Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

What laboratory experiment can we perform that demonstrates this? ... why can't CO2 be just a good GHG as any other ... water's 20 times as powerful because there's 20 times as much mass ... and we can statistically jack that up to 50 by using molar mass values ... one photon, one molecule ... how it is in the universe ...
You know... the thing that boggles my mind, is that they know the entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical SURFACE temperature because convective currents whisk the heat into the upper atmosphere. They know that. It's not some unknown thing. It's common knowledge. So how can they not bat an eye at a model which predicts the GHG effect of an incremental 280 ppm of CO2 combined with its associated feedback (i.e. water vapor) is 450% effective at trapping its theoretical SURFACE temperature.

Riddle me that, Batman?
 
What's wrong with simple physics? It's an actual physical phenomenon. Molecules vibrating heating up the surrounding air. They already know it. ~1C per doubling of CO2.

Your evidence is very ordinary ... why can't we make the ordinary claim that CO2 is water's equal ... molecule per molecule ...
 
It's not some unknown thing.

Actually ... it is unknown ... we have no idea how much energy is transferred through convection ... we don't even know how to measure this ... we can see that it does happen, and a certain amount of energy enters his radiative state in the upper atmosphere somewhat immune for the GHG effects ... science is about measure and we don't measure this ... yet ...

It's been a few years, the last I read folks were getting busy on this matter but it'll take a few more years to get results into the scientific literature ...

That is not a nice riddle, my precious ...
 
Actually ... it is unknown ... we have no idea how much energy is transferred through convection ... we don't even know how to measure this ... we can see that it does happen, and a certain amount of energy enters his radiative state in the upper atmosphere somewhat immune for the GHG effects ... science is about measure and we don't measure this ... yet ...

It's been a few years, the last I read folks were getting busy on this matter but it'll take a few more years to get results into the scientific literature ...

That is not a nice riddle, my precious ...
"...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.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2..."

 
"...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.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by us adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg C of surface warming. This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. As of early 2019, we were about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2..."


Can I see these theoretical calculations ... many of us here have been actively searching for these for years now ... all we find is statistical vomit ... and that ain't math ...

If average global temperature is 8ºC below 20th Century average for 180 ppm ... then at 360 ppm the temperature should be 7ºC below ... 720 ppm for 6ºC below ... we should be at 46,000 ppm for the 20th Century average ...

Yeah ... please post these calculations and explain them to us ... you're the Field Theory expert ... edify us please ... I'd like to see how these researchers divided up the wavelengths between GHGs that are published as inseparable ...
 
Can I see these theoretical calculations ... many of us here have been actively searching for these for years now ... all we find is statistical vomit ... and that ain't math ...

If average global temperature is 8ºC below 20th Century average for 180 ppm ... then at 360 ppm the temperature should be 7ºC below ... 720 ppm for 6ºC below ... we should be at 46,000 ppm for the 20th Century average ...

Yeah ... please post these calculations and explain them to us ... you're the Field Theory expert ... edify us please ... I'd like to see how these researchers divided up the wavelengths between GHGs that are published as inseparable ...
Don't accept it. I couldn't care less.
 
What laboratory experiment can we perform that demonstrates this? ... why can't CO2 be just a good GHG as any other ... water's 20 times as powerful because there's 20 times as much mass ... and we can statistically jack that up to 50 by using molar mass values ... one photon, one molecule ... how it is in the universe ...
I believe that the major cause of climate are the clouds. Though not predictable, they exert a major influence over weather and climate. I do not see a way for CO2 to form more clouds.
 
I believe that the major cause of climate are the clouds. Though not predictable, they exert a major influence over weather and climate. I do not see a way for CO2 to form more clouds.
You are partially correct. Clouds are condensed water. CO2 does not condense at atmospheric temperatures and so cannot form a cloud.

The panic over climate change is terribly misguided. A survey of 9.7 million people around the world showed that action on climate change is their bottom priority, according to Bjorn Lomborg in False Alarm:

Climate Change Dead Last.jpg

Page 219: Cost/Benefit analysis shows that money spent on climate change action
is the worst possible way to spend it:

Page 219.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Climate Change Dead Last.jpg
    Climate Change Dead Last.jpg
    347.7 KB · Views: 0
I believe that the major cause of climate are the clouds. Though not predictable, they exert a major influence over weather and climate. I do not see a way for CO2 to form more clouds.

Clouds are the "precipitation" part of our climate parameters ... this is part of the historical records we keep of the weather, and it's the averages of this data that is climate ... temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, amount of clouds and at what altitude ... what pilots needs to know ... what collects in the rain gauge is what's thermodynamically important ... tons and bunches of energy left behind in the environment that can be used to spin up tornadoes ... bigger hailstones ... Paris Hilton's return to the spotlight ... all manner of weather horrors ...

The current climate include all this, no change needed ... hypercanes throwing hockey sticks won't help the Blackhawks ...
 
I forgot to add this analysis of THE dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor.
It is my compilation of information and graph(s) from the internet, with the graph
I created of a corrected Scary Graph.

```````KEELING CURVE ADJUSTED 2.jpg
 
I forgot to add this analysis of THE dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor.
It is my compilation of information and graph(s) from the internet, with the graph
I created of a corrected Scary Graph.

View attachment 918263

I agree with #3 ... water vapor is the dominate GHG in our atmosphere ... and using molar mass, the difference is 2.5 times greater ...

However ... #2 is in error ... the isotope ratios are consistent with the additional CO2 being from the burning of fossil fuels ... 270 ppm are natural, 150 ppm is man-made ... carbon-dating with Carbon-14 can't be used after the beginning of the Industrial Age ... but as you correctly stated, CO2 has tiny effects on temperature, and temperature has tiny effects on weather ...

You should give citations with the material you post ... we've all seen these graphs repeatedly and we all know you didn't create them ... it's called "plagerism" when you use someone else's work and claim it to be your own ...

Misinformation is the enemy here ...
 
The first Earth Day leaders claimed that because of global cooling, the population of America will have collapsed to 22,000,000 by the year 2,000. (April 22, 1970, New York City)


Around the first Earth Day, environmental scientists made dire predictions about pollution. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” reported Life magazine in 1970. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable,” said ecologist Kenneth Watt.





In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 19 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” (Note: Global production of crude oil last year at 82.275M barrels per day (bpd) was just slightly below the record output in 2018 of 82.9M bpd, and about 50% higher than the global output of 55.7M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day).

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
 
The first Earth Day leaders claimed that because of global cooling, the population of America will have collapsed to 22,000,000 by the year 2,000. (April 22, 1970, New York City)


Around the first Earth Day, environmental scientists made dire predictions about pollution. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” reported Life magazine in 1970. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable,” said ecologist Kenneth Watt.





In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 19 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” (Note: Global production of crude oil last year at 82.275M barrels per day (bpd) was just slightly below the record output in 2018 of 82.9M bpd, and about 50% higher than the global output of 55.7M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day).

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Earth Day originated in 18th Century Spain ... some manner of Catholic ritual ... planting trees was known in antiquity to provide cooling shade ... the Age of Science doesn't change that ... we've been fighting Global Warming since 24,956 BC ...

You must be too young to remember having to wait 3 hours in line to buy 5 gallons of gas ... 1973 AD ...
 

Forum List

Back
Top