More valid theory: Gravity or Climate Change?

[ding]

It depends on how one sees climate change. If he sees climate change as AGW and believes the radaitive forcing of CO2 is weak then that is as valid as gravity being a consequence of matter/energy warping space time.

 

[Libby von H]

If Newtonian gravity could be used to control and suppress the US economy, Einstein would be called a Newton Denier

Three big differences that undermine the analogy

Gravity refers to something real but the theories explaining it are so diverse that you have to separate fact and 'explanation' of fact

Validity is totally irrelevant as there are no moral, political , or economic choices affected by gravity, which you can't change anyway.
It is WRONG WRONG WRONG to let African children die and have impoverished lives when Africa has never used even 6% of the energy we use. The children need the fossil fuels that gave American kids their possibilities. India and China are now violating all cllimate accords and building coal plants at a furious rate. Here is The Guardian of one month ago:

The world’s fossil fuel producers are planning expansions that would blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over, a UN report has found."

And most of all, almost all the reasons for so-called climate spending point to putting the money elsewhere !!
Bjorn Lomborg
"
He says that while climate change may cause problems someday, “if you live in most other places on the planet, you’re worried that your kids might die from easily curable diseases tonight.”

That’s why, he says, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Where can we spend dollars and do a lot of good versus . . . just a little good?”

So I judge your comparison utterly baseless

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I find it strange that a grown man doesn't know the difference between "can't" and "won't".

It must bother you. Why aren't there any controlled experiments for something as simple as variations in CO2?

Perhaps they did the experiments very early on and they never showed and measurable effect on temperature, like .0002F increase?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why aren't there any controlled experiments for something as simple as variations in CO2?

There are, how stupid.

You guys actually think scientists have not controlled for CO2 in every single study where they study other inputs?

This is what happens when you sleep through science and don't go to college.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are, how stupid.

You guys actually think scientists have not controlled for CO2 in every single study where they study other inputs?

This is what happens when you sleep through science and don't go to college.

Show us these controlled experiments

 

[ding]

Three big differences that undermine the analogy

Gravity refers to something real but the theories explaining it are so diverse that you have to separate fact and 'explanation' of fact

Validity is totally irrelevant as there are no moral, political , or economic choices affected by gravity, which you can't change anyway.
It is WRONG WRONG WRONG to let African children die and have impoverished lives when Africa has never used even 6% of the energy we use. The children need the fossil fuels that gave American kids their possibilities. India and China are now violating all cllimate accords and building coal plants at a furious rate. Here is The Guardian of one month ago:

The world’s fossil fuel producers are planning expansions that would blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over, a UN report has found."

And most of all, almost all the reasons for so-called climate spending point to putting the money elsewhere !!
Bjorn Lomborg
"
He says that while climate change may cause problems someday, “if you live in most other places on the planet, you’re worried that your kids might die from easily curable diseases tonight.”

That’s why, he says, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Where can we spend dollars and do a lot of good versus . . . just a little good?”

So I judge your comparison utterly baseless

It sounds as if you are advocating using more fossil fuels rather than less. Because if so, I agree.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show us these controlled experiments

No, use your head and realize how stupid what you are saying is. I have spoonfed you the tools to do so.

 

[ReinyDays]

First tell me what that experiment would look like.

Would it be, oh, modelling, maybe?

I don't feed the sealions.

YOU don't know what the experiment should LOOK LIKE ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

You've never taken a science class in your entire life ...

What model? ... usually we use SB, but that uses the college definition of temperature ... what model are you using since you don't know what temperature is or why that definition is wrong? ...

N.B. SB actually uses a third definition of temperature, but that's not important cooler than Type A stars, ≈ 10,000ºC and below we have good equivalence ...

 

[ReinyDays]

So let me get this straight:

The deniers actually believe scientists have not controlled for CO2 in order to determine effects of other inputs in the climate?

Amazing. And embarrassing.

We've been looking for that ... no ... there's no scientific paper out there describing and experiment that demonstrates CO2 quantitative roll in global warming ... we can demonstrate carbon dioxide effects temperature ... but nothing that shows how much ... and theoretical values are underwhelming ...

If you believe scientists HAVE "controlled for CO2", then please link us to their results ... I'd like to see how they compensate for convection ...

 

[ding]

If you believe scientists HAVE "controlled for CO2", then please link us to their results ... I'd like to see how they compensate for convection ...

A most excellent point as the entire atmosphere of GHG's are only 44% efficient at trapping heat because of convective currents. Yet we are led to believe an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 is supposed to be 500% efficient.

 

[ReinyDays]

A most excellent point as the entire atmosphere of GHG's are only 44% efficient at trapping heat because of convective currents. Yet we are led to believe an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 is supposed to be 500% efficient.

I don't know what this means ... My understanding is a 15 µm photon is NOT passing through a carbon dioxide molecule in her "0" quantum state ... the photon is absorbed and the molecule is in her "1' state for about a half a second ... then a new 15 µm photon is released is some random direction ... some back to Earth ...

Convection currents inhibit this by not allowing the 15 µm photon to be emitted from the Earth's surface ... rather this energy is uplifted in the atmosphere and released at, for example, 3/4's the way to space ... now the greenhouse effect described above works to move the energy OUT ... never having effected Earth's atmospheric temperatures ...

My calculations come up with roughly 40% of the 1,360 W/m^2 irradiation is used to raise temperatures ... 60% to evaporate water, which doesn't change temperature ... based on 13ºC 20th Century global average as being close enough ...

The IPCC ignores this ... no peer review ...

 

[ding]

I don't know what this means ...

It means that the GHG effect should theoretically result in a surface temperature of 75C but due to convection currents it only results in a surface temperature of 33C.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

 

[ReinyDays]

It means that the GHG effect should theoretically result in a surface temperature of 75C but due to convection currents it only results in a surface temperature of 33C.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

Here's a link to Manabe/Stricker (1964) ... the gist I get is they're looking at the lower Stratosphere, not so much surface temperatures ... and gee whiz, 1964 this is cutting edge science what is today beginner's meteorology ... computational fluid dynamics with a slide rule ...

More damning is precipitation ... as per above's Conclusion #5 ...

ETA: Quiz on Monday morning on the body of the paper ...

 

[ding]

Here's a link to Manabe/Stricker (1964) ... the gist I get is they're looking at the lower Stratosphere, not so much surface temperatures ... and gee whiz, 1964 this is cutting edge science what is today beginner's meteorology ... computational fluid dynamics with a slide rule ...

More damning is precipitation ... as per above's Conclusion #5 ...

ETA: Quiz on Monday morning on the body of the paper ...

I value Roy Spencer's opinion. That's where I got it from.

 

[ReinyDays]

I value Roy Spencer's opinion. That's where I got it from.

Roy Spencer's dog ate his homework ... you'll need a different excuse ...

 

[ding]

Roy Spencer's dog ate his homework ... you'll need a different excuse ...

Don't be jelly of Roy's dog.

 

[Libby von H]

Have you accepted the CO2 molecule as your Lord and Savior? Do 3 Hail Mary’s and 4 Mann’s Hockey Sticks

Okay, for the future you must distingush logical, plausible,valid and true
A valid argument can be totally false.Logic 101

 

[BackAgain]

The weight of evidence supports the theory of gravity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The weight of evidence supports the theory of gravity.

But only to a certain point, after which it fails to explain our observations

 

[BackAgain]

But only to a certain point, after which it fails to explain our observations

Now, I’m massively confused.