Scientific Evidence
Martin Hogbin
scientific evidence that global warming is caused by
humans. I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open
mind on the subject and I am willing to be persuaded
either way, but by scientific evidence only.
I am a newbie on this group but an old hand in some
of the sci.physics groups. As in many debates, both
sides exaggerate the evidence that supports their point
of view and the discussion often descends into bitter
argument, personal attack, politics, and conspiracy
theory.
Post telling me 'everybody knows', or 'use Google' etc.
will be ignored. This a forum to disuses climate change,
why not do just that?
--
Martin Hogbin
Phil Hays
> Can some knowledgeable person here summarise the scientific evidence
> that global warming is caused by humans. I have read IPCC 3 and the
> evidence presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open mind
> on the subject and I am willing to be persuaded either way, but by
> scientific evidence only.
I'm not sure what you mean by "IPCC 3". Perhaps this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
The Third Assessment Report or TAR is a review. For the details you need
to read the references. Is there is a specific topic you would like more
information on?
For the history of the issue:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Some links:
MSU, the skeptical version of warming:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Surface record:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Sea ice:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Blog with mostly reasonable commentary:
--
Phil Hays
Roger Coppock
wrote:
> Can some knowledgeable person here summarise the
> scientific evidence that global warming is caused by
> humans.
See below.
I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
> presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open
> mind on the subject and I am willing to be persuaded
> either way, but by scientific evidence only.
I'm sorry, but I can't believe you have an open
mind and have read the IPCC documents. The
evidence in the IPCC WG1 document is overwhelming.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
As with any obvious truth, there are many arguments
that will demonstrate that the current warming is
anthropogenic. Below is mine:
WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
the fastest. Also, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
To show that man is the largest source of the recent warming,
One needs to show two very important things:
1) THAT MAN IS THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE
IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
There are three kinds of greenhouse gases to deal with:
A) The easiest gas to demonstrate anthropogenic origins
for are the organo-halogens. Most of the atmospheric
organo-halogens have no significant natural sources.
Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be
anthropogenic.
B) There are two ways to show that the increase of CO2 in
the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Both of them are very
convincing demonstrations.
Radio isotope analysis of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil
fuel origins. This is known as "The Seuss Effect," after
its discoverer, Dr. Hans Seuss.
Or, if one simply has to have all the trivia, one can
trace inputs and outputs of the Carbon cycle. See:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
C) Perhaps the hardest gas increase to attribute to humans
is Methane, CH4. There are many sources and sinks for
this gas, so its history can be quite a puzzle at first.
Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in
this table from the IPCC:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42
2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.
There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases
heat the planet by trapping outgoing long wave, or
infrared, radiation. Both of them are very convincing.
It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it
in any good college level text on atmospheric chemistry
or atmospheric physics. It is 19th century science,
the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Infrared
spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from
space looking down are very convincing evidence for
this theory. They have the peeks of greenhouse gases.
See:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html
There is another way of demonstrating the action of
greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
the tropics.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
(Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
global warming can work quite this way. See the
Widener URL above, and the textbook here:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/
James
Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
being a major causation of climate change.
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:l9OdncyLTIZ...@bt.com...
Joe Fischer
<goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote:
>Can some knowledgeable person here summarise the
>scientific evidence that global warming is caused by
>humans.
Would you listen to a blithering idiot crackpot? :-)
Actually, it doesn't matter if it is being caused by
humans or not, as long as there is warming, and there
may be, the response should be the same.
But the response should not be con men selling
carbon credits or government taxes on carbon burning,
and no non-reversible actions should be taken, the
scientists may tell us next year there is an ice age coming.
>I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
>presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open
>mind on the subject and I am willing to be persuaded
>either way, but by scientific evidence only.
Didn't those predictions of 24 inches of sea level
rise by 2100 bother you?
There isn't going to be any scientific evidence,
other than the local thermometers.
>I am a newbie on this group but an old hand in some
>of the sci.physics groups. As in many debates, both
>sides exaggerate the evidence that supports their point
>of view and the discussion often descends into bitter
>argument, personal attack, politics, and conspiracy
>theory.
There are about a dozen filthy mouth creeps here,
and it hurts the discussion.
There should be no extra effort made to study climate
change, enough is being done.
And any money that is available should be spent
on a type of awning for reclaiming desert land and reflecting
sunlight back into space at the same wavelengths it came at.
This would help correct several problems, and if
too many are built and they cause global cooling, they
could just be painted a color that provides an albedo
that stabilizes the local or regional temperatures.
All suggestions to date are absurd, taxes, buying
or trading credits would do nothing.
Restrictions on carbon burning is like telling
people with gold and silver they can never sell it.
Liberal ideas that suggest burning carbon
damages other people, and is criminal or liable for
compensatory damages seem more motivated
by a one world utopia agenda than a concern
for people.
The awnings, aluminized on one side and
black on the other could be controlled by a sun
tracker and would reduce albedo in daylight,
and condense water on some nights with the
black side facing up.
And with just a little water, and soil dug
from where the layer of sand in the desert is
not too thick could both reclaim desert land
for farming or habitation, and reduce the albedo
of the Earth.
Note that the insolation number user for
the radiation budget for Earth is 342 watts per
square meter (averaged over 24 hours and
over all angles of the globe at all latitudes),
but an awning reflector within 23 degrees
of the equator would reflect more than 500
watts per square meter.
The present warming surplus radiation
from the sun is only 3 or 4 watts per square
meter, so one square meter of reflective
awning would compensate for at least 100
square meters of the surplus, and with the
black side up at night, would possibly
compensate for another 20 or 30 watts
per square meter.
The suggestions by AlBore are even
worse than the Jimmy Carter suggestion
to wear a sweater, both defeatist, and
interference in personal lives.
Rather than the taxes and money
contributions to undeserving people, real
action to reduce warming, in a reversible
way, will solve any problems of warming,
whether caused by man, or nature.
And the cost will only be that needed
to build the awnings that can be turned by
some means to present a white or aluminized
side toward the sun, and a black side toward
the cold black night sky.
Joe Fischer
Martin Hogbin
"Phil Hays" <inv...@dont.spam> wrote in message news:pan.2007.03.25....@dont.spam...
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
Thanks for your response.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "IPCC 3". Perhaps this:
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Yes, that was the document that I was referring to.
> The Third Assessment Report or TAR is a review. For the details you need
> to read the references. Is there is a specific topic you would like more
> information on?
Only my original question, what is the argument that the
measured warming is caused by human activity?
> For the history of the issue:
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Thanks for that link, at first sight it looks balanced and
comprehensive. I will read it more thoroughly later.
> Some links:
>
> MSU, the skeptical version of warming:
>
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
I agree that this shows lower tropospheric warming, mainly
since the middle of the 20th century. What is the evidence that
humans caused this?
> Surface record:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Evidence of surface warming again.
> Sea ice:
>
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
This shows northern hemisphere sea ice reducing considerably
from about 1950 onwards. How do we know the cause is
human activity?
> Blog with mostly reasonable commentary:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/
This will take some time to read.
Thanks again for your response.
Martin Hogbin
Roger Coppock
> Just remember..
> Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
> well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
> others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
> being a major causation of climate change.
>
and the doctor tells you that you have bacterial
meningitis, a disease that is eating your brain.
Using your logic from above, you decide to refuse
antibiotic treatment, because all factors causing
your fever are not known.
Well, it doesn't matter, you're already brain dead.
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
Paul E. Lehmann
And what is YOUR ailment, Roger??
Roger Coppock
> And what is YOUR ailment, Roger??
A case of organohalogen poisoning, resulting
in cancers and quite a pesky variety of other
symptoms. What's yours?
Bawana
Like reduced brain functions leading to a messianic complex with
delusions of saving the world.
> What's yours?
I need a haircut.
Bill Ward
> On Mar 25, 4:24 am, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@hogbin.org> wrote:
>> Can some knowledgeable person here summarise the scientific evidence
>> that global warming is caused by humans.
>
> See below.
>
> I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
>> presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open mind on the
>> subject and I am willing to be persuaded either way, but by scientific
>> evidence only.
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't believe you have an open mind and have read the
> IPCC documents. The evidence in the IPCC WG1 document is overwhelming.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> As with any obvious truth, there are many arguments that will demonstrate
> that the current warming is anthropogenic. Below is mine:
>
>
> WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
>
> There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one which is growing
> fastest, is an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases. These
> gases trap the Earth's heat. The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts
> per square meter of the Earth's surface.
Heat is thermal energy. The unit of energy is the joule, or watt-sec.
The watt is the unit of power. Heat cannot be measured in watts, or watts
per square meter. Watts per square meter is power density, not energy.
For energy density, you would have to multiply the power density by
seconds. Energy is the time integral of power.
Can you please explain how your conclusions could possibly be correct when
your units are obviously wrong?
D) Water vapor is by far the most important and effective greenhouse
gas (~93%), yet it seems to be missing here.
>
> 2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.
>
> There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases heat the planet
> by trapping outgoing long wave, or infrared, radiation. Both of them
> are very convincing.
>
> It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it in any good
> college level text on atmospheric chemistry or atmospheric physics. It
> is 19th century science, the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius.
> Infrared spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from space
> looking down are very convincing evidence for this theory. They have
> the peaks of greenhouse gases.
>
> See:
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents
> http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html
>
> There is another way of demonstrating the action of greenhouse gases:
> the spacial and temporal distribution of their effects is their unique
> fingerprint:
>
> 1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
>
> 2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
>
> 3) There is more warming at high latitudes than the tropics.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
>
> These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation." (Other minor
> effects enhance these three as well.) Water and CO2 share peaks in
> their infrared spectrum. Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in
> the tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of global warming
> can work quite this way. See the Widener URL above, and the textbook
> here: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/
Very convincing. Get back to us when you get that little units issue
figured out.
Bill Ward
Is there some kind of an award for the most ridiculous attempt at an
analogy?
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
>
> D) Water vapor is by far the most important
> and effective greenhouse
Only most important, not the most effective.
Some of the CFC's can out do it thousands of times.
> gas (~93%), yet it seems to be missing here.
But it has an atmospheric lifetime of days,
compared to years for the others. Its quantity
in the atmosphere is a function of planetary
temperature. H2O can't change global temperature,
its quantity is changed by global temperature.
[ . . . ]
> Very convincing.
Thank you.
> Get back to us when you get that little units issue
> figured out.
You are going to have to explain this one.
Phil Hays
> what is the argument that the measured warming is caused by human
> activity?
Beyond that shown in of Chapter twelve of the TAR, and the quoted
references?
Other than answering some basic questions about signal processing and
statistics, I don't see how I can add much. After all, this is a problem
of finding a signal from the increase of CO2 which is buried in the
"noise" of natural variations, natural forcings and other man-made
forcings. More than a few smart people have looked into this issue, and
found such a signal. I doubt if I can add much to this work. There might
be a newer paper or three, we might find.
--
Phil Hays
Bill Ward
> On Mar 25, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: [ . .
<snip>
>
>> Get back to us when you get that little units issue figured out.
>
> You are going to have to explain this one.
Be happy to. You somehow snipped the following from my post, so once
again:
<Begin quote>
<end quote>
Carbon Criminal Polluters
Energy is the potential, the ability, to do work.
Power is the expenditure of energy over units of time doing the work.
Some of the units used to describe ENERGY:
BTU, calories, dyne-centimeter, electron volt. erg, gram force-
centimeters, horsepower-hour, newton-meter, watt-second.
Some of the units used to describe POWER:
BTU/hour, calories/second, horsepower, megawatt
Circumstances are critical in defining the differences.
The WATT definition is specifically the electromotive force (emf)
named a Volt, forcing the movement of one Avogadro's Number of
electrons called a Coulomb or Ampere past a point in a conductor in
one second time duration. There is no heat involved in the definition
of WATT.
Watt's are used in an equivalent sense that one form of energy can do
similar or identical work to another form of energy. Watts are used in
heat in our industrial society, as many major metal smelting
operations are conducted in electric arc furnaces, or induction
furnaces, and the applied power has to be computed beforehand in
building the furnaces to provide the appropriate heat without wasting
much. Hair dryers are sold measured in watts as are electric heaters.
Electricity is able to be measured with a precision virtually
unmatched by most other forms of energy, and therefore is often used
as the standard where all other energies are compared. Specifically,
outside of academia or the laboratory, nobody uses joules at all as
units of energy.
The statement "Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface" requires
a time factor, but that is omitted in common parlance.
How common? Google has 88,000 links using the phrase "Watts per square
meter". If you tried various permutations (W/m^2, kW/m^2, W/cm^2, W/
cm2, watt/m^2...) you would find that it is used extensively.
You are arguing for no good reason, but you have been recently
described as a poisoner of discussions with nitpicking modus operandi
for no purpose.
Nobody has any recollection of you making any contributions to
promoting discussion to explore thoughts or exchange ideas.
As a poisoner you did not explore the concept of trapped heat in any
units of your preference, nor did you exchange your thoughts on the
heating Earth. You merely poisoned the discussion by quibbling,
wrongly on close examination, about word definitions you favor.
"Joules per square meter" brings up only 752 listings in google. "Watt-
seconds per square meter" brought up only 7 google hits, while "watt-
sec per square meter" brought up none. You are wrong. He was right.
How can you critisize your betters when you can't even speak the same
language?
Roger Coppock
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:20:13 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
> > There are many factors, the predominate one, and the
> > one which is growing fastest, is an increase in the
> > concentrations of greenhouse gases. These gases trap
> > the Earth's heat. The heat that is trapped is measured
> > in Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface.
>
> Heat is thermal energy. The unit of energy is the joule,
> or watt-sec. The watt is the unit of power. Heat cannot
> be measured in watts, or watts per square meter.
Watts per meter squared is the standard unit
for climate forcing throughout the scientific
literature. It is not original with me.
> Watts per square meter is power density, not energy. For
> energy density, you would have to multiply the power
> density by seconds. Energy is the time integral of power.
That is correct.
> Can you please explain how your conclusions could
> possibly be correct when your units are obviously
> wrong?
1) They are not MY units. Watts per meter squared
are an established scientific standard for climate
forcing.
2) How are these units "obviously wrong?" Units of
power per unit surface area seems entirely appropriate
to me. They allow one to compare the strengths of
various climate forcings.
Would your complaint be satisifed if I altered this
sentence from:
"The heat that is trapped is measured in
Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface."
to
"The rate that heat is trapped is measured in
Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface." ?
Joe Fischer
> "The heat that is trapped is measured in
> Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface."
>
>to
>
> "The rate that heat is trapped is measured in
> Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface." ?
No, dummy, change it to the heat trapped
is measured in calories per cubic meter of the
Earth's surface.
But the whole exercise is vain, it accomplishes
nothing, and obviously is not valid statement regardless
of what units are used.
If the temperature of the surface of the ocean
increases, it begins to evaporate more, and the salinity
increases, and the evaporation cools it, during daylight
it may be cooled by many watts per square meter due
to evaporation, it does not heat up much or very fast.
Rather than try to do bookkeeping with solar
energy, try putting the same effort and expenditure
into more measurements and data presentation,
and let the kids play games on the computer.
Joe Fischer
Bill Ward
> On Mar 25, 11:07 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:20:13 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
>> > There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one which is
>> > growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse
>> > gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat. The heat that is trapped is
>> > measured in Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface.
>>
>> Heat is thermal energy. The unit of energy is the joule, or watt-sec.
>> The watt is the unit of power. Heat cannot be measured in watts, or
>> watts per square meter.
>
> Watts per meter squared is the standard unit for climate forcing
> throughout the scientific literature. It is not original with me.
>
>> Watts per square meter is power density, not energy. For energy density,
>> you would have to multiply the power density by seconds. Energy is the
>> time integral of power.
>
> That is correct.
>
>> Can you please explain how your conclusions could possibly be correct
>> when your units are obviously wrong?
>
> 1) They are not MY units. Watts per meter squared are an established
> scientific standard for climate forcing.
So what. Is this supposed to raise my confidence in the people involved?
Do you ever actually think about what you are parroting? You used them,
they're now your units.
>
> 2) How are these units "obviously wrong?" Units of power per unit
> surface area seems entirely appropriate to me. They allow one to
> compare the strengths of various climate forcings.
But you said heat, not power. That indicates to me that either you do not
understand what you are saying, you are way too sloppy in your thinking,
or both, to do any meaningful research. It's not the kind of mistake one
familiar with physics would easily make. The difference between energy
and power is extremely basic.
You are quick to jump on simple arithmetic errors from skeptics, yet
defend believers when they blithely mix energy, power and temperature
without apparent concern.
>
> Would your complaint be satisfied if I altered this sentence from:
>
> "The heat that is trapped is measured in
> Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface."
>
> to
>
> "The rate that heat is trapped is measured in
> Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface." ?
First, I was not "complaining". I simply pointed out an obvious error.
Second, the corrected version is still just a pretentious tautology, IMHO.
I would probably phrase the overall description something like this:
"Changes in greenhouse gasses may affect the balance between incoming
solar power and outgoing reflected and radiated power. Any difference
between them will result in energy flowing into or out of the Earth
system, slowly warming or cooling it until the incoming and outgoing power
is again in balance. The system is large, complex, and poorly understood,
but it has managed to regulate the temperature within a few percent for
over 500My, through a number of major perturbations."
(BTW, energy and power can be averaged in both space and time.)
Paul E. Lehmann
Only minor aches and pains from being 62 years
old.
Roger, the hatred you broadcast and your emotional
diatribes certainly can not be good for your
immune system. If you are a man of science, you
should know this.
Nahshon Evren
> >
> > I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
> >> presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open mind on the
> >> subject and I am willing to be persuaded either way, but by scientific
> >> evidence only.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I can't believe you have an open mind and have read the
> > IPCC documents. The evidence in the IPCC WG1 document is overwhelming.
Sorry to cut in here but the counter argument ( that greenhouse gases do not
cause
global warming but some other phenomenon does eg the sun) has not been
addressed
properly yet - no one is denying the fact of warming but the reasons for it
are highly
debateble, I too have read the IPPC WG document and find it like Martin to
be scant in fact and foundation,to say the least. It's hardly surprising
then that this United Nations think-tank is seen to
be a facade for some kind of political manipulation, I'm not one for
conspiracy theories,
the people behind the IPPC may be of good faith but it's just not serious
and detailled
enough for my book, the BBC 2 film is much more convincing and the fact that
it has been produced
by a (former?) sensationalist producer doesn't change that.
Nash
Joe Fischer
<bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I would probably phrase the overall description something like this:
>
>"Changes in greenhouse gasses may affect the balance between incoming
>solar power and outgoing reflected and radiated power. Any difference
>between them will result in energy flowing into or out of the Earth
>system, slowly warming or cooling it until the incoming and outgoing power
>is again in balance. The system is large, complex, and poorly understood,
>but it has managed to regulate the temperature within a few percent for
>over 500My, through a number of major perturbations."
>
>(BTW, energy and power can be averaged in both space and time.)
Without consideration of the albedo of the absorbing
surface, the coefficient of conduction, the mass and volume
affected, the local ambient temperature, and the latitude of
the absorption, it is all a vain waste of time.
It is perfectly ok for children to play with computer
models, and maybe there is some important information
to be gained by comparing daily and monthly data to
the model results, but to predict _anything_ 30 days in
advance is pure luck or coincidence.
Weather predicting is getting magnitudes better,
but because of much satellite information and faster
communication from all observing sites, plus faster
compiling that data with better computers and software,
but getting close two weeks in advance is barely
usable information, and not dependable.
Any document that predicts anything a year
in advance should be filed under the heading of
"wait and see".
And any posts here containing vulgarities
and personal attacks belong in file 13.
Joe Fischer
Roger Coppock
> On 26 Mar 2007 "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > "The heat that is trapped is measured in
> > Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface."
>
> >to
>
> > "The rate that heat is trapped is measured in
> > Watts per square meter of the Earth's surface." ?
>
> No, dummy, change it to the heat trapped
> is measured in calories per cubic meter of the
> Earth's surface.
radiation flux is measured in power per area.
Roger Coppock
> Second, the corrected version is still just a pretentious tautology, IMHO.
>
> I would probably phrase the overall description something like this:
>
> "Changes in greenhouse gasses may affect the balance between incoming
> solar power and outgoing reflected and radiated power. Any difference
> between them will result in energy flowing into or out of the Earth
> system, slowly warming or cooling it until the incoming and outgoing power
> is again in balance. The system is large, complex, and poorly understood,
> but it has managed to regulate the temperature within a few percent for
> over 500My, through a number of major perturbations."
I wouldn't use such propaganda.
Bill Ward
Can you point to anything in the above that is not true and relevant?
Or do you even understand it? I tried to make it as clear and accessible
as possible.
I take your comment seriously, as you are obviously far more experienced
in propaganda generation than I.
Lloyd
> Just remember..
> Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
> well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction with
> others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic means
> being a major causation of climate change.
>
James always lies.
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
Lloyd
<f***adoodle...@thehenhouse.oldmacdonald's> wrote:
> > > I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
> > >> presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open mind on the
> > >> subject and I am willing to be persuaded either way, but by scientific
> > >> evidence only.
>
> > > I'm sorry, but I can't believe you have an open mind and have read the
> > > IPCC documents. The evidence in the IPCC WG1 document is overwhelming.
>
> Sorry to cut in here but the counter argument ( that greenhouse gases do not
> cause
> global warming but some other phenomenon does eg the sun) has not been
> addressed
> properly yet - no one is denying the fact of warming but the reasons for it
> are highly
> debateble,
That's what creationists say about biology.
>I too have read the IPPC WG document and find it like Martin to
> be scant in fact and foundation,to say the least. It's hardly surprising
> then that this United Nations think-tank is seen to
> be a facade for some kind of political manipulation,
Yeah, sure, and thousands of scientists are in on it.
>I'm not one for
> conspiracy theories,
LOL!
> the people behind the IPPC may be of good faith but it's just not serious
> and detailled
> enough for my book, the BBC 2 film is much more convincing and the fact that
> it has been produced
> by a (former?) sensationalist producer doesn't change that.
>
> Nash
Then may I suggest you look in a mirror and say "Idiot" 3 times every
day.
Bill Ward
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:20:30 -0800, Bill Ward
> <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I would probably phrase the overall description something like this:
>>
>>"Changes in greenhouse gasses may affect the balance between incoming
>>solar power and outgoing reflected and radiated power. Any difference
>>between them will result in energy flowing into or out of the Earth
>>system, slowly warming or cooling it until the incoming and outgoing
>>power is again in balance. The system is large, complex, and poorly
>>understood, but it has managed to regulate the temperature within a few
>>percent for over 500My, through a number of major perturbations."
>>
>>(BTW, energy and power can be averaged in both space and time.)
>
> Without consideration of the albedo of the absorbing
> surface, the coefficient of conduction, the mass and volume affected, the
> local ambient temperature, and the latitude of the absorption, it is all a
> vain waste of time.
Glad to see you agree.
>
> It is perfectly ok for children to play with computer
> models, and maybe there is some important information to be gained by
> comparing daily and monthly data to the model results, but to predict
> _anything_ 30 days in advance is pure luck or coincidence.
GIGO
>
> Weather predicting is getting magnitudes better,
> but because of much satellite information and faster communication from
> all observing sites, plus faster compiling that data with better computers
> and software, but getting close two weeks in advance is barely usable
> information, and not dependable.
>
> Any document that predicts anything a year
> in advance should be filed under the heading of "wait and see".
>
> And any posts here containing vulgarities
> and personal attacks belong in file 13.
We agree again.
>
> Joe Fischer
Martin Hogbin
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message news:1174840979....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > scientific evidence that global warming is caused by
> > humans.
>
>
> I have read IPCC 3 and the evidence
> > presented there is scant to say the least. I have an open
> > mind on the subject and I am willing to be persuaded
> > either way, but by scientific evidence only.
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't believe you have an open
> mind and have read the IPCC documents. The
> evidence in the IPCC WG1 document is overwhelming.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> As with any obvious truth, there are many arguments
> that will demonstrate that the current warming is
> anthropogenic. Below is mine:
>
>
> WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
>
> There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
> which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
> of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
> The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
> meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
I have looked at that site. It shows the calculated forcings
of various atmospheric components according to a
particular complex model. How do we know that that
model is accurate? Your whole proof seems to hinge on
the accuracy of this model.
> Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
> greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
> causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
> the fastest. Also, please see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
> ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
>
> To show that man is the largest source of the recent warming,
> One needs to show two very important things:
>
> 1) THAT MAN IS THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE
> IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
>
> There are three kinds of greenhouse gases to deal with:
>
> A) The easiest gas to demonstrate anthropogenic origins
> for are the organo-halogens. Most of the atmospheric
> organo-halogens have no significant natural sources.
> Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be
> anthropogenic.
Agreed but they are fairly insignificant according to the models.
> B) There are two ways to show that the increase of CO2 in
> the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Both of them are very
> convincing demonstrations.
> Radio isotope analysis of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
> that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil
> fuel origins. This is known as "The Seuss Effect," after
> its discoverer, Dr. Hans Seuss.
Yes, this was mentioned in IPCC3. Can you provide more
details of the results and interpretation.
> Or, if one simply has to have all the trivia, one can
> trace inputs and outputs of the Carbon cycle. See:
> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
> or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
>
> C) Perhaps the hardest gas increase to attribute to humans
> is Methane, CH4. There are many sources and sinks for
> this gas, so its history can be quite a puzzle at first.
> Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in
> this table from the IPCC:
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42
>
> 2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.
>
> There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases
> heat the planet by trapping outgoing long wave, or
> infrared, radiation. Both of them are very convincing.
>
> It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it
> in any good college level text on atmospheric chemistry
> or atmospheric physics. It is 19th century science,
> the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Infrared
> spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from
> space looking down are very convincing evidence for
> this theory. They have the peeks of greenhouse gases.
>
> See:
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents
> http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html
>
> There is another way of demonstrating the action of
> greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
> of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
>
> 1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
>
> 2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
>
> 3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
> the tropics.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
>
> These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
> (Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
> Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
> Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
> tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
> global warming can work quite this way. See the
> Widener URL above, and the textbook here:
> http://forecast.uchicago.edu/
>
I understand the greenhouse concept but the details are
complex, which means we are back to computer models.
Martin Hogbin
Joe Fischer
The radiation means nothing if it isn't absorbed
by something, and the same radiation flux for a period
of time, like an hour, will heat different things a different
number of degrees temperature.
Now, somebody said the models do calculate
this way, and I am waiting for the full report.
There are a lot of things that could be having
an effect, in addition to, or instead of, the averaged
balance of radiation absorbed.
But my position is that it doesn't matter if all warming,
if any, is from CO2 or any or all of the other things.
The fix absolutely must not be dependent on the
possibility that man can reduce CO2 emissions in time
to make a difference, that is a foolhardy idea, it does not
assure success, and if any of the warming were from
some other cause, then mankind could suffer.
And there are big problems with that idea in
the implementation, which apparently some feel can
reduce the amount of CO2 released, but many of
the alternate fuels do release CO2, either in the
processing or in the burning.
And the heat produced by burning alternate
fuels will still be entering the environment, and the
scientific way to look at that is in the same way the
imbalance in the radiation budget is factored, by
taking the land area of the user and the average
rate of energy consumed.
I have about 15 by 60 meters of land, and
use an average of about 2KW constant averaged
over the year.
I don't have central air or central heat, and
I already only heat the minimum tolerable space,
so 15 * 60 = 900 square meters, and by using
energy at a rate of 2KW average year round,
that is more than 2 watts per square meter.
We have a problem, and that does not
include the energy used for my car.
So I see no way that conservation or
alternate energy can make any difference at
all, the scientists have made a mistake, the
only way to head off a problem, if one exists,
is to reduce total solar insulation.
And this must be done by reversible
means, just in case things change.
And there is another problem, if the
amount of CO2 emitted is reduced too much,
the level of oxygen in the atmosphere could
increase if a lot more vegetation removes
CO2 and releases oxygen.
According to one paper I read, if oxygen
increases to 25 percent, any hydrocarbon will
burn more readily, even green growth.
And this suggests a plausible scenario
for the great dieoffs, a lush tropical environment,
producing oxygen until the percentage is high
enough that one lightning strike could start a
fire that could consume all vegetation on the
continent.
And that could continue until enough
oxygen is used up to return to more normal
oxygen levels.
While conservation and alternate fuels
are badly needed anyway, a way to reduce the
total solar radiation exists, and it is the scientific
way to solve the warming problem.
Just painting all surfaces that face the
sun or upward would be a good beginning while
reflectors are made to reclaim the deserts and
reflect the most radiation back into space with
the least material, because most warm desert
is in or near the tropics (Gobi maybe the one
big exception).
Joe Fischer
Bill Ward
You're on exactly the right track, Martin. They don't want to talk about
the models. They can't even predict the past, much less the future.
Phil Hays
> Sorry to cut in here but the counter argument ( that greenhouse gases do
> not cause global warming but some other phenomenon does eg the sun) has
> not been addressed properly yet
Well, it has. Solar output has been directly monitored from above the
atmosphere since 1979 or so and there is almost no change (other than the
sunspot cycle). During the same time period, the climate warmed rapidly.
While correlation doesn't prove causation, lack of correlation is pretty
damning evidence against causation.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html
> - no one is denying the fact of warming
Ho Ho. This newsgroup is loaded with them.
> I too have read the IPPC WG
> document and find it like Martin to be scant in fact and foundation,to
> say the least.
One can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink.
> the BBC 2 film
What BBC 2 film? Just because it was made in England doesn't make it a
BBC production.
--
Phil Hays
kdt...@yahoo.com
You are right. The way they use Wm-2, is as a quantity in regards to
recieving surface area.
In contemporary theory they say that at the top of the atmosphere, the
outgoing radiation is 4-7Wm-2 less than incoming radiation. This
proves that they have no math.
7Wm-2 over the area of earth's surface is 4.9E14 x 7 = 3.49E15 Joules
per second, supposedly received above what is radiated.
The atmosphere has about 5.27E21 grams.
With O2 20% and N2 80%, the average molar weight around 29.
The molar heat capacity of air is about 29 joules per mole per degC
So heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is around 5.27E21 Joules per
deg.
Heat capacity of entire atmosphere divided by Joules per second of
entire earth at 7Wm-2,
5.1E14 sq meters
5.21E21 / 3.6E15 / 3600 / 24 = 16.9 days
At the rate of 7Wm-2, the quantity of heat to raise the entire
atmosphere 1 degC will be retained in 16.9 days.
This is also the heat capacity of the top 3.2 meters of the ocean. So
where is this heat going??
This theory has no actual basis in science or math. That is why it is
so hard to find a quantitive analyses. This bullshit here is the best
that they have.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf
168W from the sun, 324 from the atmosphere
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
So if you have a tub of water that you block from direct sunlight
through the daym from this you can calculate that it is still getting
324W from the atmosphere??? Does this give you any means to calculatet
the temperature of the water in the tub????
hahahahahahahahahahahaah
Notice that all these graphs that look so neat, are completely derived
from theoretical modeling and not from actual scientific data.
Deatherage
OILY Political Corruption
> recieving surface area.
> so hard to find a quantitive analyses. This bullshit here is the best
> hahahahahahahahahahahaha
> through the daym from this you can calculate that it is still getting
> 324W from the atmosphere??? Does this give you any means to calculatet
> hahahahahahahahahahahaah
> Deatherage
recieving quantitive analyses hahahahahahahahahahahaha daym calculatet
hahahahahahahahahahahaah
Death-Rag said...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/a7859e420ae5e0a9
Death-Rag said: recieving quantitive analyses hahahahahahahahahahahaha
daym calculatet hahahahahahahahahahahaah
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/58a4d69ec69d19e5
Death-Rag said: Somtimes I talk neccessary analyses psuedo
evalutation
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/086634847d9203b3
Death-Rag said: resposibility SKEPTISM wern't grenhouse gases recieved
analyses intitial grenhouse gases.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/cb3146cdcedd19dd
Death-Rag said: awfull funny grenhouse sevaral quantiies per secind
grenhouse theory, appication mathmatics laboratoy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3840a64f8bf17935
Death-Rag said: apptitude parasitc validilty repitition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/aa4c1b9fc293bd82
Death-Rag said: continous specta oscilator oscilator intenstiy
intenstity continulally abiltity Moderen particuilate
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/15926ce35b797481
Death-Rag said: analyses horsehit analyses guilability criticise
disgard raditation Phobiacs transfering ofthe analyses conhesive
grenhouse 'grenhouse gases' analyse pervasivness 'grenhouse theory'.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5597a473e27cacb8
Death-Rag said: vapoer anlyses transfering dissapated recieving
equivelent inabliltty continully transfering recieved grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/4a38a6c8e3b292b3
Death-rag said: notalbly medieavel deliberatly discusion brillliant
hypothessis' electromagntic GRENHOUSE equipartion deleoped raditation
quanlification popstulate YOu analyses temperture occuring recieving
falsly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6abb9edf7934e28d
Death-Rag said: continully eluciadated arrises grenhouse fuctuations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/442155a915794499
Death-Rag said: fulctuation 'science communtiy' aggrees
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/663a6c3e99db32e7
Death-Rag said: Crankpot grenhouse Farenheit bouyant continous
equivelent radition transfering dissapated habital grenhouse grenhouse
gase empircal arguement acutal
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/04221b76dbe700f5
Death-Rag said: continous radition radites frauduent scientifc
analyses restricition My limited education in physics grenhouse
genertation continous mokecules grenhouse freqeucnies radition fouth
power equivelent recieving discription dissapates phyisicists.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2281f2fbe1a4ec80
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory religous fanatics analyses arguements
analyses discusion instead of insultive characterzations Alvagadros
number insultive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5673cdd6199a93b0
Death-Rag said: A true analyses grenhouse gases neccasary to adjuct
occuring culmulative.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0b561a597665319e
Death-Rag said: vegitation Grenhouse gase theory grenhouse gases,
grenhouse gases rule cocentrations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/953c4c4f50d37db0
Death-Rag said: transfering recieve dumbnest recieved grenhouse
dildo.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/db1dd2300c052d7d
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory transfering composium themelses
grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227b4dd47714bfe8
Death-Rag said: This is a vey serious matter, severly uneccasarilly
grenhouse theory. 'grenhouse' gases anlyses recieved fouth power
recieving recievese grenhouse establishement.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5f7cf0a57c32ba35
Death-Rag said: neccesities grenhouse gases intitial theory of
grenhouse gases
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/91115ba9958bbb82
Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition
recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary
recieved raditation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3b1987f4ba6567a6
Death-Rag said: The analyses evaportation, inductrialization occured.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/161b7a7d02ffb63c
Death-Rag said: inagurated succedded nobel favoratism committiess
benifited widespead modifing.