• 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.

Global warming

If you are talking about pages 38-44 I read it as the author isn't dealing with just one definition of the GH effect, but it takes as many as he can find to disprove them one by one. If the definitions are strawmen so are the representations and descriptions of the GH effect from the sources. This paper seems quite radical in their conclusions, and deals with the issue from the side of physics, wich was the request of beachooser.
 
"there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,"
Click to expand...
I don't know if there's supposed to be. Is this just a big strawman, or am I misunderstanding things?
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
If you are talking about pages 38-44 I read it as the author isn't dealing with just one definition of the GH effect, but it takes as many as he can find to disprove them one by one. If the definitions are strawmen so are the representations and descriptions of the GH effect from the sources.
Click to expand...

Correct. But the right phrase is "Callender Effect" not "greenhouse effect".

And some of his thermo arguments could be considerably expanded.

This paper seems quite radical in their conclusions, and deals with the issue from the side of physics, wich was the request of beachooser.
Click to expand...
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I don't know if there's supposed to be. Is this just a big strawman, or am I misunderstanding things?
Click to expand...

In context

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms \greenhouse effect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
Click to expand...

So is a precaution to the reader about the missuse of the term "greenhouse" as it have something to do with....er... a greenhouse.
 
The paper makes interesting claims in those pages:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse eect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
-with or without atmosphere,
-with or without rotation,
-with or without infrared light absorbing gases.

The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identied with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature's fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justication anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.
9. Infrared absorption does not imply \backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly.
The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the denfition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: \If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you
allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly." (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial diferential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental difer from calculations
where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the
predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterfly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
I don't know if there's supposed to be. Is this just a big strawman, or am I misunderstanding things?
Click to expand...

Neither and both. There is confusion, outright error and purposeful intellectual dishonesty in the common use of the term "greenhouse effect". So yes, it is a strawman that can be knocked down; yes, it is used all the time to describe the effect of co2 in the atmosphere, yes, it has another meaning relating to actual greenhouses - yada-yada-yada...

Not sure how much this is worth elaborating on, wikipedia section on greenhouse effect if I recall correctly did go into the various use of the phrases.

By way of trying to clarify the subject, here is the very basic illustration used by the IPCC and many others. To the landmass, 492 W/m2 goes in, goes back out and 452 W/m2 is said to recycle in the green loop. Obviously, there is no "greenhouse piece of glass" here.

I'm not saying I agree with this diagram, mind you, just that this is what Gerlich should be arguing against as the greenhouse effect as that term is being used in climate science. I think he does cover several definitions of "greenhouse effect" one after the other (don't have his paper here just going from memory).



Several obvious problems this picture has include it not segregating the functions of CO2 and H20, it being an aggregate of daytime and nightime conditions, an average of effects over all parts of the globe, and an average over the course of a year.

Gerlich argues with the green loop going in the down direction, since heat can't move from a hotter area to a colder area. (AGW has a bunch of arm waving there)

It would be interesting to build an alternative diagram for the transfers as Gerlich proposes them and put it side by side this one.
 
Gerlich argues with the green loop going in the down direction, since heat can't move from a hotter area to a colder area. (AGW has a bunch of arm waving there)

As usual I'm backwards - change to heat can't move from a colder area to a hotter area (AGW arm waving more agitatedly)
 
BeAChooser said:
How serious can it be if according to NASA over the 20,000 years prior to today, the average loss in ice mass in Antarctica was equivalent to a 0.5 mm increase in the sea level each year ... more than the 0.4 mm increase claimed using the GRACE data? How serious could the loss of ice be if it's going to take 750 years to raise the sea level one foot.

And what about the huge uncertainty in that estimate? There are uncertainties in that estimate because to make it they had to make assumptions. Will you acknowledge those uncertainties?

A second even more recent study that I referenced claims satellite data shows an overall loss of ice so small that it would take 3800 years to raise the sea level even one foot. If true, is that something to get excited about and pass draconian tax legislation crippling our economy RIGHT NOW???

And finally, will you apologize for Al Gore and the global walarmists who had claimed antarctic ice was decreasing even at a time when study after study said the opposite?
Click to expand...

<crickets> :D
 
BeAChooser said:
How serious can it be if according to NASA over the 20,000 years prior to today, the average loss in ice mass in Antarctica was equivalent to a 0.5 mm increase in the sea level each year ... more than the 0.4 mm increase claimed using the GRACE data? How serious could the loss of ice be if it's going to take 750 years to raise the sea level one foot.
Click to expand...

Twenty thousand years ago was the last glacial maximum. Ice-caps kilometres deep over the Pennines, glaciers in the Pyrenees, Argentina and Oregon under ice. The absolute maximum amount of ice between the interglacials. That's your chosen starting point.

Between then and now came the transition to an inter-glacial. That's your chosen end-point.

There's a big difference between a glacial maximum and an inter-glacial, I'm sure you'll agree. Most of the change in ice-mass takes place over a few thousand years, but that's incidental. All in all, a lot of ice melts between a glacial maximum and in inter-glacial, most of it, this time around, over a few thousand years around the tipping-point.

From this you divide by twenty thousand and get an average, everyday sea-level rise for that period. 0.5mm per annum, that's what to expect. It's statistically accurate. Over the last twenty thousand years. Which is comforting.

So a thousand years ago sea-level was half a metre lower than today, and two thousand years ago the Romans would have been building harbours according to a sea-level one metre lower, four thousand years ago the Minoans would have lived with a two metre deficit. If their own experience didn't bear this out, that's probably because they didn't understand statistics.

Do the same thing with the current sea-level rise of about 0.3mm per annum and the results are just as silly. You've smoothed off twenty thousand years, during most of which agriculture hadn't been invented, to compare with the last few decades. AGW is what's happening now, it's a new phaenomenon, it is significant, and there is no refuge in the past.

And what about the huge uncertainty in that estimate? There are uncertainties in that estimate because to make it they had to make assumptions. Will you acknowledge those uncertainties?
Click to expand...

I could reduce my 0.3mm per annum estimate to 0.25 and it would still be significant as an average over recorded history. No such significance is evident.

A second even more recent study that I referenced claims satellite data shows an overall loss of ice so small that it would take 3800 years to raise the sea level even one foot. If true, is that something to get excited about and pass draconian tax legislation crippling our economy RIGHT NOW???
Click to expand...

I'd drop the capitals if I were you, it smacks of alarmism.

And finally, will you apologize for Al Gore and the global walarmists who had claimed antarctic ice was decreasing even at a time when study after study said the opposite?
Click to expand...

Well, we had to finish with Al Gore and the invented word to make you feel "cool" with the "in-group". (Courtesy of robinson, IIRC.)
 
CapelDodger said:
AGW is what's happening now, it's a new phaenomenon, it is significant, and there is no refuge in the past.
Click to expand...

Alternately in my view, there is refuge in the future where there will be no sea level rise because there is no substantial AGW, no heavy positive feedbacks, and no tipping points, and Alarmist views have long since been discredited.

what's your prediction for sea level say 25 and 50 years?
 
mhaze said:
Gerlich argues with the green loop going in the down direction, since heat can't move from a hotter area to a colder area. (AGW has a bunch of arm waving there)

As usual I'm backwards - change to heat can't move from a colder area to a hotter area (AGW arm waving more agitatedly)
Click to expand...

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/vert_temp_all.html

But heat can move from a hotter area to a colder area, check the link, the upper atmosphere is warmer than the lower atmosphere.
 
mhaze said:
Another guy recently told me he did not need any source for the truth but Bible. "Point by point" is also called by another name "Fact by Fact".

But "screw links".

Here is some info for the gathering and analysis phase.

Futurama. A Terrifying Message from Al Gore.

Even the pro-AGW people here are pretty embarrassed by Gore and do not like it when I even mention his name....
Click to expand...

WTF???? I think most people see Gore as irrelevant to the science. He appears to be some kind of fetish object for the Deniers, however.
 
mhaze said:
Another, very good paper.

http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html

Another paper on thermo that is limited in scope.
A lot of math but simple stuff.
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]carbon dioxide is not able to cause the temperature anomalies that have been observed on Earth.[/FONT]
​
[FONT=Georgia, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Which is why for the past 20 years, the science has been about the 'enhanced greenhouse effect", that is, feedback effects, such as change to albedo. Get with the program. I really can't understand why the same old myths are continually recycled when they are completely irrelevant.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
The paper makes interesting claims in those pages:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse eect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
Click to expand...

Good grief, are you serious. It's called that because even though the physics does not work exactly the same way as a greenhouse does, it has a similar effect, that of trapping heat.

Students around the world are taught, (deliberately, I hear), in science classes that atoms can be thought of as coloured balls. Of the outrage, will no one think of the children?

It's called making a model, which is what a lot of science consists of. Since the actual physics is way beyond the capabilities of the average punter, a simplified model is used to explain it to them, that they can understand.
 
a_unique_person said:
:rolleyes:

Which is why for the past 20 years, the science has been about the 'enhanced greenhouse effect", that is, feedback effects, such as change to albedo. Get with the program. I really can't understand why the same old myths are continually recycled when they are completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, with all due respect. the myths are recycled by Pro AGW who want Kyoto and to tax and penalize C02. I don't hear any talk about taxng Albedo. Neither do I hear a word about how we must change our land use or sea labels will rise and Florida will be flooded.

Gore must be some kind of fetish object not for Deniers but for AGW since his "documentary" is shown in science classes in public school here in the US.
 
BeAChooser said:
Well it does look like Peiser has revised his views, although I still see some significance to the fact that just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) *explicitly* endorsed what Oreskes said was the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming at all.
Click to expand...

Maybe Peiser got leaned on.

You had it right.

This settles the issue of whether or not there is or was a consensus.

No consensus.

We can move on from that.

Quoting from the article submitted for publication(Schulte 2007),
Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence.
​
More.
Bringing the analysis of “consensus” up to date
Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”.
Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found.
Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth quoting in full:
“Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”​
 
That would be devastating among the honest warmers.
Other will just say that :

a) More scientists are being paid by Exxon
or
b) You can't trust the study because is being paid by Exxon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom