Jeremy Grantham Urges "Easily Manipulated" Americans To "Become More Realistic" About World's Demise

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Jeremy Grantham via GMO,

Give Me Only Good News!

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.    It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

(Attributed to Mark Twain)

It takes little experience in the investment business to realize that investors prefer good news. As a bear in the bull market of 1999 I was banned from an institution’s building as being “dangerously persuasive and totally wrong!” The investment industry also has a great incentive to encourage this optimistic bias, for little money would be made if the market ticked slowly upwards. Five steps forward and two back are far more profitable.

Similarly, we environmentalists were shocked to realize how profoundly the general public preferred to believe good news on our climate, even if it meant disregarding the National Academies of the world. The fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, encouraged this positive attitude. They had billions of dollars to protect. If the realistic information were to be widely believed, most of their assets would be stranded.

When dealing with realistic limits to growth it is also obvious how reluctant everyone is to accept the natural mathematical limits: There simply cannot be compound growth in a finite world. A modest 1% growth compounded for the 3,000 years of Ancient Egypt’s population would have multiplied its economic output by nine trillion times!1 Yet, the improbability of feeding ten billion or so global inhabitants in 50 years is shrugged off with ease. And the entire economic and political system appears eager to encourage optimism on resources for it is completely wedded to the virtues of quantitative growth forever.

Hard realities in these three fields are inconvenient for vested interests and because the day of reckoning can always be seen as “later,” politicians can always find a way to postpone necessary actions, as can we all:  “Because markets are efficient, these high prices must be reflecting the remarkable potential of the internet”; “the U.S. housing market largely reflects a strong U.S. economy”; “the climate has always changed”; “how could mere mortals change something as immense as the weather”; “we have nearly infinite resources, it is only a question of price”; “the infinite capacity of the human brain will always solve our problems.”

Having realized the seriousness of this bias over the last few decades, I have noticed how hard it is to effectively pass on a warning for the same reason: No one wants to hear this bad news. So a while ago I came up with a list of propositions that are widely accepted by an educated business audience. They are widely accepted but totally wrong. It is my attempt to bring home how extreme is our preference for good news over accurate news. When you have run through this list you may be a little more aware of how dangerous our wishful thinking can be in investing and in the much more important fields of resource (especially food) limitations and the potentially life-threatening risks of climate damage. Wishful thinking and denial of unpleasant facts are simply not survival characteristics.

Let me start with one of my favorites. For the 50 years I have been in America, Business Week and The Wall Street Journal have been telling us how incompetent at business the French are and how persistently we have been kicking their bottoms. If only they could get over their state socialism and their acute Eurosclerosis. And as far as I can tell we have generally accepted this thesis. Yet Exhibit 1 shows what has actually happened to France’s median hourly wage. It has gone from 100 to 280. Up 180% in 45 years!  Japan is up 140% and even the often sluggish Brits are up 60%. But the killer is the U.S. median wage. Dead flat for 45 years! These are the uncontestable facts. So, all I can say is that it is just as well the French have not been kicking our bottoms. But how is it that we can believe so firmly in something that just ain’t so, and by such a convincing amount?

Exhibit 2 examines the proposition that although our wages may have done poorly, we are still the place that creates jobs. The left-hand panel certainly seems to confirm that with our modest official unemployment rate for 25- to 54-year-olds of below 5% compared to 9% for the E.U. The righthand panel, though, shows the true picture. It looks at the unemployment rate adjusted for the nonparticipation rate, the percentage of all 25- to 54-year-olds who are not actually working (i.e., it includes those discouraged, uninterested, or even sitting in jail). There are now 21% not employed in the U.S. compared to 20.5% for the E.U., and our long-suggested job creating skills are looking a little thin.

The problem lies in the so-called participation rate, as shown in Exhibit 3. The U.S. was one of the leaders in the percentage of women working, and from 1972 to a peak in 1997 the U.S. participation rate rose from 70% to 80%. From 1984 on, the U.S. spent 20 years ahead of most other countries in participation rates, but after 1997 something appears to have gone wrong: While other developed countries continued to increase their participation rate, that of the U.S. declined from first to last in fairly rapid order.

What a far cry this reality is from the view generally accepted by our business world.

Exhibit 4 examines our belief that we have the best health care system in the world. And why shouldn’t we, given the money we put in (left-hand bar chart), over twice the average cost paid by the E.U. But the right-hand bar chart shows what we get back. Two years less life than the median. And watch out for when the Turks, Poles, and Czechs cut back on smoking, for then we may find our way to the bottom of the list.

But if you really want to be worried about our comparative health you should take a look at  Exhibit 5, which comes hot off the press from the guy who was just awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics (wait a minute, must be some mistake, this work seems perfectly useful). The data shows the death rate for U.S. whites between the ages of 45 and 54, which happily these days is when very few people drop off. Since 1990 there has been a quite remarkable decline for other developed countries, about a one-third reduction, as you can see, including for U.S. Hispanics. But for U.S. whites there is a slight increase!  Further analysis for that group reveals that the general increase is caused by quite severe increases in deaths related to alcoholism, drug use, and suicides. Had the rate for U.S. whites declined in line with the others there would have been about 50,000 fewer deaths a year!  (For scale, this is nearly twice the yearly number of traffic deaths in the U.S.)

You have to be careful these days when you suggest connections. For example, people have been told off for proposing that dramatic increases in population can help destabilize societies. Syria had two and a half million people when I was born and has 29 million people now. You can guess how much worse the situation is because of this but you should not talk about it. Similarly, Prince Charles has been extensively criticized by professors in The Guardian for suggesting that a several-year drought in Syria exacerbated social tensions by ruining many farmers. As if!  (You cannot prove precisely what effect climate damage had, but you certainly cannot prove that it did not have a large effect. It certainly had a contributory effect.)

With that caveat, let me seriously suggest a connection between Exhibit 1, which shows no increase in the U.S. median wage for over 40 years following a wonderful prior 30 years of a rise of over 3% a year, and Exhibit 5, which shows the uptick in unnecessary deaths among U.S. non-Hispanic whites aged 45 to 54. This is precisely the age group that was led to expect better for themselves and much better for their children. But those aspirations have not been generously fulfilled. The U.S. Hispanics, in contrast, mostly arrived later and had different expectations. All in all, this data is quite bleak. The point here is that it bears absolutely no similarity to the more optimistic belief set that is generally accepted.

The data presented in Exhibit 6 examines the proposition that “more and more goes to the government and soon they will have everything.”  You have heard that many times recently in the political debate. Sorry, “bull sessions.”  You can see that the U.S. share going to the government in taxes is about the least in the developed world and that it has barely twitched for 50 years. Yet, apparently we have been steadily going to hell. How is it possible that such a view is given such credence in the face of the data, which is, after all, official and simple, not ingeniously manipulated by some perfidious Brit. (Yes, I admit it, I consider myself American or British depending on whether the context is favorable or not.)

“At least we live in a fair society” is the proposition examined in Exhibit 7. The Gini Ratio is a measure of income inequality. Low is good. Only Turkey and Mexico outflank the U.S. as more unequal amongst the richer countries. I was a bit surprised to see how high the U.S. already was in 1980 (I had been drinking from the same culture dissemination trough after all), but it was at least importantly lower.

“We have a democracy where people really count” is an idea that is built into the background cultural noise. Exhibit 8 (also covered last quarter) on the left shows how the probability of a bill passing through Congress is affected by the general public’s enthusiasm or horror. In a nutshell, not at all!  The financial elite, on the other hand, can double the chance of a bill passing or, much more disturbingly, can completely block passage. Clearly these facts are totally incompatible with the concept of participatory democracy and equally entirely at odds with the much more favorable and optimistic beliefs we share about our democracy. We really, really want to believe good news and to believe that we have a superior system that only needs fine-tuning. But, it ain’t necessarily so.

“We have the best education system in the world” is a proposition that goes without saying in Boston, with Harvard, MIT, and literally dozens of other universities. But Exhibit 9 shows the more downto-earth fact: mediocrity.

Less than mediocre, though, is the data in Exhibit 10, which shows the percentage of 3- to 4-year-olds enrolled in school. This is an area of emphasis where the returns on investment are said to be particularly high – six for one – although I would not like to guarantee such returns myself. However, our relatively low ranking at the start of the process is not heartwarming.

Exhibit 11 moves on to our production of CO2, which per capita is the largest in the world, just ahead of Australia. The two of us also worry the least, except for one Middle Eastern oil producer. There is a nice, i.e., interesting, negative correlation here of -0.54. Not bad at all. The greater your fossil fuel intensity, the more ingenious your fossil fuel propaganda is to create doubt and the more we are encouraged to think beautiful optimistic thoughts: clean coal and clean oil. And even as more people can see the climate damage, the richer countries can convince themselves that the damage is not that serious. Poorer countries, meanwhile, do not have that luxury and about 20% more are actively concerned (about 80% vs. 60%) than are the richer countries.

And this brings me to the last and my absolute favorite of these false propositions, which I label, “I wish the U.S. government wouldn’t give so much to foreign countries (especially when times are bad)!” Now, I do not think I have met a single American who does not believe that the U.S. government is generous in its foreign aid. Yet, it just ain’t so, and by a remarkable degree. Exhibit 12 shows what other developed countries give, with the usual goody-goody Sweden leading the way with 1.4% of their GDP and the U.K. having quite recently shot up to 0.8%, for once ahead of Japan and Germany. Dead last is the U.S. at 0.2% of GDP, which it has averaged forever. This is the item with the biggest and most permanent gap between reality and perception. And, as always, the misperception is in favor of the favorable, the data that we would wish to be true.

Conclusion

This is more or less the best I can do to prove the point. We in the U.S. have a broad and heavy bias away from unpleasant data. We are ready to be manipulated by vested interests in finance, economics, and climate change, whose interests might be better served by our believing optimistic stuff “that just ain’t so.”  We are dealing today with important issues, one so important that it may affect the long-term viability of our global society and perhaps our species. It may well be necessary to our survival that we become more realistic, more willing to process the unpleasant, and, above all, less easily manipulated through our need for good news.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
More Ammo's picture

You can ignore reality,

But you can't escape the consequences of ignoring reality.

PR Guy's picture

 

 

I always seem to be searching for bad news rather than good news! Am I a bad person?

jaap's picture

USA USA USA!!!11111!! MURICA

Exceptional, indeed

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

You can lead a whore to culture but you cant make her think

nuubee's picture

Similarly, we environmentalists were shocked to realize how profoundly the general public preferred to believe good news on our climate, even if it meant disregarding the National Academies of the world. The fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, encouraged this positive attitude. They had billions of dollars to protect. If the realistic information were to be widely believed, most of their assets would be stranded.

 

Sorry, the rest of your point was totally undermined by your lack of critical thought w.r.t. human-induced climate change. It seems you're just as humanly stubborn against examining your own premises with a critical eye as the people you intend on lecturing. Have a nice day.

American Dreams's picture

I had to log in just to pan this lastest drivel from JG.  He is giving his book some fresh globalist meat to chew on, most of his new client focus over the last ten years has been on the "Environmentalist, global warming, de-populate the planet" group of crazies.  Well JG you go first and start the de-population, slit your throat for the planet and make sure to do it in your garden because we would not want you to go to waste. 

Know your enemy

AD

highandwired's picture

I stopped reading this bullshit when he praised France for it's high wages.  This article is just a bunch of shit about global warming (is that still the prevailing meme?) and some other bullshit this guy is pushing

CPL's picture

And you know the fastest way to fix that problem?  You let them do it.

The exact process is as follows:  You sit back get the popcorn and watch finagles law, murphy's law and sod's law break their 'good idea' and shatter their misplaced assumptions of the given situation.  Then you laugh your ass off while they hang themselves with a dumb idea that's been repeated so often under different names it borders on comedy everytime they do it.  To keep busy you go do something more interesting than watching the nth failure collapse into a predictable poorly planned shitheap.

Then you laugh some more, except you point then thank them for the entertainment if they are still alive after wrecking themselves.

Pinch's picture

Ah, the climate deniers of ZH are on display again. If I ever need to get a good, deep sniff of the fecal mental anus of the right wing Amurkan, this is the place to come. Here at ZH you can wallow in the brainless shit of the libertardians, obsessed with their freedumbs and heedless of what scientists are saying. Whoopppeeee!

NidStyles's picture

Says the guy with the pejorative NAZI on the image of a known pro-Israel and Jewish supporter. 

forexskin's picture

another tick for - stopped reading at "Similarly, we environmentalists were shocked to realize how profoundly the general public preferred to believe good news on our climate,"

 

and is it just me, or does this guy's name fit right next to Jeremy Bentham, originator of the idea of the Panopticon, which is ubiquitious invisible surveillance? i mean come on, we're talking about truth here, right? WHOSE?

Polonius's picture

Anyone who attempts to address climate change without discussing the spraying in the sky is either mentally challenged or working for the forces intent upon imposing a singular world governing force in plain view.  www.geoengineeringwatch.org

Bendromeda Strain's picture

I could make a very solid case that the same could be said for model falsification and data manipulation, but carry on.

HowardBeale's picture

If Grantham were "here," reading the comments, he would simply say: Q.E.D.

Bendromeda Strain's picture

Yes, he would say that - simply.

nuubee's picture

You must have a really strong argument to hide behind name-calling, or maybe your ability to see a rational argument hasn't made it past pre-school. Either way, you're demonstrating your humanity here.

Towgunner's picture

And the hatred, antagonism, arrogance and ignorance of a typical climate change freak is on full display here. Look, asshole, not everyone is convinced that your little religion is right. Too bad so sad. 

Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, this Nuubee below guy is really a piece of work...

Claims to have an MSc in physics and yet thinks that the earth can lose heat via conduction and convection into the vacuum of space... 

Expat's picture

Wow!  So well put. I guess we know where to put the blame for America's poor scores on education.

MalteseFalcon's picture

So Jeremy, you want all Americans to face reality.  Well whether we've faced it or not, most of us are certainly living it anyway. 

What are you proposing?  More austerity?  For who? 

There are parts of the country that have been living with austerity for at least 15 years.  There are other parts that have been getting more resources. 

I'm talking about the empire.

Time to trim back the empire, if for no other reason, that's where the money is.  That's the low hanging fruit that offers a return of 0.0%.

Also, along with facing reality, I'd like a new "system".  Actually I want the old constitutional system.  Pre-1913.

 

TuPhat's picture

Grantham the globalist thinks he can BS better than anyone else.  Good news or bad news, lies are lies Jeremy.

Wannabe_Oracle's picture

Exhibit 12 - lol.... I used Japan as they are the closest in GDP size:

Japan ~$18 billion (.4% of 2014 GDP in US Dollars).
United States ~$34 billion (.2% of 2014 GDP in US Dollars).

I'd like a slice of that ~$16 billion difference.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/world-gdp-ranking.php

MD's picture

It is a fact that carbon emissions have been only increasing over the past 60 years, it is a fact that CO2 levels are higher today than they have been in hundreds of thousands of years, and it is a fact that CO2 has the properties the produce a greenhouse effect.  It is also a fact that the global climate has increasingly been getting hotter, and that global levels of ice sheet coverage has been decreasing.

So, you mentioned "lack of critical thought."  Can you produce more factual data to refute the data I've just presented?

nuubee's picture

"...it is a fact that CO2 has the properties the produce a greenhouse effect..."

 

Nope, you are entirely wrong. A "Greenhouse Effect" is the effect of surrounding a section of atmosphere such that convection is isolated and heat generated through infrared capture cannot be expelled to the atmosphere. CO2 does not have this effect. All CO2 can do is absorb specific infrared wavelengths, and it does so with decreasing effectiveness the higher the concentration. This means the CO2 contribution to global temperature tails off logarithmically, it does not increase at all linearly with increased CO2 concentration. In short, you are just plain wrong. CO2 does not prevent convection into the upper atmosphere where heat can be released into space, nor does it create linear temperature changes with changes in CO2 concentration. You are just entirely wrong. 


"...It is also a fact that the global climate has increasingly been getting hotter, and that global levels of ice sheet coverage has been decreasing...."

 

Again, entirely wrong. The global average temperature has had no statistically meaningful increase in 17 years. None of this was predicted by any of the global-warming models presented in the 1990s or 2000s. They all predicted increases, those increases have failed to manifest. Also, Ice loss in the arctic has flatlined and partially recovered, while the ice sheets in the Antarctic have been increasing for nearly 10 years now. Frankly, you've got it entirely backwards. If anything the Earth is GAINING sea ice, not losing it.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_201...

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png

MD's picture

The American Chemical Society would strongly disagree with your assertion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/propert...

Yes, land-ocean temperatures have been increasing.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

BandGap's picture

I have a PhD in chemistry. Carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas. However, it ranks well behind many other gases (such as water vapor and methane) in the contribution to atmospheric warming.

Global warming is a farce, starting with Mann at PSU. The "statistics" used are on the level of the unemployment numbers generated by the BLS.

The American Chemical Society is a political animal. I got out years ago as science gave way to political pandering for $$$.

Flakmeister's picture

Hey BandGap

So for shits and giggles, what would happen to global temperatures if you removed all non-condensing GHGs from the atmosphere and roughly how long would it take to reach equilbrium? 

For bonus points, what fracton of non-condensing GHG does C02 represent?

I am eager for you to  demonstrate that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about....

nuubee's picture

The term "Greenhouse gas" is a politically loaded term. I gave you a physical explanation as to why CO2 cannot act as a greenhouse, and your response is to point towards a political organization and how it "classifies" things. Your rebuttal is meaningless drivel.

 

I gave you raw satellite data on global average lower tropospheric temperature, and you give me a NASA web-page. NASA is an organization filled with civil servants whose careers are threatened by not towing the "party line"

 

Again, I give you actual scientific rationale for why fear of CAGW is bullshit, and you give me claims by politicized organizations that are supposed to be truth. At some point you're going to have to make a choice between faith in those you want to believe, and reality. I hope you survive that day.

Flakmeister's picture

You are exactly what JG is talking about...

You have truly mastered the art of lying to yourself...

nuubee's picture

No, I have a masters in Physics. I know what a solid scientific argument is, and I will tell you the government-approved global warming message is full of lies.

Don't believe me if you feel you must. Believe NASA and other politically-motivated organizations if you feel you must. But until you read, understand and learn the physical reality of your world, you're just a man acting on faith, not knowledge. Between the two of us, I know which one of us has studied actual physical data and actual physical arguments on this topic, and I know scientific bullshit when I see it.

mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

I just popped some corn.  I think you just released a full-frontal berating from the Flakster.  She's pretty militant in her defense of mythology, and gives no quarter when it comes to ad hominem.  Should be good.

Flakmeister's picture

For the record, I do not have a cunt...

Edit:

And I almost forgot...

Go fuck yourself...

Tall Tom's picture

No. You have a pussy. That is the furry patch between your legs. The cunt is what transports the pussy, FlakFRAU.

Flakmeister's picture

Don't you have to go beat your wife?

Or was it get ready for a Trump rally?

Bananamerican's picture

what ensued was a total Physics bitch fight...

Flakmeister's picture

Could you explain the TdS equations for us? Why the Clausius-Clayperon equation matters in a warming world?

Can you from first principles write the down the Euler-Lagrange equation for a simple pendulum?

Could you comment on the measured diffrence in OLWR between 1969 and present and how it matches with the known C02 absorption spectra?

If you cant, quit playing posuer and STFU...

nuubee's picture

Actually, I can. Do you want to sit through this and learn, or are you content in your ignorance? Regardless, you are playing what most global warming believers do from the beginning, which is little different from the crybabies at college campuses now demanding "safe spaces".... you are shifting the burden of proof. You insist that global-warming is occuring, and that mankind is the only explanation, and then you demand that other people proof you wrong. This is anti-scientific cunt behavior, because if you are going to make an assertion, the burden of proof IS ON YOU to demonstrate your assertions. Someone who actually understand science would know this, so I can clearly deduce that you have no scientific training. Human-Induced Global Warming was never proven, it was ASSUMED.

 

Thermodynamics I last took any classes on approximately 8 years ago. I have my textbook at home and I could easily write down a nice lecture for you later.

The Clausius-Clayperon equations describe the vapor pressure of liquids (and solids), those are important with respect to determining the contribution of water vapor to the heat engine of the earth. Unfortunately, for idiot CAGW believers like yourself, you always use the equations when it comes to evaporation of earth's oceans, but you never consider the tremendous amounts of heat lost to space through the condensation of water vapor in the upper atmosphere. This makes you look like idiots because you just presume that a hotter earth makes for more water vapor because the water vapor somehow never leaves the earth once it is created. It never occurs to you that water vapor actually moves into the upper atmosphere and transmits tremendous amounts of heat away from the earth (as well as reflecting incoming IR) well above the higher CO2 concentrations.

You bring up the measured differences in OLWR between 1969 and now, and it's hilarious. So are you saying that because the OLWR spectra matches the inverse of the known CO2 absorption, that this is proof of anything? Did it never occur to you that there were other methods by which captured heat might make its way out of the earths atmosphere? Nah, Convection and conduction, those things don't exist right? The only way for heat to leave the earth is by infrared, right? That shows a lot about your ability to conceive of the physical world.

Flakmeister's picture

You are a obvious fucking blow hard poseur...

Your diatribe above would be classified as "fractally wrong"....

---

Here is a gimme, write down the Lagrangian for a simple pendulum, one of the most basic things in a Junior level Classical Mechanics textbook...

Hell, can you even state Gauss's Law? That's from sophomore physics...

How about the defintion of kinetic energy?? that is from high school physics...

Now that we have shown that you do not have a M.Sc. in Physics let's move on.

 

Explain to us how conduction and convection works in a vacuum. This is what you you just claimed in your last paragraph....

nuubee's picture

Oh, I made no claims that conduction or convection work in a vacuum. But in order to get above the CO2 concentrations in the troposphere, all you need is a little water vapor convection, and bingo-bango-bongo, you have a heat path out of the CO2 "Greenhouse" that morons like yourself believe in. This, of course, never occurs to you people. You just presume that there's this "barrier" of CO2 that cannot let heat escape, and will be amplified by other gasses. None of this is remotely proven, much less experimentally verifiable on a global scale.

It is interesting, is it not, that the as-measured-by-satellites "heat" of the atmosphere is increasing more at night than as measured during the day, isn't it? For a while, this was used by people like yourself to "prove" that the sun wasn't the cause of global warming, but rather, heat retention in the atmosphere was the cause. Not metioned, or considered in this argument, is the fact that if the atmosphere *is* in absorbing more infrared during the day (consistent with an unargued increase in CO2 concentration), then by definition nighttime IR emissions will be greater than before regardless of the cause. It is almost as if all that water vapor is transporting more heat at night away from the Earth... The world is interesting when you consider it from a perspective grounded in reality, isn't it?

Why do you keep asking answers to questions that any fool could answer with wikipedia?

Do you have *ANY* physical arguments to make as to why the earth should be heating up that aren't filled with bullshit? Or are you just going to keep asking me to teach you things you could easily learn with a google search?

I could easily be vomiting physics questions at you, it would prove just as much about your intelligence.

Multiple times in this thread I have made PHYSICAL ARGUMENTS from first principles as best I can in a space where equations don't work well.. I suggest you do the same for your side of the argument or concede that you're just another ignorant fuck who believes what he is told by "Experts" and chooses not to learn how to think on his own.

Flakmeister's picture

You certainly did claim as such or are you too stupid to realize what you wrote?

 Did it never occur to you that there were other methods by which captured heat might make its way out of the earths atmosphere? Nah, Convection and conduction, those things don't exist right? The only way for heat to leave the earth is by infrared, right? That shows a lot about your ability to conceive of the physical world.

Go hang out at WUWT with all the other morons, I can even provide a letter of reference for you...

Deathrips's picture

You sure can Flack. You're the king of the morons....right?

Anthropogenic climate change is akin to the king fighting the tide. Even if he sprays shit in the sky all day long...every day..the tides going to win.

Pollution bad, breathing....good. Gasses that support photosynthesis and phytoplancton...good.

Another tax for pillagers to plunder for our safety....bad.

 

UNderstand yet?

 

Great posts Nubee

 

RIPS

Flakmeister's picture

Your reading comprehension is worse than his physics...

Yes, I know, it is hard to imagine...

nuubee's picture

Oh, what a joke. You bring up OLWR and CO2 as a greenhouse, then when I demonstrate that water vapor can, through convection, rise above the higher levels of CO2 to emit their heat into the atmosphere (and block incoming IR), you act like I'm talking about conduction in a vacuum. You're just being obtuse you stupid fuck.

You have still provided NO PHYSICAL ARGUMENT for why CO2 should be responsible for CAGW.

I on the other hand, have provided a physical argument for why CO2 CANNOT act as a greenhouse.

Here's a question for you. In order for a scientific theory to be considered science, it must be falsifiable.

WHAT IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING? Where is the fact, that if true, completely disproves the notion that CO2 in the concentrations that humans can output, can cause more than 1-degree-C of warming?

You have no answer, because I'm not stupid enough to ask questions in a debate that I don't know already the answer to. But that's ok, all that's left for you to do is admit that CAGW is psuedo-science because it has no null hypothesis.

For the record, I got bored with WUWT about 5 years ago when it was pretty clear that the CAGW people had no valid arguments left. Finding someone like you is literalyl like finding someone who still believes what they're told by the catholic church about the earth being flat.

Flakmeister's picture

So, once again, explain how the earth loses heat via conduction and convection....

As for how and why C02 is GHG, any one of many books in your library will be able to explain it to you if you were not so intellectually lazy...

Better yet, give it up , you played your hand and revealed that you are moron and a bullshit artist as you certainly don't have a degree in physics...

nuubee's picture

Let us presume that CO2 DOES in fact "trap heat". This is a laughable claim, but lets presume you are correct and CO2 "traps" heat in the form of infrared radiation within the earths atmosphere.

CO2 is a relatively heavy gas in our atmosphere, certainly heavier than H2O. The troposphere is "well-mixed" according to scientists, so it makes some reasonable hand-wavy sense to consider that CO2 concentrations within the troposphere might constitute the infrared "trap" you warmists are so fond of being afraid of.

The problem with your physical argument in that case is.... through convection, water can rise higher than CO2 in the atmosphere, and it does. Since water vapor can rise higher, then it can get above any "trap" created by CO2 concentrations and re-condense to release heat back out into space in the form of Infrared.

This makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 alone to cause runaway warming in the atmosphere, and further demonstrates that even if more water vapor is created by additional heat, that heat will simply transport higher (due to it's higher temperature) before re-condensing and releasing it's heat into space.

Still waiting for your physical argument, or is the only form of argument you have some kind of "my dick is still bigger, now show me yours again."?

Still waiting for that null hypothesis, or is that a new word in your vocabulary? Look it up, don't bother me with your childish claims as to my credentials.

Flakmeister's picture

The fact that C02 traps heat was discovered in the 1850s...

In fact all tri-atomic molecules (and all those with more than 3 atoms) can trap and re-emit IR...

Go away troll...

nuubee's picture

The fact that C02 traps heat was discovered in the 1850s..

 

Wrong. Hah, how you're showing your stupidity. What was demonstrated in the 1850s was that CO2 can ABSORB infrared. "Trapping" heat is a greater burden of proof. It requires that you demonstrate that said heat never leaves the system. This claim has never been proven. In fact the laws of black-body radiation prove you wrong without further physical explanation from the believers such as yourself.

I'm the troll?? lol, you started this bullshit conversation, don't cry when you are demonstrably proven to be full of shit.