• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

Alric said:
And if you do it you will get the equation I posted above. Get over it. C02 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation.

Its a well defined physical property. What else are you going to argue. That its not a gas or not actually composed of carbon and oxygen?
Click to expand...

i think the argument (the real one, not the tinfoil hat one) has to do not with whether the proportionally tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in dramatic changes in climate, and 'tipping point' scenarios.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161) - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
QUOTE A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Click to expand...



Do you remember what McIntyre said about this paper?
What are the chances it will ever be published in a peer reviewed journal?

The answers are "it isn't" and not a chance.
 
zeusbheld said:
i think the argument (the real one, not the tinfoil hat one) has to do not with whether the proportionally tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in dramatic changes in climate, and 'tipping point' scenarios.
Click to expand...

Roughly. CO2 might make up a small amount of the total atmosphere, it will be doubling in that amount, though. It is the only rational argument, however. The deniers do themselves a great disservice by clutching at anything that is presented as a refutation of AGW, no matter how crazy.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
 
zeusbheld said:
i missed that episode, would you mind offering up a link to it or do i have to google?
Click to expand...


I will search my posts to find the link if I must, but not today, perhaps tomorrow.

But, on Climate Audit, posters were discussing the Gerlich paper and McIntyre said basically, and forgive me as I am quoting from memory, that he wasn't interested in papers that said the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide was impossible because it isn't.

Read the paper though, and come to your own conclusions.

I had thought we got mhaze off of the greenhouse effect is impossible position, but maybe not.
 
a_unique_person said:
Roughly. CO2 might make up a small amount of the total atmosphere, it will be doubling in that amount, though. It is the only rational argument, however. The deniers do themselves a great disservice by clutching at anything that is presented as a refutation of AGW, no matter how crazy.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161
Click to expand...


Only rational argument? No, that is impossible as long as many items have a "level of understanding" of Low or Medium Low.

 
bobdroege7 said:
I will search my posts to find the link if I must, but not today, perhaps tomorrow.

But, on Climate Audit, posters were discussing the Gerlich paper and McIntyre said basically, and forgive me as I am quoting from memory, that he wasn't interested in papers that said the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide was impossible because it isn't.

Read the paper though, and come to your own conclusions.

I had thought we got mhaze off of the greenhouse effect is impossible position, but maybe not.
Click to expand...

s'alright, if it's on climate audit i can find that discussion. no need to dig. as for mhaze... don't expect consistency.
 
TIME OUT!!!

Have the contrarians posted ANY DATA that disagrees with unprecedented GLOBAL WARMING concomitant with unprecedented CO2 levels in historical times?

The closest I can come up with is Lohele's conclusion that just attempt to widen confidence intervals at a local site and the local scandinavian tree ring data that the authors discuss do not reflect the historical global temperature.

Barring the "theoretical" concerns of the contrarians do they have any data?
 
a_unique_person said:
No pleasing some people :(. Imago wants proof that CO2 can even be considered a greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, AUP. Don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is a demonstrable experiment at the microfractions being discussed to quantify CO2's heat capacity and effect on a surrounding microatmosphere.

It's a simple experiment really. And, the results could be extrapolated and possibly predictive of perceived "forcing" effects in the lower troposphere.

-Dr. Imago
 
Alric said:
You do see that the graph you always show illustrates that CO2 has the most radiative forcing of all the greenhouse gases, right?
Click to expand...

This is quite simply factually wrong, and it is well-known that many other gasses existing in even smaller microfractions exert a much more potent "greenhouse" effect. Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that the most potent (because of abundance) is water vapor.

-Dr. Imago
 
Dr. Imago said:
This is quite simply factually wrong, and it is well-known that many other gasses existing in even smaller microfractions exert a much more potent "greenhouse" effect. Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that the most potent (because of abundance) is water vapor.

-Dr. Imago
Click to expand...

That's what you say. But it's not what the graph shows.
 
Dr. Imago said:
Wrong again, AUP. Don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is a demonstrable experiment at the microfractions being discussed to quantify CO2's heat capacity and effect on a surrounding microatmosphere. It's a simple experiment really. And, the results could be extrapolated and possibly predictive of perceived "forcing" effects in the lower troposphere.

-Dr. Imago
Click to expand...

AGW-greenhouse gas theory says mid tropospheric hot spot MUST EXIST. That is where the "blanket" has to be. If regions close to the surface gets 1C warmer due completely to greenhouse effects, then that hot spot must be 1C warmer.

