Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

[wirebender]

Well, I was interested in finding 2010 co2 forcing...So I looked and found the equation and did the math.

ΔF = αln(C/Co)

a=constant, which is 5.35
So a=5.35
Natural log=ln

^F=5.35In(c/co)

Now we figure for c,
well c for 2010 was 389. 87 ppm
and the co is 278 ppm, which I think would be for 1750

Matthew, I believe your math is a little behind the times. The number 5.35 is a fudge factor, and nothing else and I am afraid that it isn't constant. 5.35 In C/CO is used to justify the claim that the ratio of C-now to C-originally, can be multiplied by a constant (5.35) to get increase of heat. If you use the constant 5.35, you get a result of 3 degrees C increase in global average temperature when the CO2 in the atmospherewhen the ration of C/CO equals two.

3C increase resulting from a doubling of CO2 was the desired result, however, way back in 1988. In the interim, the 3C number has become less than credible because the global termperatures weren't rising anywhere near that fast.

The originally desired 3C was reduced to 1.2C average increase for a doubling of CO2. In order to get that result, the constant has to be 2.31 instead of 5.35. Then not so long ago, the claim of 1.2C for doubling was reduced to 1C. Now the constant has to be changed again to 1.92. (sure changes a lot for a constant doesn't it?). Then the constant was reduced again by about 15% (I believe) to account for an overlap with H2O vapor.

In short Matthew, the constant is the result of reverse engineering. They begin with the result they want and work backwards to arrive at the necessary constant. There is no physical basis for those equations. They are simply convenient.

 

[skookerasbil]

fudging the data is gay

 

[wirebender]

fudging the data is gay

True, but when its all they have and billions of dollars are at stake and they apparantly have severe character flaws, they do what they feel like they have to do.

 

[code1211]

By not clearly stating the decreasing impact of increasing levels of CO2, the implication is there...

Please reference the published scientific literature that spells out your understanding of "decreasing impact of increasing levels of CO2."

Saturation does occur, but until the entire column of the atmosphere from ground to orbit, is saturated (a condition that isn't even achieved on Venus with a 90 bar nearly exclusive CO2 atmosphere), it really doesn't impact the issues of atmospheric radiative transfer, it merely shifts the levels that emit the final exiting long-wave radiation.

It may be more of a political implication than scientific, but the discussion is occurring in political circles and is dependant for added funding on guiding climate amateurs who vote to a conclusion.

These mysterious others need to devote some more time to the mainstream science understandings before they begin trying to decide between valid and invalid policy.



In a situation where the only variable is CO2 proportion, and we are looking at an isolated sample, then yes, determining the amount of long wavelength energy that a given volume of atmosphere will absorb and re-emit is a pretty straight forward and simple calculation. When we begin talking about the complex interactions of multiple simultaneously interacting positive and negative feedback factors in variable flux with a stratified atmosphere and diversely composed radiating surface structure, then no, there is very little that is easily or simply described. Over all, the greater long-wavelength absorptive gas proportions we have in the atmosphere, the greater the delay of the exit of that long wavelength energy from our atmosphere.

I would think that proving that the increase is linear would be what needs to be proven since it is simply not logical. If it is accepted that the effect is dimishing by anyone who can think, then I would assert that "generally accepted" is pretty accurate.

Not sure what logic your thinking follows, but what you state in this paragraph is neither obvious nor supported in its assertion.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Global Warming Art

What is your understanding of what this graph illustrates and the significance you draw from what it illustrates?

What the graph illustrates is that CO2 was about 15 times higher than it is currently. If the rise of temperature is caused by CO2 and if the rise caused by CO2 does not diminish with increasing density of CO2, then the temperature would also be 15 times higher than it is today.

Is this not logical if the incremental effect of CO2 does not diminish as the amount of CO2 in the air increases?

If the incremental rise in temperature decreases as the density of the CO2 increases, and it appears to do so, then it does. There's not much room for debate on this. Are you saying that the incremental rise of temperature remains constant as the density of CO2 in the air increases?

If that's the case, why does the rise of temperature slow even as the rise of CO2 remains constant? Why was the temperature not 800 degrees when the CO2 density was 8000 ppm?