A real demonstration of warming from co2

[Liability]

More "stuff" worth perusing:

Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

 

[Liability]

This one is interesting:

[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Th ABSTRACT says,

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]

 

[daveman]

It's not there in lecture #1 -- Which Lecture???

22 here. Starts at 51 minutes and ends at 57 minutes.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-t007AwrI]Letters and Science C70V - Lecture 22 - YouTube[/ame]

I'm not wading through an hour of a scientist who can't run a projector -- did he keep pressure constant?

 

[Liability]

Anthropogenic:

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: “A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the “fast-response” framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.”

-- Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

(an apparently busted link, though)

 

[ScienceRocks]

If this guy is wrong then I can't blame anyone for not understanding the science as it isn't being taught. Seriously, this guy suppose to be one of the better ones.

In lecture(first one) 23 he comes out as luke warmist. He was also part of the Berkeley temperature reconstruction.

 

[Old Rocks]

This one is interesting:

[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Th ABSTRACT says,

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]

Interesting. And easy to take apart. Here are some comments by people doing exactly that.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics [Archive] - Physics Forums

Any comments?

It's incredible to me that this paper actually managed to get published; albeit in a low impact journal, and as an invited "review" article which apparently does not have the same peer-review procedures as research articles. The subject matter is a poor fit with the journal; I very much doubt that this paper could ever have survived a normal peer review process. But there you go. I'm speculating. All we can really know for sure is the content of the paper as given.

I claim it is riddled with errors. Rather than attempt a comprehensive rebuttal, I'll single out limited specific errors in the paper.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthropogenic:

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: “A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the “fast-response” framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.”

-- Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

(an apparently busted link, though)

Bullshit site that totally misrepresents what the article actually said.

Center for Science in the Earth System

Abstract
Subsurface temperature trends in the better-sampled parts of the World Ocean are reported. Where there are sufficient observations for this analysis, there is large spatial variability of 51-yr trends in the upper ocean, with some regions showing cooling in excess of 3°C, and others warming of similar magnitude. Some 95% of the ocean area analyzed has both cooled and warmed over 20-yr subsets of this period. There is much space and time variability of 20-yr running trend estimates, indicating that trends over a decade or two may not be representative of longer-term trends. Results are based on sorting individual observations in World Ocean Database 2001 into 1° × 1° and 2° × 2° bins. Only bins with at least five observations per decade for four of the five decades since 1950 are used. Much of the World Ocean cannot be examined from this perspective. The 51-yr trends significant at the 90% level are given particular attention. Results are presented for depths of 100, 300, and 500 m. The patterns of the 90% significant trends are spatially coherent on scales resolved by the bin size. The vertical structure of the trends is coherent in some regions, but changes sign between the analysis depths in a number of others. It is suggested that additional attention should be given to uncertainty estimates for basin average and World Ocean average thermal trends

 

[Liability]

Anthropogenic:

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: “A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the “fast-response” framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.”

-- Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

(an apparently busted link, though)

Bullshit site that totally misrepresents what the article actually said.

Center for Science in the Earth System

Abstract
Subsurface temperature trends in the better-sampled parts of the World Ocean are reported. Where there are sufficient observations for this analysis, there is large spatial variability of 51-yr trends in the upper ocean, with some regions showing cooling in excess of 3°C, and others warming of similar magnitude. Some 95% of the ocean area analyzed has both cooled and warmed over 20-yr subsets of this period. There is much space and time variability of 20-yr running trend estimates, indicating that trends over a decade or two may not be representative of longer-term trends. Results are based on sorting individual observations in World Ocean Database 2001 into 1° × 1° and 2° × 2° bins. Only bins with at least five observations per decade for four of the five decades since 1950 are used. Much of the World Ocean cannot be examined from this perspective. The 51-yr trends significant at the 90% level are given particular attention. Results are presented for depths of 100, 300, and 500 m. The patterns of the 90% significant trends are spatially coherent on scales resolved by the bin size. The vertical structure of the trends is coherent in some regions, but changes sign between the analysis depths in a number of others. It is suggested that additional attention should be given to uncertainty estimates for basin average and World Ocean average thermal trends

That (red highlight portion) does NOT make it a bullshit site or a bullshit study, you fucking dishonest hack.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is who we're calling clueless of science.

Richard A. Muller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muller obtained an A.B. degree at Columbia University (New York) and a Ph.D. degree in physics from University of California, Berkeley. Muller began his career as a graduate student under Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez doing particle physics experiments and working with bubble chambers. During his early years he also helped to co-create accelerator mass spectrometry and made some of the first measurements of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background.

Subsequently, Muller branched out into other areas of science, and in particular the Earth sciences. His work has included attempting to understand the ice ages, dynamics at the core-mantle boundary, patterns of extinction and biodiversity through time, and the processes associated with impact cratering. One of his most well known proposals is the Nemesis hypothesis suggesting the Sun could have an as yet undetected companion dwarf star, whose perturbations of the Oort cloud and subsequent effects on the flux of comets entering the inner Solar System could explain an apparent 26 million year periodicity in extinction events.

In March 2011, he testified to the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee that preliminary data confirmed an overall global warming trend.[1]

Along with Carl Pennypacker,[2] Muller started The Berkeley Real Time Supernova Search,[3] which became The Berkeley Automated Supernova Search.[4] It then became the Supernova Cosmology Project, which discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe, for which Muller's graduate student, Saul Perlmutter, shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.


Muller is a founder and the current chairperson of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") project, which intends to provide an independent analysis of the Earth's surface temperature records.


----
In a 2004 Technology Review article,[8] Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium, on the grounds that it did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA).[9] In the article, Richard Muller stated:

McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?[8]

He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions." Muller's statements were widely quoted on skeptical blogs, and his status as a believer in global warming made his criticism of the "hockey stick" particularly damaging. In response, Mann criticized Muller on his blog RealClimate.[10] Marcel Crok, a reporter for the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, later did a story on the incident.[11]

 

[wirebender]

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

No rocks, a very few are guilty of deliberate fraud. The remainder of those who actually believe are victims of an error cascade. They simply accept certain data as true and incorporate it into their own studies without actually checking. This isn't the first time it has happened and won't be the last.

 

[wirebender]

More "stuff" worth perusing:

Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

As long as we are listing papers that disagree with the so called mainstream, here are over 1000 peer reviewed, published papers that don't go along with the warmist hypothesis of AGW.

Popular Technology.net: 1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

 

[wirebender]

I'm not wading through an hour of a scientist who can't run a projector -- did he keep pressure constant?

Of course not. If you keep the pressure constant, you get no heat of compression and are simply left watching a barbie and a tonka truck bask in the warmth of a couple of light bulbs. Nothing exciting in that. What sort of a sideshow huckster would he be if he didn't toss in a little fraud for effect?

 

[wirebender]

If this guy is wrong then I can't blame anyone for not understanding the science as it isn't being taught. Seriously, this guy suppose to be one of the better ones.

Personally Matthew, I don't think he is wrong. I think he is perpetrating a deliberate fraud. A high school student who has taken at least a year of chemistry and a year of physics should be able to grasp the principle of heat of compression and be able to spot the problem with the prof's experiment.

I have no doubt that he knows exactly what he is doing there and have no doubt that he is equally confident that the dumbed down audience (as compared to those he may have been teaching decades ago) lacked the fundamentals required to spot the fraud.

I have seen the education that my kids got, and am seeing that being given to my grandchildren and compared to my own, it just doesn't stack up. Did you ever see that 8th grade test from the 1800's? Take a look and relate it to what you know.

Education - Then and Now - 1895 Eighth-Grade Final Exam

Here is another from 1954. It is just a civics test, but speaks volumes to the quality of education present kids are receiving.

1954 8th Grade Civics Test - Could You Pass?

When you look at the discussions on this board, you see two types of arguments. One side is actually trying to discuss the science of the issue, and the other side's argument consists mostly of cut and paste and endless appeals to authority. Neither, by the way constitute any sort of argument at all. Those who endlessly appeal to authority can't discuss the topic on any sort of intelligent level and don't have the slightest clue as to whether they are being scamed or not. Just like those people watching the experiment you provided. Oddly enough, they are mostly the sorts who distrust government at every level except on this topic.

 

[Saigon]

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

No rocks, a very few are guilty of deliberate fraud. The remainder of those who actually believe are victims of an error cascade. They simply accept certain data as true and incorporate it into their own studies without actually checking. This isn't the first time it has happened and won't be the last.

But does it seem at all plausible to you that the 50 major scientific bodies in the world would be victims of these error cascades - and that the few opposing scientists the only ones to see through it?

It seems much more likely to me that a handful of scientists would be fooled - and that the overhwelming majority would be well aware of the pitfalls and errors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

No rocks, a very few are guilty of deliberate fraud. The remainder of those who actually believe are victims of an error cascade. They simply accept certain data as true and incorporate it into their own studies without actually checking. This isn't the first time it has happened and won't be the last.

But does it seem at all plausible to you that the 50 major scientific bodies in the world would be victims of these error cascades - and that the few opposing scientists the only ones to see through it?

It seems much more likely to me that a handful of scientists would be fooled - and that the overhwelming majority would be well aware of the pitfalls and errors.

Still waiting for you to address my post
Are you unable to answer?

 

[daveman]

I'm not wading through an hour of a scientist who can't run a projector -- did he keep pressure constant?

Of course not. If you keep the pressure constant, you get no heat of compression and are simply left watching a barbie and a tonka truck bask in the warmth of a couple of light bulbs. Nothing exciting in that. What sort of a sideshow huckster would he be if he didn't toss in a little fraud for effect?

He didn't keep pressure constant?

Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.

Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.

 

[Saigon]

He didn't keep pressure constant?

Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.

Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.

We're so lucky we have you here, because you are probably the only person in the world right now who Really Gets It.

The 50 major scientific organisations in the world ALL claim humn activity is playing a role in climate change. There is not a single scientific organisation who disagrees.

ONLY YOU KNOW!

 

[wirebender]

But does it seem at all plausible to you that the 50 major scientific bodies in the world would be victims of these error cascades - and that the few opposing scientists the only ones to see through it?

You guys keep harping on that as if it actually meant something. It doesn't. The political heads of the scientific bodies pay lip service to man made global warming because to do otherwise would threaten funding. You would be hard pressed to find any scientist within the actual bodies of those organizations who doesn't depend on grant money that is on board the AGW bandwagon. These 1000 plus, published, peer reviewed papers that are skeptical of AGW are written by members of those bodies.

Repeatedly pointing at political heads of scientific organizations who are responsible for funding as if their statements actually made what they say the truth is the frailest of all appeals to authority. If you can discuss the science, that is the actual science, then by all means, lets talk about it. If you can't, then you are just one of the ocean of faithful who, in fact, has no idea whether or not you are bieng scammed.

Popular Technology.net: 1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

It seems much more likely to me that a handful of scientists would be fooled - and that the overhwelming majority would be well aware of the pitfalls and errors.

First, it isn't an overwhelming majority of scientists who are on the AGW bandwagon. It is primarily climate scientists and I don't know if you have ever bothered to look at the educational requirements to get the degree, but it is not a hard science. Meteorologists are far more highly educated than climate scientists and you have to look hard indeed to find a meteorologist who is on the bandwagon.

If you actually look at the education required to be a climate scientist, it is not difficult to understand how they might be bamboozled by those they respect. They simply don't posess the education required to actually question the present dogma so they accept it and incorporate it into their own research without question. That is the nature of an error cascade.

You may note that there is an ever growing number of those educated in the hard sciences who are coming out in opposition to the dogma of climate science.

 

[wirebender]

[
He didn't keep pressure constant?

Of course he didn't. He introduced the CO2 and then closed the tank back up. If he had kept the pressure constant, there would have been no warming.

 

[Saigon]

you have to look hard indeed to find a meteorologist who is on the bandwagon.

UK Met Service:

The Earth's climate has changed many times in response to natural causes. However, since the early 1900s, our climate has changed rapidly due to persistent man-made changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

What is climate change? - Met Office

American Met Society:

Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

AMS Information Statement on Climate Change