Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
It seems to me it's a bad comparison between global warming theory, which is a theory of how something will happen, and gravitational theory, which is a theory of why something does happen. One is attempting to explain an observable, measurable phenomena that occurs repeatedly, and can be tested over and over again to prove itself. Global warming theory, not so much.
As I've said over and over again... we have plenty of reasons to conserve and respect the environment so it makes no difference in how I personally will behave, but, scientifically speaking, global environmental predictions seem haphazard at best.
I agree. My point was that incomplete knowledge of something does not completely eliminate its predictability. My posiiton is that just on the basic principles of radiation physics, you'd expect the temperature to go up with an increasing CO2 concentration. There's been some crazy predictions of climate change based on a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees (as opposed to what the straight spectral physics would be--about 1 deg). That would mean a triple-fold increase in the severity of climate change. I agree it could happen but haven't seen evidence of it yet myself.
I'm not here to say that we need carbon taxes or global governance or whatever. I'm here to say that, as a scientist, in my opinion, the science of global warming is a lot more sound thatn people give it credit for. And I could be wrong on that too. I've met other scientists and engineers who disagree. But that's my considered opinion.
Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps | Co2 InsanityPart One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide
In a recent ground breaking paper Professor Nasif Nahle proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to induce the air temperature to cool not a warm.
Physicist, Joe Postma, in this epic debunk further describes the correct application of the laws of thermodynamics to address how the thermal capacity (or conductivity) works with the ‘coolant’ CO2. As Postma tells us,
“Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us. ”
He asks us to think of how this interpretation differs from what the uneducated and pseudo scientists say that is “the greenhouse effect makes the planet warmer than it should be.” But we know that in truth what we actually observe is somewhat entirely different.
In the future, says Joe, people will declare: “The atmosphere keeps the planet from getting too hot in the daytime, and too cold at night-time”.
Just that simple realization alone kills the so-called ‘blanket’ analogy of greenhouse gas theorists stone dead.
Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go
Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.
Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:
“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”
Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.
Postma, a recent addition to the team sums up how much getting those first numbers right matters:
“We all agree that the atmosphere has an “atmosphere effect.” But what is of interest to us is how this effect changes if the properties of the atmosphere changes (a little).”
In this excellent paper geologist, Timothy Casey, gives a calculation for how much temperature variation will be caused by changes in CO2. It tells us:
“If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide.”
What Casey shows is that in reality, a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by a measly one percent and given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000 ppm increase
There is no science of global warming, science is a method, period. You know that of course. As a scientist I object to you assuming that you were not talking to people here aquainted with and using the method also. But I'm not militant about it and unlikely to become distraught and faint out of exasperation.
In a recent ground breaking paper Professor Nasif Nahle proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to induce the air temperature to cool not a warm.
Physicist, Joe Postma, in this epic debunk further describes the correct application of the laws of thermodynamics to address how the thermal capacity (or conductivity) works with the ‘coolant’ CO2. As Postma tells us,
“Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us. ”
He asks us to think of how this interpretation differs from what the uneducated and pseudo scientists say that is “the greenhouse effect makes the planet warmer than it should be.” But we know that in truth what we actually observe is somewhat entirely different.
In the future, says Joe, people will declare: “The atmosphere keeps the planet from getting too hot in the daytime, and too cold at night-time”.
Just that simple realization alone kills the so-called ‘blanket’ analogy of greenhouse gas theorists stone dead.
Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go
Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.
Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:
“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”
Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.
Postma, a recent addition to the team sums up how much getting those first numbers right matters:
“We all agree that the atmosphere has an “atmosphere effect.” But what is of interest to us is how this effect changes if the properties of the atmosphere changes (a little).”
In this excellent paper geologist, Timothy Casey, gives a calculation for how much temperature variation will be caused by changes in CO2. It tells us:
“If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide.”
What Casey shows is that in reality, a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by a measly one percent and given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000 ppm increase
There is no science of global warming, science is a method, period. You know that of course. As a scientist I object to you assuming that you were not talking to people here aquainted with and using the method also. But I'm not militant about it and unlikely to become distraught and faint out of exasperation.
This is a fairly bold claim. The orthodox physics is that all matter with a temperature greater than absoulte zero emits thermal radiation. If I am reading this link correctly, the author claims that this concept is a contravention of the Second Law (wherein heat does not flow spotaneously from a cool body to a hot body). In thermodynamics, the orthodox model is that a cool body and hot body both radiate infrared radiation, so the thermal radiation does indeed flow from a cool body to a hot body, but the Second Law is upheld because the net effect is that heat transfers from the hot body to the cool body.
There's no link to a paper, so I don't know how he does his analysis.
It also works in the overall global system as can be seen with the increase in the concentration of atmospheric, CO2, methane and nitrous oxide at the same time the global average temperature has been increasing, the timing of the seasons changing, the melting of the cryosphere, the increase of the occurrance of extreme weather events, changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the average humidity, warming of the oceans, thermal expansion of the oceans, etc...
It takes a really determined effort to ignore all this, and also a huge budget.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks | Environment | The Guardian
It's facts on one side and pure spin on yours.
How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups | Environment | The Guardian
Donors Capital Fund | DeSmogBlog
So basically you're advocating in support of the short term interests of billionaires against the rest of humanity, way to go.
I'll find it. The key word is "back radiation" I think. That's the controversial aspect of this (or similar) papers, I think. He may have confused the terms "heat" and "thermal energy"--which would result in the conclusions he has drawn. Or, he may be right. Doubtful, but possible.