Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
darkmoonlady

Global Warming Total Fraud

494 posts in this topic

[media=]

[/media]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - basic physics.

Br Cornelius

He mentions a few variables but misses one. A regular round lightbulb in a smaller system would have made a better experiment. Using a parabolic lamp like an automotive headlight puts out a cone of heat and light dependent on its facing as much as the distance away from it. Looks as if I could heat that bottle on the right more if I just angled the lamp to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He mentions a few variables but misses one. A regular round lightbulb in a smaller system would have made a better experiment. Using a parabolic lamp like an automotive headlight puts out a cone of heat and light dependent on its facing as much as the distance away from it. Looks as if I could heat that bottle on the right more if I just angled the lamp to the right.

Its not perfect - but it illustrates the point well enough. Simply measuring the distances could address you point.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not perfect - but it illustrates the point well enough. Simply measuring the distances could address you point.

The angle must be controlled. Though I'm sure he used a strong lamp like that to be able to get timely results in an hour or less in the open air rather than to pull a stunt and mislead everyone. While it's a valid experiment I can't be sure it was administered accurately. If results are replicable/typical then it's not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ward finally gets to the science part and in his opening statement, he calls Carter as giving misleading statements. With Gore’s alarmist and melodramatic presentation on that cherry-picker (appropriate symbolism?) in “An Inconvenient Truth”, don’t talk about misleading statements of the available scientific evidence. I don’t think Ward or any AGW proponent has the right to claim the other side is making misleading statements.

Gore is not a climate scientist and he doesn't speak for climate scientists. He has done a fair job of popularizing the concerns of climate scientists. Your fixation on Gore speaks volumes for what motivates your skeptism - and it isn't the science. Fixating on your boggy man will not divert attention away from the scientific failure of Carter.

Ward continues and points out that the period between 2000 and 2009 was the warmest decade since 1850. There are several things that must be noted here. Prior to 1850, the only record of things like temp. and CO2 levels come from proxies. That’s stuff like ice cores and tree rings. But also, the number of worldwide recording units has increased greatly since 1850 as well (i.e. recording stations are not static). So as a new science, we really only have a short period of world accuracy, definitely not enough to make any real predictions such as AGW proponents are. The other thing is that we are in a warming trend coming out of the Mini Ice Age. So of course, any prediction of temp using the existing chart is going to go up. That’s all we know in recent memory. There is nothing to change that except the proxy record going back into time. Plus, if you are at the (local) peak of a graph which we appear to be at, most of the points around that peak *ARE* going to be the warmest on record. The chart in Ward’s fig. 1 shows that peak. Of course at this point, there is no telling which way it is going to go.

The actual temperature record is only one part of a picture of evidence which supports the statement that the climate is warming. Examples of evidence which demonstrates that climate is changing are;

-shifts in ecozones - that is habitat ranges are shifting and these are readily descernable from soil profiles.

A study showing changes in fire in boreal North America in response to climate change

http://www.uoguelph....ur GRL 2006.pdf

Another study showing shifts in community composition in the arctic in response to climate change;

"We live in a constantly changing environment, yet tracking ecological change is often very difficult. Long-term monitoring data are frequently lacking and are especially sparse from Arctic ecosystems, where logistical difficulties limit most monitoring programs. Fortunately, lake and pond sediments contain important archives of past limnological communities that can be used to reconstruct environmental change. Here, we summarize some of the paleolimnological studies that have documented recent climate warming in Arctic lakes and ponds. Several hypotheses have been evaluated to determine if warming, resulting in changes in ice cover and related variables (eg increased habitat availability), was the factor most strongly influencing recent diatom and other biotic changes. Striking and often unprecedented community changes were evident in post-1850 sediments, and could be linked to ecological shifts consistent with warming. Because future temperature increases are predicted to be greatly amplified in polar regions, the ecological integrity of these sensitive ecosystems will be further imperiled."

Read More: http://www.esajourna.../10.1890/060162

The list of papers on this subject is large so i wont go on.

-Stratospheric fingerprint of climate change. The theory of climate change predicts that less heat will escape to space and more heat will be trapped in the troposphere. This will be detected as a tropsopheric hotspot and a stratospheric cooling. This is detected and no external forcing such as solar activity can account for it - only an increase in heat trapping gases can account for it;

" As discussed above, greenhouse gas emissions are very effective at trapping the outgoing IR radiation. As these greenhouse gases increase, more heat will be trapped in the troposphere which means there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere above. Furthermore, the greenhouse gases in the stratosphere will still be very effective at emitting their heat into the regions above. The net effect is that the stratosphere will be emitting more heat upward than it receives from below resulting in a cooler stratosphere."

A full and detailed explanation for why the stratopher is cooling under a climate change regime is given at;

http://www2.sunysuff...spheric_cooling

- Climate change predicts that warming will be greatest at night since less heat will be able to escape to space when there is no net solar input. this is exactly what is detected and is not accountable by anything other than changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

"Observed DTR (diurial temperature range) over land shows a large negative trend of ~0.4°C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (~0.9°C) than maximum temperatures (~0.6°C) over the same period. Analysis of trends in DTR over the last century from five coupled climate models shows that simulated trends in DTR due to anthropogenic forcing are much smaller than observed. This difference is attributable to larger than observed changes in maximum temperatures in four of the five models analysed here, a result consistent with previous modelling studies."

http://www.agu.org/p...4GL019998.shtml

-Climate change theory predicts a steady increase in infrared radiation arriving at the surface of the planet as more is reflected back by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and thats exactly what is observed.

"[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm−2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm−2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect."

http://onlinelibrary...018765/abstract

Again, there is no evidence that the sun has changed its radiative profile in such a way as to account for this observed change in surface IR radiation.

Current charts showing 2009 to 2013 are showing a trend downward. But if you follow Gore’s prediction, it should be around 0.8° by now.

Firstly Gore is not a scientists so he has made no prediction of any relevance to the discussion.

Trying to divine a long term trend from 4 years of data is a fools game and not what climate science is about. the minimum period for a climate prediction is a period of 30 years. All trends have to be tested for statistical significance and that is why 30 years is considered the minimum time period required to test a significant trend.

In conclusion (to this segment), climate change is not based purely on the evidence of the surface temperature record and proxies. Climate change theory makes a series of predictions about physical changes in the energy balance of the atmosphere which can and have been tested empirically and shown to support the basic temperature trend evidence. It is a red herring to say that we cannot make accurate statements about the climate since the climate is reflected in its effects on numerous natural systems which respond to temperature and precipitation signals and which can be detected in the changes in ecological communities (hence the Arctic study which shows significant shifts in diatome communicates in response to temperature change). Each piece of evidence supports the overall theory of climate change and when taken in combination make a very compelling case since they account for observed changes in a way which is impossible without invoking multiple other unproven disparate theories.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this before I move onto the other aspects of your comments. If you disagree with what i have presented - in what way do you think it fails to support the physical model of the climate change predictions which have been made so far.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gore is not a climate scientist

You’ve noticed that?? But he is the poster boy for AGW. His predictions are the driving force.

and he doesn't speak for climate scientists.

I beg your pardon? He’s the one leading the Socialist agenda, *USING* climate scientists. And all they can do is bend over and say “thank you sir, may I have another!?”

He has done a fair job of popularizing the concerns of climate scientists.

He’s done a good job of fear mongering. He’s done a great disservice. Instead of accepting that climate change happens and that we need to adapt to it, it has become a mission to self-flagellate bad, evil Man for his deeds of polluting the Earth. We must understand that Man is on a normal path of development. If we had the science and the history to know what happened on other planets at our level of existence in this universe, we’d be very average and on the threshold to advance to the next stage. Stop watching the Hollywood Post Apocalyptic Earth stories.

Your fixation on Gore speaks volumes for what motivates your skeptism - and it isn't the science.

My fixation is on how stupid intelligent people can be. That is one of my pet peeves. There is nothing wrong with the science. It’s the interpretation that the scientific community has been coerced to believe in.

Fixating on your boggy man will not divert attention away from the scientific failure of Carter.

That’s sort of backwards. Carter doesn’t fail. He presents the obvious and the failure is in recognizing the obvious. That is the scientific community being arrogant just like those of times past that thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. And they wouldn’t even try to accept the facts. The fact that you haven’t appeared to address Carter’s points is proof of that.

The actual temperature record is only one part of a picture of evidence which supports the statement that the climate is warming.

That’s right but Carter uses the temperature record to shoot down AGW. That’s all he needed to do. He didn’t need to pull from any other discipline. Of which you don’t respond to. So, I’ll ask you directly. Do you agree that there was a period known as the Little Ice Age? And that about 1850, temperatures have been getting warmer since then? Do you also agree that the point at and around a graphed peak are the highest points (at least locally)? That is what you were asked to respond to. Not throwing in other things to distract.

Examples of evidence which demonstrates that climate is changing are;

No one is denying that the climate is changing. The question is, is Man creating it or is he merely affecting it? The difference between the two is vast.

-shifts in ecozones - that is habitat ranges are shifting and these are readily descernable from soil profiles.

The fact that urbanization creates its own local ecosystem doesn’t mean that that is the cause of climate change. Urbanization is the cart before the horse.

Again, there is no evidence that the sun has changed its radiative profile in such a way as to account for this observed change in surface IR radiation.

There’s been more sunspot activity of late. More CMEs. But the radiative profile is but one element. They are still debating if the Maunder Minimum had anything to do with the Little Ice Age.

Firstly Gore is not a scientists so he has made no prediction of any relevance to the discussion.

Really? It’s been his prediction that has pushed AGW on the American People. That he’s not a scientist doesn’t seem to change things much. It’s like someone in a theater yelling “Fire!”

Trying to divine a long term trend from 4 years of data is a fools game and not what climate science is about. the minimum period for a climate prediction is a period of 30 years. All trends have to be tested for statistical significance and that is why 30 years is considered the minimum time period required to test a significant trend.

I think he uses something closer to 30 years. And 30 is not enough. That is what Carter points out.

In conclusion (to this segment), climate change is not based purely on the evidence of the surface temperature record and proxies. Climate change theory makes a series of predictions about physical changes in the energy balance of the atmosphere which can and have been tested empirically and shown to support the basic temperature trend evidence. It is a red herring to say that we cannot make accurate statements about the climate since the climate is reflected in its effects on numerous natural systems which respond to temperature and precipitation signals and which can be detected in the changes in ecological communities (hence the Arctic study which shows significant shifts in diatome communicates in response to temperature change). Each piece of evidence supports the overall theory of climate change and when taken in combination make a very compelling case since they account for observed changes in a way which is impossible without invoking multiple other unproven disparate theories.

This is a very interesting conclusion coming from someone who just a few posts ago was trying to state that natural cycles didn’t affect climate change.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this before I move onto the other aspects of your comments. If you disagree with what i have presented - in what way do you think it fails to support the physical model of the climate change predictions which have been made so far.

This is perhaps the crux of the matter. Let me say that the ice caps are going to melt, PERIOD! There is nothing we can do to stop that. The question is, is it going to take 400 years for that to happen, or just 100 years? Man is not causing the underlying processes, but he obviously does affect the process. Carter with just his points on temperature, disproves AGW. This does not mean that climate change is not real (note: no Anthropomorphic). But instead of trying to stop something we can’t, let’s save the time and energy and learn how to adapt to Mother Nature and not try to fight her. We can always be better custodians. That does not require government to impose unnecessary laws. The most cost effective means to clean up our environment would be to unleash the full power of the Capitalist Free Market. Let the demands and desires of the consumer drive the market. That will reduce our carbon foot print in the most efficient manner. As I said before, we are just a few generations from becoming a Type I Civilization. When that happens, our carbon footprint will reduce. At this point, no one knows if it will continue to warm or cool. Gaia has been warming and cooling for a very long time. She is set in her ways. If Man is causing much more CO2 to be put into the atmosphere then like a spinning bike wheel, the centrifugal force prevents quick changes; cycles too don’t like quick changes and will try to reach equilibrium. Average temperature will prevail as it always has done. And in a couple of hundred years, we will understand that Man over reacted like he always does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^idk why you even bother.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ravenhawk, since you are not willing to engage with any of the science I have raised, preferring to concentrate on your market theories and political rants - i am going to have to bow out of engaging with you.

I leave with one direct question, Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is man emitting more CO2 than is been absorbed by the ecosystem ?

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only difference between the two bottles was the addition of more CO2 to the one which retained more heat

the pressures would be different. the bottle with the fizzing tablets would be under a higher pressure.

I noticed the uri geller wanabee in the video instructed his audience to "seal tight" with a rubber bung.

did he forget what happens to the temperature of a gas when the pressure increases?

why no co2 measurements? the one bottle has ~0.04% co2, the other is probably nearer 90%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free market capitalism requires increasing production and consumption of goods in order to ensure more profits, and financial speculation requires even more production and consumption.

Thus, the same "solution" to this predicament is also what caused it, and not just AGW but also environmental damage.

Ironically, this is where the "poster boy" comes in: use energy-saving bulbs, and our problems are solved. Skeptics and deniers will agree with him, as the primary motive is "business as usual."

The catch? Not just a financial crisis that involves large amounts of debt but peak oil.

These three predicaments will make any denialism or skepticism futile.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free market capitalism requires increasing production and consumption of goods in order to ensure more profits, and financial speculation requires even more production and consumption.

Perhaps you might link to a resource that says capitalism is going to collapse? Even if there was a collapse, within a short time capitalism wouldn't it reassert, as those who had things would seek to get the most for them? So, even in a system of shrinkage, capitalism would still be vigorous.

Increasing growth and consumption are Promoted by Capitalism, but Capitalism does not require growth.

Growth is not only the products being produced but Services also. And the appearance of growth can be created by simply raising the prices of those products and services. It is not as simple and straightforward as you are trying to portray.

I did find this also....

http://www.theatlant...italism/273367/

David Graeber, the anthropologist sometimes described as the "anti-leader" of Occupy Wall Street, wrote in August 2011, "There is very good reason to believe that, in a generation or so, capitalism itself will no longer exist -- most obviously, as ecologists keep reminding us, because it's impossible to maintain an engine of perpetual growth forever on a finite planet."

This is a common refrain. When we bump up against our planet's resource limits, the story goes, capitalism goes bye-bye. But is it true? Maybe, but I have my doubts.

First off, it's just false that growth requires infinite resources. Economic growth comes in two flavors: (1) "extensive," where we use more inputs; (2) "intensive," where we use inputs in a more clever way to do more interesting stuff. The former must eventually hit a wall. The limits of the latter are completely unknown. Deride the "information economy" all you want, but it makes people happy and it sucks up a lot less energy than what came before it.

Alright, you might say, but doesn't our financial system require perpetual growth in order to operate? Isn't debt based on the belief that people will be richer in the future? Don't stocks make their returns from capital gains, which require economic growth?

Well...again, not really. Debt pays interest in part because of the "time value of money" - "consumption now" matters more to us than "consumption in the future. That is as it should be, because tomorrow we might get run over by a truck. Also, debt is a way for young people to "smooth their consumption" over their lifetimes - borrowing when young (e.g. to buy a house or get an education), and then saving during the middle of their lives. These forces aren't going to go away if growth stops. There was plenty of borrowing and lending in the zero-growth periods of the Ming Dynasty, and the Ottoman Empire, and any other long period of economic stagnation.

As for stocks, it's true that they've paid mostly by capital gains in the last few decades. But in a stagnant world, stocks would still make returns for their owners through dividends.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the pressures would be different. the bottle with the fizzing tablets would be under a higher pressure.

I noticed the uri geller wanabee in the video instructed his audience to "seal tight" with a rubber bung.

did he forget what happens to the temperature of a gas when the pressure increases?

why no co2 measurements? the one bottle has ~0.04% co2, the other is probably nearer 90%.

So CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas ??

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas ??

Br Cornelius

I think he was just criticizing the experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was just criticizing the experiment.

You don't know Little Fish like I do. The experiment is flawed but illustrative.

This video uses a more precise methodology to demonstrate the absorbtion effects of CO2;

[media=]

[/media]

Fundamentally this whole debate boils down to denial of the greenhouse properties of CO2. If you accept it is a greenhouse gas, then it is impossible that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will not effect the radiative balance of the planet, which is what Global Warming is all about.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fundamentally this whole debate boils down to denial of the greenhouse properties of CO2.

no, fundamentally this whole debate boils down to climate sensitivity and feedbacks. without a positive feedback co2 is nothing to worry about. science is pointing to feedback actually being negative. we've been over this.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

"If you accept it is a greenhouse gas, then it is impossible that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will not effect the radiative balance of the planet, which is what Global Warming is all about."

dropping a lit cigarette off a fishing boat will warm the pacific, but that's not a good argument for banning smoking on boats.

speak to my second point about quantities. the experiment floods the bottles with near 100% co2, a situation which is never going to happen, but the video sophist gets across the alarmist meme of "6-10 degrees".

here is a thought experiment, water vapour is by far the main GHG dwarfing co2, a desert has very little water vapour which makes it hot in the day and very cold at night. add a GHG and days become cooler and nights become warmer which suggests that GHGs reduce temperature extremes. similarly with the moon, with no atmosphere the difference between it's high and low temperature is enormous compared to the earth which also suggests GHGs reduce extremes. similarly with extreme weather systems, they are fuelled by temperature differentials, not absolute temperatures which suggests more GHGs will reduce destructive weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish, that argument attributes all warming over the last 150yrs to factors other than CO2 since it assumes that the effects of CO2 are overdamped - ie CO2 causes cooling. This requires another cause of current warming which is absent from the explanation.

It doesn't actually explain the data in any meaningful way and it certainl;y doesn't explain the other fingerprints of CO2 caused by AGW. You may have been convinced by this hocum but I is not.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

so this experiment shows that adding co2 reduces the warmth we receive at the ground(camera) from the sun(candle)?

which would be empirical evidence that supports my thought experiment in my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so this experiment shows that adding co2 reduces the warmth we receive at the ground(camera) from the sun(candle)?

which would be empirical evidence that supports my thought experiment in my previous post.

You fundamentally misunderstand what AGW tells us. Most light coming from the sun is in the visible to UV range, most going out is in the IR range. That means CO2 is much more effective at holding the outgoing radiation than the incoming. This creates a longer residence time for the radiation within the system and hence more overall trapped heat.

Its basic stuff this.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish, that argument attributes all warming over the last 150yrs to factors other than CO2 since it assumes that the effects of CO2 are overdamped - ie CO2 causes cooling. This requires another cause of current warming which is absent from the explanation.

you do not understand the meaning of "dampen" or "negative feedback". a negative feedback or dampen is still a warming, it just means that for every 100 beans you add, someone takes away 50 beans. a positive feedback means for every 100 beans you add someone adds 300 beans. both give you more beans (warming) not less (cooling). but you need that "someone" to add those 300 beans for your argument to have merit, and science is more and more showing that that "someone" is taking away beans.

this is not the first time you have shown your misunderstanding of feedback. study the pdf link instead of posting from the hip.

"It doesn't actually explain the data in any meaningful way and it certainl;y doesn't explain the other fingerprints of CO2 caused by AGW. You may have been convinced by this hocum but I is not."

nonsense. there has been no statistically significant global warming for nearly 2 decades now on most of the major indices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You fundamentally misunderstand what AGW tells us. Most light coming from the sun is in the visible to UV range, most going out is in the IR range. That means CO2 is much more effective at holding the outgoing radiation than the incoming. This creates a longer residence time for the radiation within the system and hence more overall trapped heat.

Its basic stuff this.

Br Cornelius

these are adjectives not numbers.

what about the net quantity? and why does it matter?

a cigarette dropped in the ocean will put more heat into the ocean, does that matter to you too?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you do not understand the meaning of "dampen" or "negative feedback". a negative feedback or dampen is still a warming, it just means that for every 100 beans you add, someone takes away 50 beans. a positive feedback means for every 100 beans you add someone adds 300 beans. both give you more beans (warming) not less (cooling). but you need that "someone" to add those 300 beans for your argument to have merit, and science is more and more showing that that "someone" is taking away beans.

this is not the first time you have shown your misunderstanding of feedback. study the pdf link instead of posting from the hip.

"It doesn't actually explain the data in any meaningful way and it certainl;y doesn't explain the other fingerprints of CO2 caused by AGW. You may have been convinced by this hocum but I is not."

nonsense. there has been no statistically significant global warming for nearly 2 decades now on most of the major indices.

Wrong, their figure is used as a multiplier, multiply 1x0.5 and the effect is less than unity ie cooling.

We did the failure of yourself to understand the last two decades a long time ago - so lets not reopen that can of worms.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so this experiment shows that adding co2 reduces the warmth we receive at the ground(camera) from the sun(candle)?

which would be empirical evidence that supports my thought experiment in my previous post.

No, you just ignored my last post explaining your error. A small amount of incoming IR is indeed reflected out, but a far bigger amount is emitted by the black body radiator which is the earth and is trapped by the IR absorber CO2 in the atmosphere. This creates a longer residence time of energy in the atmosphere with a significant net increase when weighed against the lost incoming IR. The profile of incoming and outgoing radiation is completely different because they are sourced from different black body radiation sources with different radiation profiles. the amount of incoming vs outgoing radiation must ultimately balance out - but there is a net imbalance at the moment as the planetary system adjusts to a new equilibrium temperature - so every second of every day - more energy is trapped within the overall system. Different wavelengths of light interact completely differently to different atmospheric gases. the overall effect is that the planet is a huge transformer which takes visible and UV light and transforms it into IR (no part of the planet emits visible light apart from volcanoes) where as the sun emits large amounts of its energy in the form of visible light. The amount of IR light energy going out equals the amount of Visible+UV+IR energy coming in, but they behave very differently in the atmosphere.

blackbody_curve-sun-earth.jpg

Again I repeat this fundamental and very basic stuff and if you fail to grasp it - it is not a surprise that you fail to understand the more complex concepts of climate change. As has been demonstrated many times before - if you fail to grasp the basics no meaningful discourse can happen.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, their figure is used as a multiplier, multiply 1x0.5 and the effect is less than unity ie cooling.

ffs,

33+ 1x0.5 = 33.5

33+ 1x3 = 36.0

both 33.5 and 36.0 are warmer than 33.0

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ffs,

33+ 1x0.5 = 33.5

33+ 1x3 = 36.0

both 33.5 and 36.0 are warmer than 33.0

it doesn't account for the observed warming. The effect they are describing is a multiplier of CO2 warming been multiplied by a less than unit feedback - there is no additive term. The claimed overall negative feedback has never been demonstrated in any credible scientific study - its simply pulled out of thin air and the fring theories of Richard Lindzen who has singularly failed to support his Iris theory of negative feedback.

They cherry pick the data post 1998 (dodgy) to make the case that climate scientists have been wrong in their predictions - when in fact their predictions can only be assessed over at least 30years and preferably over the full term of 150years. Judged in that light their critique is wrong and doesn't reflect the reality of either the predictions or the actual climate system.

This is grossly dishonest misrepresentation of both the basic theory, the evidence and the method of climate science

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't account for the observed warming. The effect they are describing is a multiplier of CO2 warming been multiplied by a less than unit feedback - there is no additive term. The claimed overall negative feedback has never been demonstrated in any credible scientific study - its simply pulled out of thin air and the fring theories of Richard Lindzen who has singularly failed to support his Iris theory of negative feedback.

They cherry pick the data post 1998 (dodgy) to make the case that climate scientists have been wrong in their predictions - when in fact their predictions can only be assessed over at least 30years and preferably over the full term of 150years. Judged in that light their critique is wrong and doesn't reflect the reality of either the predictions or the actual climate system.

This is grossly dishonest misrepresentation of both the basic theory, the evidence and the method of climate science

Br Cornelius

so you agree then, that the argument comes down to the size of the feedback and whether it is negative (<1) or largely positive (>3).

do you accept that a feedback of 1 (ie, no feedback) is not enough to support the Catastrophic GW hypothesis?

and contrary to what you said above, more and more studies are concluding that sensitivity is much less than the 3 that you need to justify your flagellation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.