EPA endangerment finding endangers USA

Trump must reverse EPA’s climate change “Endangerment Finding”

Nine years ago, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding.” It claimed that methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, and man-made carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, cause dangerous global warming that poses an imminent danger to the health and well-being of Americans.

However, the Finding was based on computerized climate models that couldn’t even successfully hind-cast the weather we’d had over the past century – much less forecast Earth’s climate 100 years into the future. In fact, Earth’s climate has changed frequently, often abruptly.

The EPA essentially asserted that the 80% of our energy that comes from coal, oil, and natural gas caused all our planet’s recent warming and any more warming is a long-term threat. Obama’s team thus bet in 2009 that Earth’s warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn’t. Never mind all those recent NOAA and NASA claims that 2016 was our “hottest year” ever. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02º C (0.04º F) since 1998.

That 20-year non-warming clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction. But the Federal Appeals Court in Washington nevertheless recently cited methane emissions to block regulatory approval for a new natural gas pipeline. The ruling will encourage radical greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion. Alarmists across the country are already citing the new precedent in other cases, in effect demanding re-hearings on Trump’s entire energy plan.

If the courts decree that pipelines cause dangerous methane emissions, the U.S. will be forced to generate electricity increasingly via the infamous whimsies of wind and sunshine. But the models’ prediction of dangerously rising temperatures have proven wrong. The disparity between the models’ predictions and the thermometer readings is growing wider by the day. We should not base regulations on them.

In science, if your theory doesn’t take account of all the relevant data, you need a new theory.

Meanwhile, thousands of new coal-fired power plants are being built around the world – even in Europe. (Many Third World power plants are being built with Chinese financing.) The CO2 from this new coal-fired power will dwarf whatever emissions the judges hope to prevent in America.

The President now risks losing the economic growth and millions of new jobs that abundant, affordable energy could and should create. Without new pipelines, our “miraculous” fracked gas will be trapped in the semideserts and mountains where the gas is found.

What danger can today’s EPA find in Earth’s current 20-year non-warming? What ice-melt will that trigger? What sea level rise? World food production has just set a new record, in large part because higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere act like fertilizer for crop plants (as well as for forests and grasslands).

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court should strongly encourage a Trump Endangerment reversal. Gorsuch stated in a 2016 opinion that the so-called Chevron Precedent is “difficult to square with the Constitution.” Chevron says courts should defer to federal judges on laws that are ambiguous. He believes it shifts too much power from Congress to unelected bureaucrats.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will need to build a strong case for the reversal, however, because the Supreme Court still does not have a reliable 5–4 conservative majority. Pruitt’s current approach of setting up competing red-teams vs. blue teams must help convince Justice Kennedy that the world today looks much different from when the EPA rubber-stamped the IPCC and its failed climate models.

The science was not settled in 2009; and, fortunately, the weight of evidence has since shifted importantly toward the skeptics. It starts with the still-continuing 20-year non-warming. The best “answer” the alarmists can find is that “extra” CO2 heat is hiding in the deep ocean depths. But cold water is heavier than warm water, so the warm water would have warmed the depths on its way down. NASA’s newer and more accurate data come from ARGO floats that periodically dive to sample water temperatures 2,100 feet below the surface. They find no hidden heat.

Moreover, Earth has been warming, erratically but persistently, since 1715. How much of this warming was due to natural cycles, and how much was man-made? Of any man-made portion, how much was due to CO2, and how much to expanding Urban Heat Islands and cutting down forests? Climate realists say CO2 added barely 1º C; alarmists claim it will increase temperatures by up to 12º C!

How did hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria destroy so much property with only 0.02º C of warming? Britain’s wooden-ship logbooks from 1700 to 1850 confirm that there were twice as many major land-falling Caribbean hurricanes per decade during the cold Little Ice Age as during the far warmer years from 1950 to 2000. Nor has the post-1998 weather produced more frequent to intensive storms, longer droughts, or any of the other climate impacts that Obama’s EPA insisted would happen.

The simple truth is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has given the world a climate scare every 25 to 30 years since we got thermometers around 1850 (even though the PDO wasn’t even recognized until 1996). In 1845, the ships of Sir John Franklin’s Arctic expedition were crushed by ice. Just 64 years later, in 1909, Roald Amundsen sailed through a relatively warm, ice-free Northwest Passage. In the 1970s, we were warned urgently of a new Ice Age. And then came the “overheated” Al Gore years, 1976–98.

The huge Pacific Ocean’s 60-year oscillation raises ocean temperatures – and thus the world’s – by 1º to 2º C (1.8º to 3.6º F) for about 30 years, then shifts back again for another 30 years. Every time it shifted in the past, alarmists extended the latest reading in a straight line for 5 or 20 years and screamed: “ Global Disaster!”  This time, the alarmists claim the non-warming isn’t real!

Today, there’s no doubt the models have predicted more than twice as much warming as we’ve observed. Given the high number of official thermometers that are located in urban areas and near airport tarmac, the models may be overpredicting by three-fold!

Another major new scientific finding also goes against the alarmists. Last year CERN (the multi-billion-dollar Institute for European Nuclear Research) told CERN Courier subscribers that all the climate models must be re-done. CERN reported that its CLOUD experiment had used its huge particle accelerator and a giant cloud chamber to demonstrate that the sun and cosmic rays are the real “mystery factors” in Earth’s climate. The research supports the contention that CO2 is only a bit player.

CERN says the sun was weak during the Little Ice Age (indeed, during all the “little ice ages”). This allowed far more cosmic rays to hit our atmosphere. Those extra hits shattered millions more molecules into zillions of tiny “cloud seeds.” Each cloud seed carried an electric charge that attracted other molecules to form clumps – and gave us up to 10 times as many low clouds. Earth cooled for centuries under overcast skies, as if under a giant awning. Then the sun became more active, there were fewer cosmic rays, the skies got sunnier, and Earth warmed – for centuries.

History says the Modern Warming is likely to last at least another two centuries. The Medieval Warming (350 years long) was the shortest past warming we can find. But first, CERN says, we will have to go through a 60-year Solar Sunspot Minimum that will drop Earth’s temperatures even lower than today for the next 60 years. The Minimums — which last up to 200 years — are another recently recognized cycle.

How will a century of non-warming possibly endanger Americans? Trump should be eager to take on Obama’s outdated and ill-informed Endangerment Finding.

Categories

About the Author: Dennis Avery

Dennis Avery

Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years." Readers may write to him at PO Box 202 Churchville, VA 24421; email to [email protected]

  • Ron C.

    Agree that the endangerment finding needs to go. I question your interpretation of the Florida pipeline ruling by the DC Court of Appeals. As I read the judgment, it appears, especially in Justice Janice Brown’s dissenting opinion that the majority mistakenly decided that the pipeline environmental acceptance should include downstream emissions, that is the emissions when the gas is burned in the power plants after delivery from the pipeline.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/judiciary-climate-confusion/

  • ScottM

    Satellites do not indicate surface temperatures, have poor vertical resolution, and satellite records have been radically adjusted many times throughout their history.

    • MichaelR

      Where is your peer reviewed, published paper to demonstrate that everyone’s current data is wrong, or is that just your opinion as a lay person?

      • jreb57

        A peer reviewed published paper is nothing but an opinion which has been shared with others who may or may not agree with it. It proves nothing other than there are people who may agree with some of what you say. Since it is published and therefore in writing it makes positions easier to clarify and points of contention easier to argue. If you really know of a way that CO2 magnifies energy (heat) you should patent the process and make millions. Energy is expensive.

        • MichaelR

          No that is not what peer review is for. Sorry but you fundamentally have got that wrong. How on Earth do you thing science could ever have proceeded if that was the case? Do you think when Einstein came up with the special theory of relatively people just agreed with him? Or when he and Mac Planck and Niels Bohr etc (separately) published their increasingly extraordinary findings on quantum theory that everyone just nodded along even though he was turning our understanding of the nature of reality on its head?
          Peer review is to check methodology, check that the numbers have been used correctly and that the conclusions of the paper are supported by its evidence. It is not material whether the conclusions agree with the existing body of work. The paper just has to not make mistakes and be robust.
          The whole point of science is to find NEW things out, and the purpose of journals is to make that new knowledge known to the scientific community. If every paper was just a re-hash of things that people already knew then why would anyone buy the journals!
          Besides, the first thing that happens after a significant new paper comes out is that other groups try to reproduce the work independently. Anything that cannot be reproduced is usually either ignored or in bad cases, the papers are retracted.
          The scientific method including the process of peer reviewed journal publication is what got you all the technology that you use on a daily basis. If you reject it, you are rejecting all science in all disciplines because they all use the same process. But you aren’t consistent. It’s just one area of science that you challenge and it just happens to be the one where you have political and ideological objections to its findings.
          The failure is not with science. It’s with your ability to be objective.

          • jreb57

            Established science depends on provable, repeatable results, not peer revue.

            • MichaelR

              Science relies on hypotheses that are falsifiable, followed by testing, then building up sufficient supporting evidence, then a process of peer review before publication, then acceptance after reproduction of results by other scientists, or at least no published refutation that has also met the same standards of peer review.

              You might have a slightly narrow view of science if you expect everything to be repeatable in a lab btw. It’s pretty hard to reproduce evolution, or star formation or the Big Bang. Despite not being reproduced, they have met their burden of proof to be valid theories by other means of testing and investigation.

              • jreb57

                No, actually evolution is still a theory even though a generally accepted one. The jury is still out on whether the universe will just continue to expand or will collapse back in on itself. We have managed to reproduce hydrogen fusion which goes a ways to proving how stars operate. As to whether there will be another big bang, that depends on whether space time is positively or negatively curved. I doubt any one will record the event.

                • MichaelR

                  “Just a theory” implies that you don’t know what a theory means in science. Gravity is “just a theory”. Scientists don’t refer to gravity as a fact. Theories are the highest standard of knowledge available in science.
                  Otherwise your comments are off topic, although on a topic I find fascinating. The amount of dark energy in the universe is far larger than the amount of mass and dark matter. AFAIK the current thinking is that the universe will expand forvever and undergo heat death in after several thousand trillion years. Our cosmic horizon will shrink to nothing and kinds of weird thing happen if you could wait long enough.
                  I recommend this entertaining series on Astronomy that ends with how this plays out. https://youtu.be/jDF-N3A60DE

                  • jreb57

                    More theories are disproven than proven. AGW is not proven and contradicts the conservancy law.

                    • MichaelR

                      You need to be careful with your definitions here.
                      Can you name the last theory, let’s say on the field of physics as it’s most relevant here, that was actually disproven?
                      Some are indeed improved upon. For example Einstein’s work on gravity was clearly more sophisticated than Newton’s, but the theory of gravity was not disproven, just made more complete. Newton’s version served extremely well for centuries. It was only when very precise measurements of the orbit if Mercury (new data) became available that Newton’s theory was found to be incomplete.
                      Your idea of “disproven” is not one that scientists would recognise. For another example, Quantum field theory is incredibly accurate at predicting who the universe works at the small scale. It is breathtaking how reliable and subtle it is. It however completely breaks down at large scales. Conversely, the theory of general relativity is stunningly accurate for large scale events but doesn’t work at the quantum scale. If that they dramatically contradict each other when you try to combine them. But they are both extraordinarily good theories. How can this be?
                      Because a theory is not a fact, it’s not reality. It’s our best and most accurate and most reliable model of reality. They can always be improved on. That is why physicists wan one grand unified theory of everything that unites QF theory and general relativity, but that does not invalidate either QF or general relativity.

          • jreb57

            The purpose of science is to discover how things work whether or not they are new.

      • jreb57

        What he is saying Michael is that if it is constantly being adjusted, it cannot be depended upon.

  • lil coy

    I wanna figure out a scheme to bilk cash out of all these chicken littles, who are so eager to give up everything due to the federal government encouraged junk science that is man made global warming.

    • jreb57

      It is not the federal government that wants your and my money. It is those who want to use the wealth of America to further their dream of ruling the world. They will need money. This country has it. Yes, it is junk science.

      • MichaelR

        And yet weirdly all other developed countries have agreed to spend their own money to change their energy systems, fund the same change in developing countries and fund adaptation in developing countries. Even Saudi Arabia is signed up to the Paris accord. Maybe they know something you don’t.

        • jreb57

          Likely they know whether or not they will have a place in the new world order. I don’t seek one.

          • MichaelR

            What new world order? The kind that costs a measly $10Bn to start?You are now going fully conspiracy theory. So unless you have any evidence to cite, then, it was nice trying to teach you something about basic physics and whatnot, but I don’t debate with conspiracy theorists as, you know, it’s a waste of time.

            • jreb57

              The one paying the IPCC to try to convince gullible people to pay a carbon tax.Climate is weather over thousands of years. When you must tamper with temperature records and modify computer algorithms to try to make your predictions come true it sounds like a conspiracy on some level even if not a world wide one. I agree that 75 scientists don’t make it world wide

  • MichaelR

    Holy crap. Are people still trying to trot out this bogus line about the “pause”? Here is data from three different agencies.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/images/research/monitoring/compare_datasets_new_logo_cm.png

    Taken from here
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

    Of course if you cherry pick dates you can see short terms drops or lower rates of increase but if you asked a five year old to tell you which way this graph is going they would say “up”.

    Please get over this. If you want to argue about something, choose something other than temperature records that have been consistently showing increases in temperature for decades, and not linked to any change in solar activity for the last 40 years.

    The only dataset that was doing the rounds that looked different was from RSS and that was found to be systematically wrong. RSS corrected their mistakes and, guess what, it looked the same as everyone else’s data.

    • BigWaveDave

      MichaelR, why hasn’t anyone expressed a theory that could explain how it could be physically possible for a few hundred ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to cause any measurable temperature change anywhere in Earth’s troposphere or oceans, or anywhere on Earth’s surface?

      • MichaelR

        Err, they did, about 130 years ago.
        CO2 absorbs infrared radiation very efficiently. Here is a demo in a lab of its effects. https://youtu.be/SeYfl45X1wo
        When light comes from the sun it comes in lots of wavelengths. Higher wavelengths have higher energy. Lower wavelengths lower energy. So blue light has more energy than red light.
        When light hits the surface of the Earth it absorbs some energy and re-emits the rest, much of that energy on its way out into space. But CO2 absorbs energy in the lower energy wavelengths like infrared, this trapping the heat in the atmosphere. That heat diffuses throughout the atmosphere and then eventually into the sea and land.
        So there is always a balance of mechanisms that absorb heat from the sun and those that lose heat to space. That balance point determines the global temperature.
        When you add CO2 to the atmosphere, that is like putting your thumb on one side of the balance, the heating side of the balance increases without a corresponding increase in cooling effects. So you get warming. As the rate of cooling factors is a function of the temperature differential between the Earth and space then the warming eventually gets balanced out again, but at a higher temperature. Imagine have a house and it’s cold outside. The house naturally loses heat to its surroundings and so, with no heating it settles at the temperature outside. Now you add a heater. As the heater acts, the house gets warmer but only up to a point. That point is the equilibrium point, the global average temperature.
        Now you add another heater (equivalent to the warming effect of the extra super-heat absorbent CO2). The effect is of course that the temperature of the house will rise until a new equilibrium temperature is reached.
        The effect of the additional warming effect of the CO2 is called forcing. And we can experimentally test the forcing effects of CO2 very well.
        But then you have feedback effects. ie effects that happen because the temperature has changed. Some are negative for warming but unfortunately most are positive ie a higher temperature allows other phenomena to cause more warming still. For example water vapor. Water vapor is also an effective greenhouse gas and it absorbs a slightly different set of wavelengths to CO2 as well so they combine in effect.
        When you warm the atmosphere due to CO2, that allows the air to hold more water vapor before it condenses. More water vapor means more warming. Means more water vapor in the air which means more warming. See what I am getting at? And there are other positive feedback effects as well. A slightly warmer atmosphere melts ice at the poles and in glaciers. Ice reflects lots of energy back to space. The sea and the ground reflect much less and absorb more than before, so when ice melts… more warming. Also when you warm arctic tundra it melts and releases methane that it stored frozen, directly into the atmosphere, and methane is 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so you get more warming.
        There are lots of factors involved in driving the system but they are pretty well understood by scientists and have been for quite a long time. That is why there is such a strong scientific consensus around that fact that AGW is already happening and great concern about where it will end if we don’t urgently taking the fuel out from under it.
        I hope that answers your question.

      • MichaelR

        Well, my last 2 replies disappeared but I will try again.
        The action of CO2 trapping heat is very well understood. Here is a video showing how CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in a lab. https://youtu.be/SeYfl45X1wo
        This process has been understood for over 130 years and indeed was the foundation of the earliest scientific papers on the burning of fossil fuels leading to a warming atmosphere back in the early 20th century. In a nutshell, high energy light from the sun, passes through the atmosphere, hits the surface where some energy is absorbed and some, lower energy light (infrared) is re-emitted into space. If those light photons hit a CO2 molecule, then they get absorbed and turned into heat energy. More CO2, more absorbtion. More absorption, more retained heat which means upward pressure on the atmospheric temperature. That extra heat then diffuses into the ocean and land so the whole system warms up.

        Last time I replied I gave a much longer explanation about that process, and then how that causes positive feedback effects like
        – more water vapour (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere, which causes more warming
        – less ice on the Earth’s surface to reflect energy back into space, replaced by dark sea and land that absorb that energy instead, which causes more warming
        – melting of tundra releases methane into the atmosphere, which traps heat 23 times better than CO2, which means more warming
        and so on.

        This time I will cut it a bit shorter and ask that you watch this short summary of the current state of the science.
        https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo
        I think it’s only fair that you do that, and maybe actually study the scientific account more thoroughly first, before challenging scientific principles that have been understood just fine for over a century.

        • BigWaveDave

          Too long, too boring, too repetitive and too devoid of any theory that explains how any changes in atmospheric CO2 could cause a measurable change in temperature of any air, land or water on Earth.

          • MichaelR

            Is that seriously the best you can do? Every part of my last comment was an explanation of how CO2 acts to warm the atmosphere by absorbtion of infrared energy.
            Can’t you even challenge any of the points I made?
            If you are happy to live in a fantasy world devoid of facts and science, then fine, but you don’t get to inflict your wilful ignorance on the rest of us.

            • BigWaveDave

              Every part of my last comment was an explanation of how CO2 acts to warm the atmosphere by absorbtion of infrared energy.

              But, none of them provides a theory that explains how CO2 could cause measurable warming.

              • MichaelR

                Yes, they really have.
                The transition from the last ice age to the warmer period that we are now in was caused by a rise in CO2 from 180ppm to 280ppm. It’s an observed fact over and over in the geological record.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

                Just in case you actually want to learn more, this article discusses your challenge directly.
                https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/#

                • jreb57

                  There was a report that during the late Ordovician period CO2 levels were 12 times what they are now (according to ice core samples). That period was an ice age.

              • jreb57

                Oh, he provides a theory, but he does not provide proof. If he is correct, thermodynamics must be rewritten to account for it.

                • MichaelR

                  The way you talk you seem to assert that thermodynamics is a new science. The laws of thermodynamics significantly predate the Arrhenius paper and yet no one faulted his work at the time, and there is no gigantic mass of papers that climate change deniers can cite published any time since that demonstrate how CO2 does not trap energy in the lower atmosphere. Ever wonder why that is?

                  • jreb57

                    Because it was not up to the scientist who disagree with Arrhenius to disprove his theory..

                    • MichaelR

                      What?! You think he had some kind of ideological following in the 19th century? That is obviously bs. Why has no published peer reviewed journal article proved him substantially wrong in 120 years?

            • jreb57

              Any good scientist knows that emmissivity cannot be greater than 1 i.e. a substance cannot radiate more energy than it absorbs by conservation of energy. Therefore CO2 cannot make things warme than they would be.

              • MichaelR

                That is not claimed. The important factor about the emission of light from the surface of the Earth is that it’s at a different wavelength (or really spectrum of wavelengths) than the incoming light. It is shifted down in energy as some of the energy is absorbed by the Earth, so the outgoing tradition is longer wavelength/lower energy and that contains more wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 and water vapour than the incoming light. So you have one-way absorption of that range of wavelengths.

                • jreb57

                  The emission of energy from the earth’s surface is at a longer (less energetic) wave length than CO2 resonance. That doesn’t change the fact that an atmospheric gas is more likely to radiate energy into space than back toward the earth. It doesn’t change the fact that the energy being absorbed came from the sun in the first place. It doesn’t change the fact that the net sum of energy is not increased.

                  • MichaelR

                    Well first, the longer wavelength light being re-emitted into space is at frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor. That’s really the point.

                    Secondly, infrared being remitted from the surface into the atmosphere towards space is scattered in all directions when it interacts with the atmosphere. When a CO2 molecule absorbs and reemits the energy, it can be re-emitted in any direction. There is nothing telling it that it must emit it in any one direction. So effectively the greenhouse gases are a barrier for IR crosing the atmosphere, so the flux reduces slightly. IR can get out, just a smaller proportion as more is being absorbed and reemitted towards the surface. This is observed in the scienceofdoom link I posted. So the incoming energy from the sun remains the same, but the outgoing energy is reduced. This causes the temperature to rise. As the temperature rises, then the amount of energy trying to leave increases. At a new higher equilibrium temperature, with a higher amount of IR energy in the system, then even after the barrier effect of the CO2, enough IR can get through the atmosphere and into space to balance the incoming energy from the sun again.

                    You really should read the links I posted though. My explanation is not as good as theirs. Read the scienceofdoom link for a technical explanation and read the Scientific American one for a more conceptual one.

                    Just lastly, by your reasoning, I can’t see how the atmosphere can trap heat at all, in which case, is your assertion that he surface temperature of the Earth would be the same without an atmosphere?

                    • jreb57

                      My reasoning is that the atmosphere does not trap heat. What is being discussed is the average temperature of the earth which is a completely different argument and subject to a multitude of assumptions. Adding mass to the atmosphere adds thermal latency which means, it takes longer to heat up and cool down. Presumably, the average would remain the same and the extremes would be moderated.

                    • MichaelR

                      Well your reasoning is demonstrably wrong. The atmosphere does trap heat. You seem to be imagine a planet where the only heat in the atmosphere is due to the heat of the Earth itself. That is just factually wrong and contradicts basic science. You seem to have conconted some completely imaginary view of climate physics which bears no resemblance to reality, so I don’t think there is much scope for discussion here.

                    • jreb57

                      .My problem with your answer is that you use the word “demonstrably” without demonstrating a thing. There is not a separate law of physics for CO2 and other elements/ compounds. The conservation law explains your misunderstanding of the subject adequately.You have also pretended to misunderstand this: “You seem to be imagine a planet where the only heat in the atmosphere is due to the heat of the Earth itself”
                      That was not what I said. The sun is ultimately responsible for how hot the planet gets because the temperature is dependent on how much energy reaches the surface. The atmosphere carries heat away from the surface by convection. In order for you to have a “greenhouse effect” you must have a greenhouse. A greenhouse limits convection by controlling circulation.

                    • MichaelR

                      Ok. That is just not a description of the “greenhouse effect”. I will try one more time to explain it. Or you can google the million explanations out there on YouTube and the web, but here goes. I will but numbers at each step so you can hopefully tell me where you are losing the thread.
                      1 The sun delivers heat to the Earth in the form of radiation.
                      2 The Earth clearly does not retain all the heat incident upon it else it would keep getting hotter and hotter.
                      3 So the Earth system (which includes the land, sea and atmosphere) is absorbing some energy and then losing some to space. There is no medium in space obviously – the mechanism by which the Earth system loses energy to space is also radiation.
                      4 the atmosphere is absorbing and scattering certain wavelengths of light based on the gasses it contains. This is why the sky appears blue. Nitrogen scatters inbound blue light coming from the sun.
                      5 the light incident contains light in a given spectrum with a lot of high energy, short wavelengths.
                      6 when high energy light hits the Earth, the substance it hits (not being a perfectly absorbent black material) will absorb some of the energy and then re-emit some of the energy. So it is re-emitting lower energy photons, many in the infrared.
                      7 those IR photons are going in all directions but many are heading back out towards space
                      8 as those IR photons head out towards space they may encounter a molecule of a GHG like CO2. GHG molecules are ones who absorbtion/emmissions spectrum is in the IR part of the spectrum. Water vapour is similar in this respect.
                      9 if a IR photon does hit a CO2 molecule then the CO2 molecule will absorb and re-emit that photon (sacattering). It is random as to which direction that emissions will be so it’s 50% likely that the re-emmission will be down towards the Earth.
                      10 that IR photon might make it back down to the surface or it might be re-scattered by another GHG molecule but either way, you now have the IR photon bouncing around like a pin ball in the atmosphere for a while, exciting the GHG gasses, which may also collide with other gas molecules transmitting kinetic energy, this raising the temperature of the atmosphere.
                      11 as you add more CO2, or GHGs in general, then you build up a thicker and thicker screen of molecules that will scatter IR photons that are on their way out to space. More scattering occurs so more energy is absorbed into the atmospheric gas and the temperature rises.
                      12 as the temperature rises, there are more and more IR photons shooting around “trying” to escape the atmosphere. Even though there are more obstacles to an individual IR photon, statistically more will get out.
                      13 at a new higher temperature, you get to a new equilibrium where the number of IR photons getting out is high enough to balance the inbound energy from the sun.
                      14 the temperature in the atmosphere stops rising, until you add more GHGs.

                      Note how this is nothing to do with convection. The Earth can’t lose heat to space by convection. There is no medium in space.
                      The atmosphere is the glass of the greenhouse and it is indeed held static by the gravitational capture of the atmosphere by the Earth.

                      Truly, you have to actually try to learn about this from conventional scientific sources first, even if you then want to try and pick holes in the theory. The understanding you are getting from the sources you are using is fundamentally wrong I’m afraid. You are not understanding the basic theory of the greenhouse effect which was hypothesised in the 19th century and then demonstrated in the lab as well as in nature decades ago. Did you actually watch the video I posted above demonstrating how CO2 absorbs IR in the lab for starters?

                    • jreb57

                      “Well your reasoning is demonstrably wrong”
                      No, your reasoning is wrong. “A good emitter is a good absorber” The wave lenghts of energy readily absorbed by CO2 are significantly shorter.(more energetic) than the longer wave lengths of energy radiated from the earth’s surface at any temperature normally encountered on earth.

                    • MichaelR

                      So NASA and every other scientific body that uses that same data have the basic science wrong again then?
                      http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

                    • jreb57

                      Mike Griffin was fired because he refused to push the AGW agenda

                    • MichaelR

                      Btw I note that you seem to have abandoned your “energy conservation/convection” argument and have pivoted to a new (also incorrect) line of attack. Does that mean that you accept that your previous argument was based on a misunderstanding of the science?

                    • jreb57

                      I have not abandoned my conservation of energy argument. You have misunderstood. Nothing I have posted indicates I think CO2 does not follow the law of conservation of energy.

                    • MichaelR

                      Like I said in my other comment a moment ago, you have no evidence for your assertions and you think that climate change is a worldwide conspiracy to create a new world order (which you also have no evidence for).
                      The problem with discussing anything with a conspiracy theorist is that they can’t produce good evidence and when you demonstrate that to them, they claim that is evidence of a cover up. So heads you win, tails I lose. That is not a valid or worthwhile discussion.
                      If you want to break the cycle of crazy, I suggest you spend some time honestly studying the case for climate change. Read all the popular orthodox science from reputable publications, watch and listen to the debunking videos and cites out there.
                      What you have yourself is a pseudo religion. I just stopped being religious (in the conventional sense) and I feel much the better and free to think clearly and logically for it.
                      On a human level jreb57, please do yourself a favour and break out of the bubble of thinking you have got yourself into.

                    • jreb57

                      All matter behaves according to the laws of physics and the conservation law says that energy will be conserved; not increased. There is no radiant barrier surrounding the Earth. If there were, it would intercept and reflect the radiant energy from the sun and the sun is the source of the energy the Earth receives.

                    • MichaelR

                      I already explained the science on this.
                      The atmosphere is fairly transparent to many wavelengths of light that come from the sun.
                      Some of that light hits the Earth, dumps some energy and is re-emitted at lower energy (longer wavelengths).
                      The atmosphere is NOT so transparent to those longer wavelengths as CO2 absorbs those longer wavelengths.
                      This video has some preamble then demonstrates the action of CO2 in a lab.
                      https://youtu.be/bX4eOg2LaSY

                      Also, conservation of energy is not relevant here as there is new energy being added by the sun all the time. The question is all about how much energy the atmosphere loses – the energy balance in and out. Your understanding of the basic science is very poor I’m afraid. I strongly recommend that you actually learn about it and then see if there really is evidence that it is wrong. You have decided it’s wrong without even knowing what the science says.

          • jreb57

            Exactly

        • jreb57

          CO2 does not “trap” heat. Thermodynamics is a well understood part of science. When a gas is hotter than it’s surroundings, heat is transferred to the cooler substance. When a gas is cooler than surroundings, heat is absorbed from the hotter substance. It is the sun that heats the earth and everything on it, not CO2.

          • MichaelR

            I have been around the houses on this one already on another thread, you are thinking about it too simplistically. The Earth is not a closed system. It’s all about the balance of energy hitting and leaving the atmosphere. This is a useful summary, although far from complete. I cite the full source further down.

            “If we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less. Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance. “

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absorption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

            This is not at all controversial science. Indeed you can see a paper from 1896 that describes the fundamentals of this process here (yes I mean 1896, 121 years ago)

            http://patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/Arrhenius.pdf

            • jreb57

              You are right that the earth is not a closed system. If it were, it would be possible to “trap” heat. I know about the 1896 paper. It is quite simple .The earth is not a “greenhouse” A greenhouse is a closed system to a certain extent. The atmosphere is a working fluid which carries heat. Where you are making your mistake is in not realizing that energy and heat are the same thing. BTW I know about CO2 lasers. The CO2 in the tube is made to lase by pumping energy into the tube. The amount of energy that comes out of the laser is essentially (almost) the same as the amount that went in. There is no increase. The energy beam is focused by the mirrors in the tube and made mono chromatic (single frequency) by the CO2 so that a highly focused single frequency beam of energy is emitted which can be used to weld or cut metals. If you know of a way to increase the net amount of energy using CO2, I suggest you patent your method and make millions.

              • MichaelR

                My point with the 1896 paper is that if the analysis was wrong then why has there not been a mass of published papers since then refuting it’s findings. I know you deniers like to bleat on about pal review to excuse why their papers don’t get published but surely you don’t expect anyone to take seriously the assertion that that was going on for the whole of the 20th century do you?

                • jreb57

                  I don’t expect people to take seriously the claim that CO2 is responsible for whatever warming you guys are claiming has happened in the last 200 years. I surely don’t.

            • jreb57

              There is also this. The higher you go in the atmosphere, the colder the temperature. There is a reason for this The higher you go in the atmosphere the more likely energy will be radiated into space. A molecule radiates energy in all directions (omnidirectional) If atmospheric gasses absorb IR radiation, the only part of the energy that would reach the surface is that smaller part that was not radiated into space. So the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more likely it is to be absorbed and radiated into space. Space is a heatsink with a temperature of about 3 degrees kelvin.

              • MichaelR

                Sorry I don’t understand your logic here. Surely the main reason why the atmosphere is colder the higher you go is due to the lower pressure…

                • jreb57

                  The colder temps are due to two things. First, there is no hot mass (surface of the earth) to warm the air by convection. The only warming would be by absorption of radiant energy and the gasses are mostly transparent to radiant energy. The other reason is that whatever energy is absorbed is more likely to be radiated into space and less likely to be radiated back to the surface the higher you go.

                  • MichaelR

                    I don’t see what you are driving at here but, again, your main point it wrong. The atmosphere as a gas, obeys Boyles Law. That means that as a gas expands, without addition of more energy, it cools. It’s how a fridge works.
                    Because the upper atmosphere has less atmosphere pressing down on it due to gravity, it is under lower pressure, therefore it is a lower temperature.

                    Jreb57, I don’t want to be rude but your argument there is pretty close to a kid asking why it’s not hotter higher up due to being closer to the sun….

                    • jreb57

                      You just said it. When a gas expands, it cools, i.e. it loses energy. The energy must go somewhere. The higher you go. the greater the chance it will be radiated into space When you used the analogy of a refrigerator, you came close to understanding what my point is. CO2 does not change state at temperatures pressures found on earth. Water does. The atmosphere acts as a working fluid carrying heat away from the surface and water does by far, most of the work.

            • jreb57

              “If we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux”
              Don’t you realize where the flux is coming from? It is coming from the sun. If it blocks out going flux, it will also block incoming flux since the atmosphere is between the source (the sun) and the earth.

              • MichaelR

                But the energy in is a different spectrum to the energy on its way out. The energy coming from the Sun is higher frequency, higher energy. It hits the surface of the Earth and is the-emitted at lower wavelengths That is observed. CO2 only absorbs the lower wavelength. I’m suprised to use that. I am not sure if you have even checked the basic physics here….

    • jreb57

      1850 was the end of the so called “little ice age”. It would be expected that there would be some warming when an ice age ends otherwise it would not have ended. The following is part of a petition signed by over 30,000 scientist:

      “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in
      atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

      • MichaelR

        The science in the 19th century was not explaining the observed changes in temperature. They were predicting the action of CO2 in the atmosphere. I already cited you the paper from 1896
        http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatarnott.com%2Fatms749%2Fpdf%2FArrhenius.pdf%3ACLBUgVx7M3rCCd2IKKoqNieGCpk&cuid=1049811

        Second, please spare me the nonsensical asset that if you can get 30000 people of various levels of scientific acumen in any and all scientific disciplines, nearly all to related to climate science, that that is somehow a refutation of actual evidence. I rarely do this but I will just quote skepticalscience directly as it is more effective at making my point that trying to paraphrase them and the text is pretty self explanatory.

        “No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

        – The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.

        – The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

        In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

        32,000 Sounds Like A Lot…
        In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

        According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority – approximately 0.3 per cent.

        There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.”

        So the petition is just lobbying. It presents no useful evidence.

        • jreb57

          You are going to be surprised that you have just made one of my arguments. You make the case that this is consensus. I make the case that notwithstanding scientific either pro or con, 75 scientists is far from a consensus. Unless that is you have cherry picked only 77 out of the more than 10,000.the survey was sent to. The petition is a different document and is an opinion just is your position.

  • jreb57

    To show how utterly devoid of logic the EPA endangerment regulations are, the EPA rates methane (natural gas) as having 22 times more effect on warming than CO2 per mole. That means that burning a mole of CH4 would reduce the global warming by a factor of 22, never mind the relative cooling effects of the water produced. Of course, that assumes the EPA knows what it is talking about in the first place. Not a good assumption. Neither gas contributes heat by just being in the atmosphere. It is the oxidation of the carbon and hydrogen that generates heat.