Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

1 view
Skip to first unread message

obozn

unread,
Feb 5, 2009, 8:57:23 PM2/5/09
to

February 3 2009

The claim that CO2 can increase air temperatures by "trapping" IR ignores
the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century
thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR.

Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's
experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine ,
1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and
UV photography.

Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies
the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "coldframe" rather than
a building a person could walk into. He lined the interior with black
cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would
heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation.

He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the
other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt
would allow it to pass. During the first run of the experiment the rock salt
greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the
glass greenhouse.

He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before
the light reached the greenhouses. The result from this run was that the
greenhouses both heated to about 50 ºC with less than a degree difference
between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was
any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the
rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the
sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature.
The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay
warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in
an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the
atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.

The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that
covered the tops of the greenhouses.

Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the
ground.

Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or
reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in
Wood's greenhouse. The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very
good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances.

The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and
produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances.
Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation. The glass
sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed
comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link
fence. Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The
glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2
doesn't reflect IR.

At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas
molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr
reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light
didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption
of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to
move to a higher energy state.

After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb
additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that
wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)
Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules
emit IR up and sideways as well as down.

In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2
molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR. Those
who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping
IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a
physical process exists.

The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective
covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is
no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by
earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't
say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR.

Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical
universe

http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml

Comments from Lord Monkton & Vincent Gray

February 5 2009

Several people have made comments to the recent article Greenhouse Theory
Disproved a Century Ago, take a look at what Lord Monckton had to say....it
helps understand the process that is used to show CO2's influence on our
climate is overstated.

I wondered why Arrhenius had spent the entire Arctic winter of 1895/6, after
he had lost his wife, performing 10,000 individual calculations by hand to
reach his conclusion that CO2 doubling would raise temperatures globally by
5 ºK [4, 8], when he could more simply have used the Stefan-Boltzmann
radiative-transfer equation to perform a single calculation.

I researched this question. Sure enough, I discovered that, after Arrhenius
had finally come upon the equation, he recalculated using it and, in 1906,
ten years after his original paper in English, he wrote a second paper
concluding that a doubling of CO2 concentration would raise global
temperatures by 1.5-1.6 ºK. He was, in effect, attempting to calculate the
surface forcing from CO2, in the absence of temperature feedbacks.

Even his revised calculation led to a threefold overstatement, for surface
forcing from CO2 is now thought to be about 0.5 ºK.

However, the IPCC, following Hansen (1984, 1988), who was in turn following
Manabe & Wetherald (1975) makes a guess at the (rather higher) tropopausal
forcing and then more than triples it to allow for its
mainfestly-exaggerated estimates of temperature feedbacks.

Letter From Vincent Gray

Dear Folks

Whatever R W Wood may have found, greenhouses operate by trapping air.

When the ground and the plants are heated by the sun's radiation the air
next to them becomes heated by conduction. Hot air rises, so it is
immediately replaced by cooler air which is heated in its turn. In this way
all the air in the greenhouse becomes warmer than the surroundings.

The effect also happens in the free atmosphere. There is a lot more air, so
the ground and the plants are cooler. The distribution of the air is
ultimately affected by gravity.

Greenhouse gases absorb part of the earth's infra red radiation, so that the
upwards radiation coming from the earth is less than the amount received
from the earth.

Since the air is now warmer than the air would have been without the
greenhouse gases it radiates increased infra red in all directions,
including towards the earth.

The suggestions that gases cannot radiate infra red, or that they cannot do
so towards a cooler absorber are both nonsense. All bodies, solid, gaseous
or liquid, radiate with an energy determined by the Stefan Boltzmann
equation, in all directions irrespective of where the radiation is received.

Cheers

Vincent Gray

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2732

Warmest Regards

Bonzo


matt_sykes

unread,
Feb 6, 2009, 6:12:36 AM2/6/09
to
> http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory...

Its what I have been saying for a while. The CO2 in the atmosphere
blocks incoming IR form the sun as effectively as it blocks it leaving
the earth. NEt effect is zero extra heating.

All CO2 and other greenhouses do is moderate the extremes of
temperature.

Look at the sahara desert with its lack of water vapour, very cold
nights, very hot days.

Add water vapour, a big greenhouse gas, and you have the congo. Lee
hot in the day, less cold at night.

The whole CO2 causing warming is absoloute unscientific garbage.

marcodbeast

unread,
Feb 6, 2009, 10:43:02 AM2/6/09
to
matt_sykes wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:57 am, "obozn" <ob...@i.com> wrote:
>> February 3 2009
>>
>> The claim that CO2 can increase air temperatures by "trapping" IR
>> ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the
>> popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping
>> IR.

CO2 is not a greenhouse.

I realize that comes as some surprise. lol

IQ

unread,
Feb 6, 2009, 1:43:56 PM2/6/09
to

Tyndall proved by means of a laboratory experiment in 1859 that CO2 is a
powerful greenhouse gas and that O2 and N2 are not. CO2 as a GHG is
particularly efficient in the longwave infrared band between 4 and 30
micrometer.

Even if CO2 would block the incoming IR from the Sun, then still the
other parts in the visible spectrum (not affected by H20 or C02
obsorption) would heat up the Earth's surface. And thus the Earth warms
up to like 290K so that you have to deal with the outgoing IR spectrum
in the longwave band between 4 and 30 micrometer. Hot body emit IR
radiation, it is basic physics.

In this longwave IR band there are a number of CO2 absorption gaps, and
the one near 15 micrometer wavelength is very efficient in keeping the
heat in the atmosphere. The physics of GHG's is very easy to understand,
to model and to verify by means of laboratory, satellite and aircraft
experiments.

AGW deniers who try to attack this theory have is backwards, they a
simply wrong.

Q

--
No signature

techskeptic

unread,
Feb 18, 2009, 2:11:12 AM2/18/09
to

LOL, I was going to write a long post explaining why this test is
completely dissociated from the realities global climate. But I
realized you probably said it best with one sentence.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 11:34:11 PM2/19/09
to
> No signature- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are sure casual with your lies.

""Tyndall proved by means of a laboratory experiment in 1859 that CO2
is a powerful greenhouse gas and that O2 and N2 are not."""

Tyndell was a quack who states clearly his understanding that
radiation is merely waves through the aether, and is unable to
correspond his theory with even his contemporary classical theory in
accord with Maxwell etc.

So since Tyndell did this in 1859, the movement of AGW has NO NEED TO
REPEAT THIS AND DOCUMENT THIS in proper form for easy reference to
qwell the 'deniers' complaints and statements that you have no actual
science for your claims which is going to be a very very serious
charge of criminal intent for which you must defend anyway?

"""""""""The physics of GHG's is very easy to understand,
to model and to verify by means of laboratory, satellite and aircraft
experiments.""""""""""""""

This is a straightforward lie, demonstrated clearly by your statement
without reference to such. You have no reference to documentation of
such claims.

Good luck, defunct and immature schoolboy, when you wake up someday
and the safe and secure lunch ticket that your mommie bought you is no
longer in the britches which you have obviously overgrown, with no
intellectual maturity to realize that such lies shall no go revealed
and that to act upon society according to these lies is a very very
serious criminal offense.

KD

bnooz

unread,
Feb 19, 2009, 11:36:36 PM2/19/09
to

<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc8cd871-bfb5-47fe...@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 6, 7:22 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> Well, on a positive note, there is a lone lotus flower of truth
> floating in this cesspool of irrelevancy, misdirection, and lies.

>
> > The suggestions that gases cannot radiate infra red, or that they cannot
> > do
> > so towards a cooler absorber are both nonsense. All bodies, solid,
> > gaseous
> > or liquid, radiate with an energy determined by the Stefan Boltzmann
> > equation, in all directions irrespective of where the radiation is
> > received.
>
> . . . or where the radiation is headed to.

For the functionally illiterate to the art of definition of English
words, the word science means a methodology to determine fact from
fiction, and to achieve certainty of causation before attributing
causation. Greenhouse gas theory cannot be defined to differ in any
way from a superstition or psuedo religion.

Mere opinion of those who have the pedigree of the science of climate
scaremongering, does not achieve the definition of science.

Omission of pertinent facts can be construed as intent to commit
fraud, and failure to meet burden of proof in application of law, is
criminal.

The concept of 'greenhouse gases', was discarded by modern science
with proper laboratory investigation in the early 20th century. It was
revived by the climatologists in the 1960's and supported by the
invalid schools of theoretical physics which are in existence.

Proper application of science disproves the theory and the theory of
climate effect from trace gases, although there is very little
interest in actual science at this time in regards to the issue of
climate change, due to the money involved and the obsession of those
who merely wish to control and screw with other people's lives.
*************************************************************************************


And here's more ...

The Case for Global Warming Skepticism

Nov 18, 2008

QUOTE: I'll bet something like 1% of the people who read about global
warming in the papers know that the effect is logarithmic. Doubling the CO2
concentration produces a global radiation increase that, in the absence of
modeling, if you just run the numbers straight, would make Earth about 1C
warmer. Double it again - same result.

QUOTE: In the last century, CO2 has gone from about 280ppm to about 380ppm.
The level of positive feedback the GCMs need to assume in order to turn this
into an epic human catastrophe is, obviously, quite nontrivial.

In fact, with a little more tuning, the GCMs would probably be quite happy
to turn us into Venus.

QUOTE: No. The problem is money and power and fraud, pure and simple.
Trillions of dollars are being reallocated on the basis of statistical work
that would flunk a sophomore.

QUOTE: Because of this episode I judge the IPCC "consensus" the way I might
judge the collective views of, say, the IMF.

As a bunch of very smart people who nonetheless have a very clear
institutional agenda.

If you insist on taking them at face value, perhaps I could interest you in
an Argentine bond or two.

QUOTE: Before WWII, when science actually was independent, this is how it
worked: You had a pool of scientists which was tiny by today's standards,
but each one of them could have their own little pet theory to defend.
Progress was made when you exploded someone else's pet theory, often after
great difficulty.

Now that pet theories are held not by little cliques of scientists, but by
giant conglomerates of funding mafias and NGOs, what was once difficult has
become simply impossible.

QUOTE: If anything makes science Science, it's that the "scientific method"
is a social process which, in the past, has shown a tendency to eradicate
error from its own conclusions.

I believe McIntyre's work has shown quite conclusively that, at least in the
field of paleoclimatology, this process is not now operating, at least not
in the form that produced its reputation.

QUOTE: I also believe that, since the culture of climate modelers, such as
James Hansen, does not appear to differ from that of paleoclimatologists,
and since climate modelers have at least as much, if not more, of an
opportunity to tune their models in the same way that paleoclimatologists
tuned their statistics, I should treat the information generated by both
with the same distrust.

QUOTE: For example, if climate modelers wanted me to change my decision on
this, they would have to build a new climate model in a clean-room process,
which

(a) correctly simulated Earth's climate in the past, and

(b) was not made to do so after a very extensive process of tuning, with
abundant opportunities for the introduction of unconscious bias.

QUOTE: All GCMs in operation today predict a powerful positive feedback
effect from clear water vapor, which strikes me as a pretty convenient truth
if ya know what I mean.

As notorious climate-criminal Richard Lindzen points out, the increased
temperature caused by CO2 can just as easily produce a negative feedback
from increasing cloud cover.

After watching an Inconvenient Truth and reading about the IPCC consensus, I
assumed that global warming was an established reality. But a little while
ago I stumbled across a couple of curious blog comments by one Mencius
Moldbug. Mencius is a software engineer out in San Francisco. After
scoring in the dot com boom, he went on sabbatical in order to read, think,
and write. He studied the whole global warming debate and came away with
some interesting findings. Below I've tried to compile the long comment
thread into one coherent post. Mencius also writes a blog here.
Unfortunately, he has not blogged about global warming yet. Since this is
the single most compelling case for global warming skepticism that I have
ever read, I wanted to re-post his comments in a place where everyone could
read them.

Mencius:

The set of people who support or oppose a proposition is quite unrelated to
its validity. So, even, are their motivations.

I'm sure there are some businessmen and politicians who oppose the global
warming hypothesis for venal reasons. I'm sure there are some who oppose it
for sincere reasons. And I'm sure both categories also apply to the large
number of businessmen and politicians who support it. I don't see how any
information can be deduced from these incontrovertible facts.

Do you have a minute to follow a link? You might find this page interesting.
It is rather free of context, but perhaps its tone might spark your
curiosity.

Now, what is your first question on reading this?

Is it, by any chance, "Is Steve McIntyre a scientist?"

You see, there are two possible definitions of the word here.

One is that a "scientist" is anyone who follows a certain process which, in
the past, seems to have been very effective at producing reliable
information. This process is called the "scientific method," and while it is
certainly not infallible - nothing is - it seems pretty good at eradicating
error.

And it works for anyone, black or white, Gentile or Jew.

Another is that a "scientist" is someone who has been awarded a certain
credential by a certain institution, which entitles him to occupy one of a
small number of prestigious positions. In this sense, calling someone a
"scientist" is like calling him a "duke." The word "duke," from the Latin
dux, originally meant a leader of fighting men, a warlord. There are still
dukes today, and there are still warlords, but the dukes are not warlords
and the warlords are not dukes.

As it happens, McIntyre is a scientist (I would say) in the first sense of
the word, but not in the second.

His background is actually in hard-rock mineral exploration, which is one of
the shadiest industries in the world. As a mining consultant with a strong
background in statistics, he essentially made his living investigating bad
numbers, and he developed an excellent practical sense of the ways data can
be fudged.

One day out of pure personal curiosity he decided to take a look at the use
of statistics in paleoclimatology.

Paleoclimatology is a field which tries to estimate temperature trends from
the time before we had scientists running around with thermometers
everywhere. It does so by measuring "temperature proxies" which naturally
record temperature effects - tree rings, for example, As you can probably
imagine, before the rise of global warming, this was a rather obscure
discipline, but it has since risen to great global importance.

The first result McIntyre looked at was the famous "hockey stick" curve
associated with several notable paleoclimatologists, notably Michael Mann.
If you have ever seen a headline saying "200x is the warmest year in XXX
years," you have probably experienced the "hockey stick." On the basis of
this result, Mann had become a star in his field, was named one of
Scientific American's top 100 young researchers, etc, etc.

What McIntyre found was that this work was based on a pattern of bad
statistics that came very close to simply being fraud.

Mann had chosen nonstandard statistical procedures which amplified a single
sample, from a set of trees (bristlecone pines) well-known to respond
directly to CO2 rather than temperature, into a pattern that looked like it
covered the entire world. Moreover, Mann's FTP site had a directory called
"CENSORED" on it in which the same calculation was repeated without the
bristlecones, showing no "hockey stick" at all.

Scientific misconduct happens. Just because a physicist, like Jan Hendrik
Schön, pulls some stunt, doesn't mean Einstein was wrong.

But Schön was rapidly drummed out of his profession.

Events in the Mann scandal have gone very differently.

The entire field of paleoclimatology has stonewalled on the "hockey stick."

Mann is still very much an honored member of the field. And this despite the
fact that two external reports, a National Academy of Sciences panel, and an
independent report prepared by Edward Wegman, one of the US's leading
statisticians, confirmed all of McIntyre's results.

What was the consequence of all this in the press?

Funny you should ask.

The NAS panel, which included many of Mann's colleagues, came up with a very
nice dodge. They admitted that Mann's results were useless, but claimed
that, since other studies - many using the same flawed methodologies -
reported the same results, the entire concept was vindicated.

You may have heard the phrase "fake, but accurate."

As a result, the release of this report was actually an occasion for a new
wave of "Earth is Warmest in 2,000 Years" stories. You had to be very, very
savvy to understand the actual content of the report, which included a large
dose of spin.

Wegman's report contained no spin at all. However, it also happened to be
commissioned (pro bono, with no payment at all, etc, etc) by Joe Barton of
the House Energy Committee. Therefore, it received no press coverage at
all - despite the fact that it exposed one of the major scientific frauds of
the last century, one which was lavishly promoted by the press.

In fact, not even Republican news outlets - like Fox News or the Washington
Times - would touch the Wegman report.

Why would they?

Why go through another round of being attacked as shills for the oil
companies? What's in it for them?

Because they are, of course, shills - but for the Republicans, not for the
oil companies.

The problem is very simple. It has nothing to do with Republicans or
Democrats or whatever. McIntyre is a liberal. Wegman voted for Gore. He is
not some kind of crazy AEI activist, he is the former chair of the NAS panel
on statistics, who had never heard of any of this crap before Barton called
him. Look at his CV - this is normal diligence for a statistician.

Checking that people are using stats correctly is what a guy like Wegman
does.

No. The problem is money and power and fraud, pure and simple. Trillions of
dollars are being reallocated on the basis of statistical work that would
flunk a sophomore.

And you're not interested?

What kind of skeptical antennae do you have?

MBH99 is like a bad audit finding. When you find that Bear Stearns or Enron
or Citicorp or whoever has fabricated some nonexistent asset on its books,
you don't give it a slap on the wrist and tell it to cross the line out.

You unleash the forensic guys.

You don't find just one cockroach in a kitchen.

And you don't tell the health inspector, "sorry, we'll kill it."

MBH99 is not an ancient, irrelevant result. It is the single most publicized
piece of research in the history of IPCC climatology. It singlehandedly put
Mann in Scientific American's list of America's 100 top young scientists.

And it really is not a stretch to compare it to an ape jaw glued to a human
skull.

The thing reeks.

It is data laundering of the worst kind.

Sure, the "hockey team" has "moved on."

Despite the fact that the NAS panel chaired by North and the Wegman report,
both of which concurred in all substantive opinions, both stated that
further paleoclimate proxy studies should not use bristlecones or foxtails,
we continue to see paleoclimate reconstructions full of them.

And when IPCC climatologists are actually willing to use phrases like "if
you want to make cherry pies, you have to be willing to pick cherries"
(d'Arrigo) to committees investigating their work, we really have no reason
to believe that their results are generated from their data and not the
other way around.

Actually, we have considerable reason to believe the opposite.

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and
find something wrong with it?" (Phil Jones.)

The trouble is that the entire evidentiary case for AGW is nonreplicable and
unfalsifiable.

If you do not personally trust the researchers, you have no reason to trust
the "science."

The first arm of the AGW case is paleoclimatology, which is trivially
distorted by selection bias, ie, "good" results are published and not "bad"
ones.

The second is general circulation models or GCMs, which simulate the Earth's
atmosphere. GCMs are the product of tuning - they are certainly not derived
directly from the laws of physics.

See Nir Shaviv on the fine art of fitting elephants.

Because of this episode I judge the IPCC "consensus" the way I might judge
the collective views of, say, the IMF.

As a bunch of very smart people who nonetheless have a very clear
institutional agenda.

If you insist on taking them at face value, perhaps I could interest you in
an Argentine bond or two.

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where there were these
institutions, like "Science," or "The Church," or "The New York Times,"
which you could just trust. But such a world has never existed in the past.
Why should it exist now?

Before WWII, when science actually was independent, this is how it worked:
You had a pool of scientists which was tiny by today's standards, but each
one of them could have their own little pet theory to defend. Progress was
made when you exploded someone else's pet theory, often after great
difficulty.

Now that pet theories are held not by little cliques of scientists, but by
giant conglomerates of funding mafias and NGOs, what was once difficult has
become simply impossible.

There is no future in climate science for an AGW skeptic.

This is why all the skeptics that are still around are dinosaurs, full
professors and professors emeritus.

As a grad student or an assistant professor, you'd have to be crazy to
attack these people.

You'll never get a grant again.

Oh, sure. ExxonMobil might give you a hundred bucks here and there.

Until they're buffaloed into submission like all the other oil companies.

Businesses, contrary to popular belief, do not succeed by attacking the
State.

I may still have some fond memories of the Liberty League, but at least I
don't act like it still exists and has only grown stronger.

The logic I've laid out is my motivation for treating the Scientific
Consensus as epistemologically irrelevant to my own estimation of future
climate trends.

I believe I've described a social process that could produce the Consensus
whether or not the AGW proposition is true.

If anything makes science Science, it's that the "scientific method" is a
social process which, in the past, has shown a tendency to eradicate error
from its own conclusions.

I believe McIntyre's work has shown quite conclusively that, at least in the
field of paleoclimatology, this process is not now operating, at least not
in the form that produced its reputation.

I also believe that, since the culture of climate modelers, such as James
Hansen, does not appear to differ from that of paleoclimatologists, and
since climate modelers have at least as much, if not more, of an opportunity
to tune their models in the same way that paleoclimatologists tuned their
statistics, I should treat the information generated by both with the same
distrust.

Since AGW research consists (since it can only consist) of modeling and
paleoclimatology (the former is much more important - the paleoclimate
follies are very much a canary in the coal-mine kind of thing), I choose to
ignore it.

For example, if climate modelers wanted me to change my decision on this,
they would have to build a new climate model in a clean-room process, which

(a) correctly simulated Earth's climate in the past, and

(b) was not made to do so after a very extensive process of tuning, with
abundant opportunities for the introduction of unconscious bias.

To be more specific, the largest source of uncertainty in climate models
(GCMs, general circulation models) is their handling of water. ("Besides
that, Mrs. Lincoln...")

Water in the vapor phase is a greenhouse gas. Water in the solid phase, and
aerosolized water in the liquid phase, reflect radiation back out into space
and cool the earth.

The interaction between these phases, and the more common surface liquid
phase is chaotic, which essentially means unsimulatable.

All GCMs in operation today predict a powerful positive feedback effect from
clear water vapor, which strikes me as a pretty convenient truth if ya know
what I mean.

As notorious climate-criminal Richard Lindzen points out, the increased
temperature caused by CO2 can just as easily produce a negative feedback
from increasing cloud cover.

I'll bet something like 1% of the people who read about global warming in
the papers know that the effect is logarithmic. Doubling the CO2
concentration produces a global radiation increase that, in the absence of
modeling, if you just run the numbers straight, would make Earth about 1C
warmer. Double it again - same result.

In the last century, CO2 has gone from about 280ppm to about 380ppm. The
level of positive feedback the GCMs need to assume in order to turn this
into an epic human catastrophe is, obviously, quite nontrivial.

In fact, with a little more tuning, the GCMs would probably be quite happy
to turn us into Venus.

And if that result generated more funding for the people writing the GCM,
that's probably exactly what it would print out. But there's a balance of
credibility that has to be maintained. In fact, GCMs in testing apparently
quite often turn the Earth into a snowball or a boiling planet. The fact
that they work at all is a genuine accomplishment.

So what is my prediction of the weather in 2057?

I have no idea, I am not a climatologist.

But Nir Shaviv's view strikes me as pretty sensible.

Of course, Shaviv is just one guy. He's not a Consensus. I'm afraid I'm
going to have to disappoint you on that one, although again, if you are
interested in the subject, Climate Audit is the place to be.

http://commentlog.org/bid/4409/The-Case-for-Global-Warming-Skepticism

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

bnooz

unread,
Feb 21, 2009, 12:08:35 AM2/21/09
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:6e9f7cbb-220d-411b...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 8:20 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[ . . . ]

> The concept of 'greenhouse gases', was discarded by modern science
> with proper laboratory investigation in the early 20th century. It was
> revived by the climatologists in the 1960's and supported by the
> invalid schools of theoretical physics which are in existence.

This sounds like some of the pseudo-science.
from those free energy perpetual motion
machine quacks, "The entire field of Physics
is on the wrong track. It all a conspiracy,
and only I can see see it." Do you fuel your
car with water too, KD? LOL!

DEEP DEEP DEEP DENIAL! A total schizophrenic
break with reality!
********************************************************************


DEEP DEEP DEEP DENIAL OF GLOBAL COOLING SINCE 1998!
A total schizophrenic break with reality!

Warmest Regards

Bonzo


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages