18 Years of Hysterical Hype, Where Are We
I M @ good guy
If the below was written in 1992, just how crazy and
stupid things are now.
RayLopez99
You note that Lindzen back then, like now, does not deny AGW exists
but says that negative feedback will mitigate it. His "Cloud Iris"
hypothesis was never proven. Still, he's a useful voice in the
wilderness.
RL
It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of
carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this
is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2
degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would
present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to
some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect
operates. More important, the climate is a complex system where it is
impossible for all other internal factors to remain constant. In
present models those other factors amplify the effects of increasing
carbon dioxide and lead to predictions of warming in the neighborhood
of four to five degrees centigrade. Internal processes within the
climate system that change in response to warming in such a manner as
to amplify the response are known as positive feedbacks. Internal
processes that diminish the response are known as negative feedbacks.
The most important positive feedback in current models is due to water
vapor. In all current models upper tropospheric (five to twelve
kilometers) water vapor--the major greenhouse gas--increases as
surface temperatures increase. Without that feedback, no current model
would predict warming in excess of 1.7 degrees centigrade--regardless
of any other factors. Unfortunately, the way current models handle
factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In
many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other
instances there are identifiable errors. Even computational errors
play a major role. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the
known feedback factors to actually be negative. In that case, we would
expect the warming response to carbon dioxide doubling alone to be
diminished.
It is commonly suggested that society should not depend on negative
feedbacks to spare us from a "greenhouse catastrophe.'' What is
omitted from such suggestions is that current models depend heavily on
undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of
warming. The effects of clouds have been receiving the closest
scrutiny. That is not unreasonable. Cloud cover in models is poorly
treated and inaccurately predicted. Yet clouds reflect about seventy-
five watts per square meter. Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide
would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter,
it is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect
the response to carbon dioxide. The situation is complicated by the
fact that clouds at high altitudes can also supplement the greenhouse
effect. Indeed, the effects of clouds in reflecting light and in
enhancing the greenhouse effect are roughly in balance. Their actual
effect on climate depends both on the response of clouds to warming
and on the possible imbalance of their cooling and heating effects.
I M @ good guy
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 8:04 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> If the below was written in 1992, just how crazy and
>> stupid things are now.
>>
>> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
>
>You note that Lindzen back then, like now, does not deny AGW exists
>but says that negative feedback will mitigate it. His "Cloud Iris"
>hypothesis was never proven. Still, he's a useful voice in the
>wilderness.
>
>RL
I notice a lot of the anti-alarmists subscribe to
minor AGW, even in the paper in the above link, Lindzen
concurs with the -18 to + 15 effect of GreenHouse Gases,
which in itself is sheer ignorance of the thermal energy
retaining mass of the N2 and O2 obviously warmed by
convection and O2 and O3 absorption.
So the GreenHouse Effect is NOT 33 degrees,
and since GHGs are what cool the atmosphere and
are the only thing that cools the atmosphere, it
is entirely possible that more GHGs could cool
the atmosphere more.
Just the mass of water vapor could not
moderate temperatures, so the possibility,
or rather, the probability that water vapor
at different levels sends thermal energy
upward one level at a time and finally
to space.
Maybe this is what Lindzen was talking about.
[no new text below]
RayLopez99
>
> I notice a lot of the anti-alarmists subscribe to
> minor AGW, even in the paper in the above link, Lindzen
> concurs with the -18 to + 15 effect of GreenHouse Gases,
> which in itself is sheer ignorance of the thermal energy
> retaining mass of the N2 and O2 obviously warmed by
> convection and O2 and O3 absorption.
You have an uphill battle with that one. Far wiser, like Exxon (who I
have never worked for BTW, but they pay well), to admit that GHGs
cause AGW, but to deny that the effects can be proven to be
catastrophic or even can be measured at this time, without further
research. This is sound science and hard to refute (except for
crackpots like Roger Coppock in this NG).
RL
I M @ good guy
Sorry, I don't agree, maybe it is the right move
for Exxon and any energy company, they need to
move into alternate energy as fast as possible.
I tried to start a small business grass roots
concentrating collector movement in 1973 before
the oil embargo, and after the oil embargo many
large corporations wrote for information, they are
always looking for improved business, new product
and more customers.
But in my case, I always try to use the opposite
or inverse of conventional thought, it is far more
enlightening, anybody can memorize the texts.
Even water vapor LWIR does not travel far,
which is precisely why there is LTE, and there
is a step-wise upward Infra-Red transfer of
energy, without GHGs I don't know of any way
the atmosphere could cool.
Anybody that denies that GHGs do all the
cooling of the atmosphere is ignoring the most
obvious and essential mechanism second only
to life sustaining incoming solar thermal energy
and light for plants.
Man_of_Mind
> [..] Far wiser, like Exxon (who I have never worked for BTW,
> but they pay well), to admit that GHGs cause AGW, but to deny
> that the effects can be proven to be catastrophic or even can
> be measured at this time, without further research. This is
> sound science
Ahh, so you are an industry shill, using republican code-words..
--How am I not surprised..