Where do you stand on the GW/AGW issue?

[Hindmost]

With all due respect, can we please stop talking about "models" and the "predictions" and "projections" for a moment. I'm already very well familiar with those aspects of this debate.

I just want to see if anyone knows whether or not it has been specifically studied, in a controlled setting, what CO2 actually does at the concentrations described. I'm not concerned whether or not it is representative of what will happen on a global scale. I'm not concerned with the speculations about increasing amounts of CO2 efflux over the ensuing decades, for the moment. I'm concerned about what the physical properties, if you will, of one gas in a mixed, controlled microenvironment that controls for all other variables. I just want to know if these experiments have been done and what the results are.

It seems the bulk of the "pro-warming" argument rests on CO2 as a major "forcer" of climate change. Should we not understand precisely what this molecule does at the concentrations described? I'm sure that someone has done this experiment, and likely published it. I just don't know where. And, an exhaustive search of the Internet via Google has thus far turned up some interesting things, but not what I'm looking for.

In the meantime, here's the link to instructions on how to conduct the highschool experiment (at least one of them):

http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

-Dr. Imago

That was the purpose of my first link...it showed the wavelengths absorbed etc. If you want more detail, you can just look at the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and scatters...this link gives a description about the absorption of infrared radiation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is impossible to discuss AGW from the standpoint of CO2 alone if you ask me...feedback loops are just too important. It kind of like a waterbed...can't push on the thing without something being affected.

glenn

 

[BobK]

Dr. Imago,

You may be interested in this article.

On page 32 they give a description of an interesting experiment by a fellow by the name of Wood back in 1909.

It seems an truly controlled setting would be quite difficult to achieve without suppression of convection.

 

[mhaze]

Again, does anyone know if the "proof of principle" experiments have been done, specifically at the concentrations we are talking about?

There are highschool-level experiments out there that are designed to test this. They are aimed at teaching highschool students about the effects of CO2 on global warming precisely how I've described, but they use far higher concentrations of CO2 than exist (or will ever exist) in the atmosphere.

We are talking about nearly negligible levels of change year-to-year in overall concentration of CO2, and I'd like to see if such experiments have been done at the concentrations described. I think an adequate climatologic model can be conducted in the laboratory that would prove the principle of CO2 heat re-radiation and it's actual effect on the surrounding "atmosphere" within the contained, controlled setting.

To me, this seems paramount. Right now all we have is observation and correlation, with subsequent forecasting based on the belief that those observations and correlations are causative. I'm just asking if there has ever been a proof of concept study done.

It also seems to me that we should be able to pretty accurately predict, from the actual known physical properties of CO2 ability to absorb photon energy, reach a higher energy state, then re-radiate that energy at infrared wavelengths as it returns to the ground state, what the magnitude of effect would be on an individual molecular basis. This could then be further extrapolated based on amount of energy put into the system times the total number of molecules exactly how much energy would be directly re-radiated, in the form of heat, from a group of CO2 molecules. This prediction could then be tested in the laboratory as I've described above.

This seems rather simple to me. All it requires is doing some calculations, based on the number of photon strikes a CO2 molecule would encounter during different days with different amounts and periods of sunlight. These experiments and calculations may have been done. Someone here (there are a lot of very intelligent and well-informed people participating on this forum) may know where they are or if they exist. I'm hoping that someone will share this info, if it exists. The current literature, and it's a lot, never seems to describe this in a physical chemistry sense. If it is out there, I'd just like to read it.

Thanks!

-Dr. Imago

Steve McIntyre is looking for an answer to a very similar question.

I always ask critics to provide an exposition of how doubled CO2 leads to 2.5 deg K; nobody seems to be able to answer: Ramanathan’s papers from the 1970s are where I’d start and I’ve been unable to locate any better expositions.
​

[SIZE=-1]Ramanathan et al 1979


[/SIZE]

 

[mhaze]

That was the purpose of my first link...it showed the wavelengths absorbed etc. If you want more detail, you can just look at the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and scatters...this link gives a description about the absorption of infrared radiation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is impossible to discuss AGW from the standpoint of CO2 alone if you ask me...feedback loops are just too important. It kind of like a waterbed...can't push on the thing without something being affected.

glenn

But what if the temperature rise in the last century could be adequately explained by natural causes?

Would there then be any reason to such to consider CO2 as the only, or as a major cause?

 

[Dr. Imago]

That was the purpose of my first link...it showed the wavelengths absorbed etc. If you want more detail, you can just look at the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and scatters...this link gives a description about the absorption of infrared radiation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is impossible to discuss AGW from the standpoint of CO2 alone if you ask me...feedback loops are just too important. It kind of like a waterbed...can't push on the thing without something being affected.

glenn

Hey, thanks, Glenn. Sorry I missed this the first time. I remember looking at something similar to that article (I remember a couple of references) sometime back, but it has been updated since. I think the physical chemistry parts explaining the absorption spectrum for the various compounds are good, but words such as "assume", "estimate", and "generally accepted" appear a few too many times in the article for my liking. Overall, it's a good discussion and opinion, and is pretty well-balanced.

Thanks for sharing. But, still not exactly what I'm looking for.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

Dr. Imago,

You may be interested in this article.

On page 32 they give a description of an interesting experiment by a fellow by the name of Wood back in 1909.

It seems an truly controlled setting would be quite difficult to achieve without suppression of convection.

Well, this is (by its title alone) quite a provocative paper. I'm going to have to read through the whole thing when I have a little more time, but thanks for sharing with me.

I did skip to page 32, though, on your suggestion. And, I think that it raises a compelling issue. The difference, I think, in the experiment I'm suggesting is that you have a direct control, namely a separate vessel with regular atmospheric air that is subjected to the same external warming source. In effect, you are only measuring the differences between the two vessels. This would allow for a direct measurement attributable to the one variable that is different between the two vessels, namely the concentration of CO2.

The experiment is quite simple, and it is already described in the highschool experiment I posted earlier. This is used as "proof of principle" to highschool students about the reality of global warming. But, the problem is that in this experiment they are comparing a 100% concentration of CO2 to regular atmospheric air. This is needless to say not a fair comparison, and can mislead kids into believing there is possibly a greater effect than there is. In effect, it is ultimately teaching bad science. I would propose that they structure such an experiment to show the actual differences suggested by the purported "doubling" of atmospheric CO2 content that is supposed to occur over the next unspecified amount of time. That's the data I'd like to see.

Nonetheless, I will read this entire article you sent, Bob, when I get a little more time (first full weekend I've had off in a while, and last unfortunately until the end of January). Thanks for sharing!

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, this is (by its title alone) quite a provocative paper. I'm going to have to read through the whole thing when I have a little more time, but thanks for sharing with me.

I did skip to page 32, though, on your suggestion. And, I think that it raises a compelling issue. The difference, I think, in the experiment I'm suggesting is that you have a direct control, namely a separate vessel with regular atmospheric air that is subjected to the same external warming source. In effect, you are only measuring the differences between the two vessels. This would allow for a direct measurement attributable to the one variable that is different between the two vessels, namely the concentration of CO2.

The experiment is quite simple, and it is already described in the highschool experiment I posted earlier. This is used as "proof of principle" to highschool students about the reality of global warming. But, the problem is that in this experiment they are comparing a 100% concentration of CO2 to regular atmospheric air. This is needless to say not a fair comparison, and can mislead kids into believing there is possibly a greater effect than there is. In effect, it is ultimately teaching bad science. I would propose that they structure such an experiment to show the actual differences suggested by the purported "doubling" of atmospheric CO2 content that is supposed to occur over the next unspecified amount of time. That's the data I'd like to see.

Nonetheless, I will read this entire article you sent, Bob, when I get a little more time (first full weekend I've had off in a while, and last unfortunately until the end of January). Thanks for sharing!

-Dr. Imago

I can't believe bobk referred you to that paper. It is a travesty of science, and not worthy of the name 'paper', since it spends the first half arguing a point that has never been made, that the 'greenhouse' effect is the same as a real greenhouse. No scientist has ever made that claim, it is purely an analogy made to help the layperson understand what they are talking about, since heat is trapped in the earths atmosphere, just as it is in a greenhouse. The actual mechanisms that trap the heat, however, are quite different.

 

[a_unique_person]

How the enhanced greenhouse effect works, and why it might be a little difficult to simulate it with at simple laboratory experiment.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Weart once again on the greenhouse effect, this time in his useful role as a historian of science. It should give you a good background on actual experiments that that have been done, and the progress of the science behind CO2 and global warming.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

 

[Hindmost]

But what if the temperature rise in the last century could be adequately explained by natural causes?

Would there then be any reason to such to consider CO2 as the only, or as a major cause?

Well, the natural causes thing always gets me. I am aware that some climate models indicate that global warming can be explained with natural causes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

The majority seem to indicate that probability of AGW right now. Of course that could change with increased accuracy of the models--which is what I am waiting for. CO2 can't really be considered as the only factor or even the major factor unless all inputs and there associated feedback is completely known. Domestic cows burping and farting could be a major greenhouse gas source.

Now for the natural part...over the past 150 years or so, the planet's population has greatly increased due to technology...not a big revelation. The energy from millions of oil wells and tons of coal mines has been burned during that time to fuel the technology we enjoy and the population increase...etc. There is nothing "natural" about that energy profile and to completely dismiss all that release of CO2 as having no affect on the global climate is not prudent no matter what any models indicate.

I am curious about how much of the total fossil fuel available has already been burned during the past 150 years--but don't know of any data.

glenn

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
But what if the temperature rise in the last century could be adequately explained by natural causes?

Would there then be any reason to such to consider CO2 as the only, or as a major cause?
​

Well, the natural causes thing always gets me. I am aware that some climate models indicate that global warming can be explained with natural causes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
The majority seem to indicate that probability of AGW right now. Of course that could change with increased accuracy of the models--which is what I am waiting for.

Even if it was well established that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today, and even if one could show approximate 1500 year cycles of global temperatures resulting in periodic hotter periods, that would not conclusively rule out AGW.

So you need actual atmospheric tests to establish scientifically the measure of the effect of CO2. And if that can't be done (as is claimed) then we have a classic case of an "irrefutable hypothesis".

Unless the "CO2 theory" is proven wrong either in importance or in mechanism. A slew of new scientific studies lean in these directions.

 

[mhaze]

I can't believe bobk referred you to that paper. It is a travesty of science, and not worthy of the name 'paper', since it spends the first half arguing a point that has never been made, that the 'greenhouse' effect is the same as a real greenhouse. No scientist has ever made that claim, it is purely an analogy made to help the layperson understand what they are talking about, since heat is trapped in the earths atmosphere, just as it is in a greenhouse. The actual mechanisms that trap the heat, however, are quite different.

Perhaps because Gerlich refutes fourteen different versions of the "greenhouse effect" that are used by ill informed AGW true believers, who themselves can't even get the facts right on this central part of their belief set?

Where was that travesty of science?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The poll stands at 33 agree that we are making the Earth warm and 19 disagree.

So, the Earth is warming.

Isn't that how these polls work?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Well, this is (by its title alone) quite a provocative paper. I'm going to have to read through the whole thing when I have a little more time, but thanks for sharing with me.

I did skip to page 32, though, on your suggestion. And, I think that it raises a compelling issue. The difference, I think, in the experiment I'm suggesting is that you have a direct control, namely a separate vessel with regular atmospheric air that is subjected to the same external warming source. In effect, you are only measuring the differences between the two vessels. This would allow for a direct measurement attributable to the one variable that is different between the two vessels, namely the concentration of CO2.

The experiment is quite simple, and it is already described in the highschool experiment I posted earlier. This is used as "proof of principle" to highschool students about the reality of global warming. But, the problem is that in this experiment they are comparing a 100% concentration of CO2 to regular atmospheric air. This is needless to say not a fair comparison, and can mislead kids into believing there is possibly a greater effect than there is. In effect, it is ultimately teaching bad science. I would propose that they structure such an experiment to show the actual differences suggested by the purported "doubling" of atmospheric CO2 content that is supposed to occur over the next unspecified amount of time. That's the data I'd like to see.

Nonetheless, I will read this entire article you sent, Bob, when I get a little more time (first full weekend I've had off in a while, and last unfortunately until the end of January). Thanks for sharing!

-Dr. Imago

Some more stuff

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK)
“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005,” the abstract of the study read.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, “the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” The study further continued, “Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average.”
In addition, the Chylek led study explained, “Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].”
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.

Explicitly denies AGW. See, if CO2 doesn't drive climate then NO model is correct.
Another problem for predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due to polar ice melt is Antarctica is not cooperating with the man-made catastrophic global warming models. “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models,” reads the February 15, 2007 press release announcing the findings of David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. (See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions LINK)
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.”

Self explanatory. Models says that AGW is HAPPENING right now. Also gave some predictions that failed.


1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed study shows that the recent climate changes have no man made components.

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)
EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. If CO2 plays no role warming earth, then all AGW models will fail predicting global trends, which is the case (see all the other studies who falsify model outcomes and predictions)



4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)
EXPLICITLY DENIES validity of agw models. See, if cloud effects are omitted, then the models would have fails and won't predict anything.


5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed paper finds causes other than man made CO2 emissions.
8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW (read the pdf, they predict a cooling). If there is a cooling in the next years, as those guys predict in this peer rebviewed study, then by definition there is no AGW.

10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK)

There is not even a warming anomaly, so no AGW. See, if there are no 20 century anomalies then all models are wrong (again, that's why I posted so many papers that say that the models haven't passed reality check)


A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. Is consistent with the paper above and not with IPCC.

Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK) & (LINK) A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. See above.

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps because Gerlich refutes fourteen different versions of the "greenhouse effect" that are used by ill informed AGW true believers, who themselves can't even get the facts right on this central part of their belief set?

Where was that travesty of science?

Because it has nothing to do with the science.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Perhaps because Gerlich refutes fourteen different versions of the "greenhouse effect" that are used by ill informed AGW true believers, who themselves can't even get the facts right on this central part of their belief set? Where was that travesty of science?

​

Because it has nothing to do with the science.

Right. Many of the belief patterns of AGW true believers or "Warmers" as we affectionately refer to them are not precisely and accurately based on science, but are based on inaccurate and simplified representations of science. For this reason I appreciate that you recognize and admit that there is a lot of inaccuracy in AGW.

Gerlich, in noting this and clearing up these myths one by one, can of course be claimed to be attacking strawmen. But he has literature references for everyone of them, as I recall, scientific references.....

 

[a_unique_person]

Right. Many of the belief patterns of AGW true believers or "Warmers" as we affectionately refer to them are not precisely and accurately based on science, but are based on inaccurate and simplified representations of science. For this reason I appreciate that you recognize and admit that there is a lot of inaccuracy in AGW.

Gerlich, in noting this and clearing up these myths one by one, can of course be claimed to be attacking strawmen. But he has literature references for everyone of them, as I recall, scientific references.....

How do you argue with stupid. Find me one piece of science that says the 'greenhouse effect' works using the same heat containment mechanism as an actual greenhouse. Then find me popular references to the 'greehouse effect' as a way of explaining a complex scientific idea. You won't anything for question 1, but plenty for question 2.

 

[David Rodale]

How do you argue with stupid. Find me one piece of science that says the 'greenhouse effect' works using the same heat containment mechanism as an actual greenhouse. Then find me popular references to the 'greehouse effect' as a way of explaining a complex scientific idea. You won't anything for question 1, but plenty for question 2.

Oops.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

Called 'greenhouse gases' because they serve to hold heat in like the glass walls of a greenhouse

 

[a_unique_person]

Oops.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

That would be question two. It's called an analogy.

 

[David Rodale]

That would be question two. It's called an analogy.

An analogy?

Are you saying UCAR is teaching junk science, or speaking at a grade school level to make it more understandable? Or are you looking for science talk that says there actually is real glass?
[SIZE=-1]University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)[/SIZE]

Read some more. It appears you should be more careful when taking Schneibster's word for it. However, since you say it is an analogy, then should there be more heat accumulating in the troposphere than at the surface? After all that is what AGW hypothesis claims and UCAR is a principle climate model builder. I'm just asking. Perhaps a glass greenhouse is not the best analogy.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

Called 'greenhouse gases' because they serve to hold heat in like the glass walls of a greenhouse

[SIZE=+1]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html
[/SIZE]

Gases within the atmosphere act like glass, trapping the sun's
heat.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm

Think of the earth as being inside a giant greenhouse. The gases act like a greenhouse’s glass walls -- they keep heat from escaping into space, and the earth stays warm.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

Have you ever seen a greenhouse?

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html

They act like greenhouse glass.

 

[rockoon]

models models models

hogwash hogwash hogwash

garbage in, garbage out.