go from heat record to even higher heat records, yet the primary driver of global temperature, the Sun, is at its dimmest for half a century.
Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.
And now 2016 is so warm that it is certain to be once again a record year. Three record years in a row – that is unprecedented.
Even more important is recognizing that all these Global Temperature records have occurred at the same time a less powerful, cooler Sun was affecting the climate system.
see: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/13/supplemental/page-5 and https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201013
The annually-averaged temperature, above the 20th century average was:
1998 = 0.60°C
2005 = 0.65°C
2010 = 0.65°C
2014 = 0.69°C
2015 = 0.90°C
2016 = ?
During Sept-Nov 2016 Arctic surface temperatures have been from 10C to 25C above normal.
NOV 2016 the average global temperature across land surfaces was 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average of 5.9°C (42.6°F)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201611
Unfortunately there are a lot of myths put out by pseudo-experts as well:
“Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/hiatus-in-global-warming/ ?
http://www.thegwpf.com/no-slowdown-in-temperature-hiatus-research/ ?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855 ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html ?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/ ?
What Pause in Global Warming?
We are on track to be more than 1.1°C above the 20th century avg by 2025.
We are on track to using up the entire Carbon Emissions Budget by 2025 to stay below +1.5C above pre-industrial 1850 mean avg temp.
Potholer54 explains the medieval warming period nicely – 1) Was the Medieval Warm Period global? 2) Was it warmer than today? 3) And what does this all mean anyway? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
Why is it that global temperatures in the past rose to higher levels than today is answered by Prof. Peter Ward https://youtu.be/HP_Fvs48hb4?t=11m29s
and here on flood basalts, climate change and mass global extinctions – and CO2 markers – https://youtu.be/HP_Fvs48hb4?t=30m42s
and here “Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The Volcanoes did it before and we know what’s doing it now.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=35m13s
or a World Without Ice Caps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHlsUDVVy0&feature=youtu.be&t=32m22s
Why did the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets melt….?
What Thawed the Last Ice Age? “CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
ty
KIA 57: Why is it that global temperatures in the past rose to higher levels than today before industrial-scale belching of CO2?
BPL: Because there are other sources of CO2.
KIA: Why did the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets melt before human activities were a factor?
BPL: Because other factors also affect climate.
KIA: Why are so many all-time high temperature records from the 1930s still standing when CO2 concentrations were much lower at that time?
BPL: I can’t quite parse this. What are you trying to say here?
KIA: What caused the medieval warming period to occur before CO2 levels were elevated; and why is it not a possibility that the same causes are driving temperatures higher today in exactly the same way?
BPL: The medieval warm period was not as warm as today and it was likely confined to a few regions, not the whole world.
Does that help?
> #57–Why is it that ‘Mr. Know It All’ asks pretty basic questions
>> as if they were ‘gotcha’ posers?
Right out of the “Compeat Idiot’s Guide to Climate Trolling”
#63–OK, MKIA, here’s one series of articles you might try:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Short of trying to go back to the original literature (which is really, really extensive), you may find SoD satisfactory–it dives relatively deep into the weeds.
Closer to home, Chris Colose posted this guest commentary a few years back; it’s something of a literature review on glacial cycles and CO2 and insolation:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/unlocking-the-secrets-to-ending-an-ice-age/
And further back, here’s an article of mine on some of the early research on insolation:
http://hubpages.com/education/Fire-From-Heaven-Climate-Science-And-The-Element-Of-Life-Part-One-Fire-By-Day
http://hubpages.com/education/Fire-From-Heaven-Climate-Science-And-The-Element-Of-Life-Part-Two-The-Cloud-By-Night
63 Mr. Know It All says: “Thanks for those answers Thomas.”
You’re welcome. Please see http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Aib/j88/Aibj88qeT.jpg for my answers to your new nitty gritty questions :-)
Get back to me after you’ve read all the AR5 and checked the references. No need to hurry.
KIA 63: I think the main basis of the AGW argument is in the radiation retarding properties of CO2 on outbound infrared radiation in the atmosphere; and on the resulting atmospheric warming due to relatively more radiation energy coming in versus going out. Is that about right? I’d like to see some detailed calculations on this – if the calcs seem good, that would give me a reason to be less skeptical of AGW. At first glance it seems unlikely that going from 350 to 400 ppm CO2 would give much of a temp rise, but I’m definitely open minded and want to look at it in detail. I know CO2 retards infrared radiation, but I want to see calcs quantifying it . . . Where is a good place to look at detailed calculations on this?
BPL: Start here:
http://saspcsus.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/64696386/planet%20temperatures%20with%20surface%20cooling%20parameterized.pdf
To get more detail, you would have to write a radiative-convective model of the climate. Here’s a tutorial on how to do that:
http://bartonlevenson.com/Climatology.html
Go down to the link that says “RCM Tutorial” to download an .rtf document.
@~63
“59 – Thank you for proving my point with your last sentence in parenthesis.”
Now the troll is dreaming.
e.g.:
https://www.google.com/search?q=all-time+high+temperature+records+from+the+1930s
The verdict is in. This article says there is no warming – I think you’ll find it interesting even if you disagree AND YOU WILL. I’m going to keep investigating so don’t give up on me yet.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/100-us-warming-due-noaa-data-tampering
Thanks to PBL and T for the good answers above. Next thing I want to figure out is exactly what is happening at the molecular level that causes CO2 to be a problem. What branch of science would cover that – physical chemistry, physics, chemistry, ???
72 Mr. Know It All says: “The verdict is in”
Woo Hoo! Thank god for that. Now I can get back to my day job. The three Magi have turned up to save the day … Dan DaSilva, Romain and Mr. Know It All. :-)
KIA 72: Next thing I want to figure out is exactly what is happening at the molecular level that causes CO2 to be a problem. What branch of science would cover that – physical chemistry, physics, chemistry, ???
BPL: Quantum physics. The absorption and emission of photons by atoms and molecules is a quantum effect, which is why it takes place at certain wavelengths and not others (in most circumstances). A good (but very dense) text that covers this is Goody and Yung’s “Atmospheric Radiation–Theoretical Basis” (1989).
>zerohedge
Consider your information filter bubble is showing you what you want to see.
> KIA
LMGTFY
https://www.google.com/search?q=“mean+free+path”+infrared+CO2
KIA 72
Barton is correct. Goody and Yung explain the quantum mechanics behind the absorption of radiation by greenhouse gases, and that their explanation is dense (i.e. incomprehensible to most climate scientists.) G&Y suggest that Kirchhoff’s classical law is a suitable approximation for water vapour, and since then it has also been used (incorrectly) for carbon dioxide.
An easier description is given in the book by Thomas and Stamnes (1999). But they also suggest that Kirchhoff’s law can be used, justifying it with the comment “… we find with some additional manipulation and using Equ. 4.28″ that the NLTE Source function can be used. It is also known as Schwarzschild’s equation, and is based of the assumption that Kirchhoff’s law for black body radiation holds, extremely doubtful for line radiation produced by greenhouse gases.
The unspecified “additional manipulation” does not include the invalid assumption that since the percentage of excited molecules is so small, then stimulated emissions can be ignored. That is stated explicitly, but if it were true then spontaneous emissions could also be ignored, but they are used as the justification for arguing greenhouse gases emit blackbody radiation.
In other words, the greenhouse effect is a quantum mechanical effect. However, it is well known that anyone who claimes they understand quantum mechanics doesn’t. Climate scientists claim they do!
I think “A non e-mouse” in 77 must be Alastair posting under a sock-puppet name. No one else in the world holds the eccentric view of Kirchhoff’s Law that he does. It’s pretty much a sure tell.
non-e mouse,
I think your characterization of the treatment of greenhouse gasses in climate science is a straw man. Yes, it is true that Bohr said that anyone who thinks they have understood quantum mechanics is wrong, but
1)there are different levels of understanding, and it is certainly possible to understand quantum mechanics up to a point, or it wouldn’t be useful. That is the whole point of quantum mechanics–it allows subatomic phenomena to be understood in terms of semi-classical models, some of which may be complementary.
2)We have advanced our understanding of quantum mechanics considerably since Bohr.
Spontaneous emission is indeed not very important in understanding the greenhouse effect because the long lifetime of the vibrational state of CO2 and the prevalence of non-greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere means collisional relaxation is more probable than spontaneous emission.
Ray,
If spontaneous emissions are not important then why doesn’t the greenhouse gas and the air keep getting hotter and hotter as more radiative energy is absorbed? (This is a genuine question that has bothered me for sometime.)
The air only warms until it reaches the same temperature as the blackbody (surface of the Earth) which is emitting the radiation it absorbs. But after the air has reached that temperature the absorption continues and so should the warming. Where is that absorbed energy going if it is not being lost to spontaneous emissions?
Alistair,
Huh? It is warming?
Ray,
At night the air cools. How does it lose its heat (energy)if spontaneous emissions are not important?