Global Warming Concensus Broken

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

Thank you, Alex. Your kind of grace is a rare find on the internet.

With that unfortunate contretemps out of the way, I think I owe everyone an explanation about something else I said.

We were all taught in school that Earth is as warm and cozy and life-giving as it is because of its atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, it is often claimed, the Earth would be a cold and lifeless place. Actually, it would be hot on one side and cold on the other, but it would be only vaguely similar to the moon. Hear me out.

The moon presents one face to the sun for something like fourteen days. One side of it gets hot, the other side gets cold. There is nothing on the moon to even out the temperature between the sunlit side and the side in the shadow. If it had a nitrogen atmosphere, it would be only slightly warmer on the dark side and the sunlit side would only be slightly cooler. Why? Because nitrogen is almost completely transparent to sunlight, any convection set up in such a lunar atmosphere would be exceedingly slow.

If we stripped the atmosphere and oceans off the earth and left it exposed to vacuum, it would get hot on the daylight side but, never nearly so hot as it gets on the sunlit side of the moon and it would get cold on the night side, but never so cold as it does on the dark side of the moon. Why? Because the Earth turns on its axis every twenty-four hours. The sunlit side of Earth never receives as much energy as the tidally locked moon and it never gets as much time to cool off as the tidally locked moon.

The idea that the atmosphere is responsible for moderating temperatures on Earth, more specifically the "carbonic acid" in the Earth's atmosphere, originated with a Swedish scientist back in the nineteenth century and I apologize for not being able to recall his name at the moment.

Now, let's confront this notion with something that is well known. Conduction allows heat to move much faster than radiation. And convection is an even better avenue for the flow of heat than direct conduction is. So, how is it that the atmosphere can be wholly responsible for moderating the temperature on our fair planet? By all rights, we should expect "carbonic acid" to help cool the night side of our globe more efficiently than it otherwise would. For that matter, it should be carrying away heat on the day side as well.

It is not the atmosphere that moderates our temperature. It is the oceans that do that job. Of course, we only have oceans this close to the sun because of the atmosphere, but it is not the atmosphere that is responsible for our relatively balmy climate. Without the oceans we would fry in the sun and flash freeze after dark.

Having said that, if the Earth turned on its axis as slowly as Venus does, the Venusian day being somewhat longer than its year, we would be living in a very violent place and ice would likely be hard to find.

Other than keeping the oceans liquid, I don't see how the atmosphere performs as an insulator in any way. From what I can see, it is the water that keeps us warm and keeps us cool.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:The idea that the atmosphere is responsible for moderating temperatures on Earth, more specifically the "carbonic acid" in the Earth's atmosphere, originated with a Swedish scientist back in the nineteenth century
Arrhenius, S., 1896, On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, 41, 237–276.
Ars artis est celare artem.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:Other than keeping the oceans liquid, I don't see how the atmosphere performs as an insulator in any way. From what I can see, it is the water that keeps us warm and keeps us cool.
CO2 in the atmosphere is often found dissolved in water vapour in the form of carbonic acid. CO2 is very good at absorbing heat radiated at long IR wavelengths, but has a low heat capacity. It also conducts heat as well as aluminium, so it is perpetually passing the blocked heat elsewhere.

Water has five times the heat capacity of CO2, so it usually ends up storing the energy. The evaporation of warm sea water, to form clouds which radiate heat back into space, forms a natural refrigeration cycle.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

I made the mistake of watching the news for a little while this morning. FBN was interviewing Darryl Hanna about her attendance of the "Global Warming" protest in DC. FNB guys pointed out that the protest took place during a heavy snow that is being followed by a hard freeze. Hannah allowed as how it was all being caused by Global Warming, making the weather "chaotic".

We are in deep dark do-do because we are allowing the country to be run by intellects like Ms. Hannah's. It is particularly bitter for seeing as how the truth is coming out about six months too late to stop the madness.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... n_Soon.pdf

Take close look at Figure 5.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... n_Soon.pdf

Take close look at Figure 5.
Figures 3 and 5 appear to show global dimming.

A correlation between glacier shortening and coal burning could be argued:
http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/lin ... story.html

For a critique see: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file ... -2007R.pdf
Ars artis est celare artem.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

Here ya go, Alex.
From MacCracken Comment 3: "Scientific papers are supposed to be based on inferences drawn from the historical record, experiments, theoretical analyses based on fundamental physical laws (and this includes modeling), relevant analogues, consistency across different systems (e.g., across different planetary atmospheres), etc. Arguments need to be soundly based, not relying on belief, but on rational and internally consistent explanations."

Agreed, but I would add that the conclusions should always arise from the facts and we should not run about seeking only the facts that support a preconceived conclusion, or worse, obscuring facts that mitigate against a preconceived conclusion or, even worse, telling lies to support preconceived conclusions. The IPCC has sinned even worse by utilizing political and financial pressure against those who disagree with its preconceived and greatly desired conclusions. Our own governors, bankers and energy company executives have either failed to dispute IPCC claims they should have been disputed, or have actually colluded with those claiming that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

As far as I am concerned, this is no different from an assault on my person. These people are encourage my governors to turn a gun on me, accuse me of doing great harm out of negligence and demanding that I pay fines for this alleged negligence. If I sound angry about it, it is because I AM.
From MacCracken Comment 3: "Alternative explanations that are introduced need to be considered across the same breadth of evidence as the mainline explanations (e.g., taking exception to the greenhouse effect needs to be explained in the context of not just the Earth’s atmosphere, but those of Venus and Mars, in results from Earth’s paleo-climatic history, in laboratory experiments, etc.)."

Okay, we'll talk about this later. I have good reasons for believing what I believe and even better reasons for my doubts.
From MacCracken Comment 3:"Because science has been building a solid and interlocked explanation and not a house of cards,..."

Not on the subject of anthropogenic global warming it hasn't. As far as I can see, and I am not alone in this assessment, the entire thing is a kind of extortion scheme and, very importantly, anthropogenic global warming is indeed built on a house of cards!
From MacCracken Comment 3: "...the suggestion that one aspect of the explanation is less certain than indicated does not, even if the criticism is true, cause the whole explanation to collapse."
Which reminds me of Rand's caution about climbing up on the cracker barrel to espouse philosophical ideas. I understand her and MacCracken's concerns, but the IPPC et al have already crawled up on top of the cracker barrel, so that is the arena in which I am obliged to struggle. It is necessary to take the context of venue into account. Clearly, Soon et al are struggling with the same dilemma.
From MacCracken Comment 3:"In general, analyses and findings presented in the Robinson et al. (2007) paper, as in the earlier paper, fail to expose their explanations to the full range of evidence and to come up with an alternative, self-consistent explanation."

It is an eleven page paper inviting discussion and debate, and I am reasonably sure that mister MacCracken will agree that there has been damnably little debate on this subject. What we have had is an unceasing media blitz favoring the intentions of the IPCC et al.

I have spent too much time on this already. More later.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:Our own governors, bankers and energy company executives have either failed to dispute IPCC claims they should have been disputed, or have actually colluded with those claiming that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

As far as I am concerned, this is no different from an assault on my person. These people are encourage my governors to turn a gun on me, accuse me of doing great harm out of negligence and demanding that I pay fines for this alleged negligence. If I sound angry about it, it is because I AM.
That sounds bad. What's going down?
Ars artis est celare artem.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote:
Billy Catringer wrote:Our own governors, bankers and energy company executives have either failed to dispute IPCC claims they should have been disputed, or have actually colluded with those claiming that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

As far as I am concerned, this is no different from an assault on my person. These people are encourage my governors to turn a gun on me, accuse me of doing great harm out of negligence and demanding that I pay fines for this alleged negligence. If I sound angry about it, it is because I AM.
That sounds bad. What's going down?

:roll: Either you are pulling my leg, or you are a psychiatrist.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:
Billy Catringer wrote:Our own governors, bankers and energy company executives have either failed to dispute IPCC claims they should have been disputed, or have actually colluded with those claiming that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

As far as I am concerned, this is no different from an assault on my person. These people are encourage my governors to turn a gun on me, accuse me of doing great harm out of negligence and demanding that I pay fines for this alleged negligence. If I sound angry about it, it is because I AM.
That sounds bad. What's going down?

:roll: Either you are pulling my leg, or you are a psychiatrist.
Neither.

The first paragraph could have been be said by anyone, but the second has the ring of personal experience.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »

alexjrgreen wrote:The first paragraph could have been be said by anyone, but the second has the ring of personal experience.

It IS personal. Have you heard of "cap and trade"?

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Who is the IPCC?

Post by icarus »

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

When unrelenting appeals to authority are used by AGW advocates and that authority has been placed beyond question by hype and politically bestowed prestige, it is time to smell the rat and the whole rat's nest.

Peer-review is simply a collection of researchers who approve of their peers' latest speculations. It is definitely not the same as legal due diligence, there are no direct personal monetary ramifications for errors, yet we somehow have allowed peer-review science to be beyond reproach in making trillion dollar decisions for our economies.

A report that shows more than 40 of the 53 authors of the crucial chapter of the IPCC 4AR had either worked together, co-authored papers together and in all probability acted as peer reviewers for each others' work. Instead of being the product of a set of authors with a wide range of views, as the IPCC mandates, the key chapter comes from a narrow coterie of scientists.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... C_bias.pdf

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Billy Catringer wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:The first paragraph could have been be said by anyone, but the second has the ring of personal experience.

It IS personal. Have you heard of "cap and trade"?
We have it Europe. I didn't think the US scheme was agreed yet:

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-g ... ay-climate

Are you expecting to be hit hard?
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

alexjrgreen wrote:
Billy Catringer wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:The first paragraph could have been be said by anyone, but the second has the ring of personal experience.

It IS personal. Have you heard of "cap and trade"?
We have it Europe. I didn't think the US scheme was agreed yet:

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-g ... ay-climate

Are you expecting to be hit hard?
Yes.

And if we are entering a Dalton/Maunder Minimum the electorate in America is going to be mightily annoyed.

Honest error in science is one thing. However, this is looking more and more like a cooking of the books. A swindle.

And what will happen if the public feels swindled? They will go over every bit of sceptic literature for the last 30 years looking for who and why. They will look at where the parties stood on the issues.

There is already a beginning of voter's remorse on the economy:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... their.html

If cap and trade destroys whole swaths of our energy producing industries for the sake of a little ice age rather than a warming our new "ecology" President is going to discredit environmentalism big time.

Greens claim to think big about the future - 100 years ahead. Truth is they can't think even 5 years ahead when it comes to politics. They have been given the keys to the candy store. If they snarf down on a few pieces - no problem. If they spend hours gorging themselves they are going to be very sick afterwards.
I read an anecdote some where today about a guy who was checking out his purchases at a grocery store and the cashier out of the blue opened up on Obama. Six people in line. Nobody had said anything about politics and the clerk just opened up out of the blue (heh). If Obama has already lost the grocery clerks he and his party are in for a very rough ride over the next four and maybe forty years.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... genda.html

And that is just about the economy. If Obama wrecks the medical system and ruins energy production on top of that he will ruin the Democrat Party in America.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Billy Catringer »


TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Now it turns out water vapor feedback may be negative.

Oops, there goes the whole foundation of global warming theory. Without large positive water vapor feedback, there's no way trace amounts of CO2 can drive climate.

Post Reply