There isn't anyway around this.

This disregards the oceans, which have a heat capacity a million times greater than the atmosphere.
 
Investigating a bit, I find typical IPCC circuituousness. The chart is from the Summary for Policymakers, but references chapter 2. Going there, Figure 2 is the same chart but is titled "Radiative Forcing of Climate between 1750 and 2005". Quite a difference from what I posted, entitled simply "Radiative Forcing Components"!

The implication is that the chart shows the changes since industrialization, and one might conclude that they thought there was no change in the water cycle during that period. That's been disproven (Wentz 2007, "How much more rain will global warming bring?"

For "Cloud albedo effect" we have ...
RF in W m2 -0.7 (-1.8 to -0.3) LOSU - Level of Uncertainty "LOW".

The bottom line,
Radiative forcing, Total Net Anthropogenic is +1.6(0.6 to 2.4).

Wentz 2007 "How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring?" has shown the water put in the atmosphere to be triple what was presumed by the studies used by the IPCC in assembling the chart.

Let us revise the summary for Radiative forcing to include Wentz's correction - one presumption - (mine) that a tripling of water for a given temperature increment causes a proportional tripling of cloud cover.

RF in W m2 -2.1 (-5.4 to -0.9) with a LOSU of (perhaps now Medium),

New bottom line ...
Total net anthropogenic -1.2 (-6.6 to + 1.2)

Does it look like there is still anthropogenic global warming?

So using the IPCC's own method, and more recent science for the water cycle, there would appear to be no net positive feedbacks, but net negative feedbacks. There do not appear to be any negative effects caused by man on the climate.

The point I am making is as follows. NOT that my analysis is correct, it could easily be in error. But that as long as we have wide ranges on variables which are feedbacks, and which are admittedly poorly understood, we should not be so very certain that the science is settled.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
So using the IPCC's own method, and more recent science for the water cycle, there would appear to be no net positive feedbacks, but net negative feedbacks. There do not appear to be any negative effects caused by man on the climate.

The point I am making is as follows. NOT that my analysis is correct, it could easily be in error. But that as long as we have wide ranges on variables which are feedbacks, and which are admittedly poorly understood, we should not be so very certain that the science is settled.
Click to expand...

Certainly it is an evolving science. Much of the problem, at least until recently, is that the AGW "science" assumed a predominating positive-feedback (feed forward) relationship without fully considering negative-feedback (homeostatic) mechanisms.

-Dr. Imago
 
bobdroege7 said:
Do you remember what McIntyre said about this paper?
What are the chances it will ever be published in a peer reviewed journal?

The answers are "it isn't" and not a chance.
Click to expand...


I do not think this paper is written in a fashion that would cause it to easily fit in a peer reviewed journal; nonetheless, I've encouraged people to read it. I particularly like the way Gerlich debunks 19 variations of the "greenhouse theory" one after the other. These are typically inaccurate, pop science degenerate versions of the "greenhouse effect", including the one used by Gore in his documentary.
 
Dr. Imago said:
Certainly it is an evolving science. Much of the problem, at least until recently, is that the AGW "science" assumed a predominating positive-feedback (feed forward) relationship without fully considering negative-feedback (homeostatic) mechanisms.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you think the science is so bad that it merits a scare quote, implying that it's not real science.

Is the "science" lacking so badly because the scientists are complete idiots? So idiotic that an anonymous lay person on the internets, such as yourself, can clearly spot (though not provide examples of) the widespread idiocy?

Or is there is a conspiracy afoot, as your prior posts infer?
 
bobdroege7 said:
Uhm, no it wouldn't

says the astronomer's son.

you are saying that Venus at 1 atm would be colder than Pluto.

Hey at 1 atm, and 8K, the atmosphere would be 100% Helium, and Venus isn't big enough to hold 1 atm of Helium.

You got that right, now guys fess up to your lapses in critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Imagine sarcasm tags around my post for better understanding of my thoughts about Slimethings "calculation."

Or to make it unambiguous...I am saying that his calculation is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
I do not think this paper is written in a fashion that would cause it to easily fit in a peer reviewed journal; nonetheless, I've encouraged people to read it. I particularly like the way Gerlich debunks 19 variations of the "greenhouse theory" one after the other. These are typically inaccurate, pop science degenerate versions of the "greenhouse effect", including the one used by Gore in his documentary.
Click to expand...

All of which has no bearing on whether the greenhouse effect is real or not.

This might help a little.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom