Renowned Physicist quits American Physical Society

[Old Rocks]

And no response at all to a 40% increase in the primary greenhouse gas? Yes, the earth's climate responds to small changes in the solar output. That is why we should be seeing a cooling right now like that we saw between 1940 and 1970. But we are not. We are seeing an accelerating warming.

And, by the way, if we are still responding to minor increase in solar output between 1850 and 1940, why did it cool from 1940 to 1970? That could not be from particulate matter that mankind put in the air could it? And if we can affect the temperature of the Earth from particulate matter, then what makes you think that our changing the composition of the atmosphere to the point that we have 40% more GHGs is not going to have an affect?

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes
28 Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the
natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are
supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional
gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with
an uncertainty of about ±0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from
human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take into account these
other positive and negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate
that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around
1.6 Wm-2 with an estimated uncertainty of about ±0.8 Wm-2.

29 Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph
The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 6
36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.

Whaaaa? To borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart, please show how CO2 raises the temps. Vostock says warming first then CO2 rise 800 years after the fact. We are 800 years after the MWP, according to the Vostock cores the CO2 we see now is from the MWP.

Prove me wrong.

Don't have to. Tyndall did about 150 years ago.

 

[westwall]

And no response at all to a 40% increase in the primary greenhouse gas? Yes, the earth's climate responds to small changes in the solar output. That is why we should be seeing a cooling right now like that we saw between 1940 and 1970. But we are not. We are seeing an accelerating warming.

And, by the way, if we are still responding to minor increase in solar output between 1850 and 1940, why did it cool from 1940 to 1970? That could not be from particulate matter that mankind put in the air could it? And if we can affect the temperature of the Earth from particulate matter, then what makes you think that our changing the composition of the atmosphere to the point that we have 40% more GHGs is not going to have an affect?

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society

Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes
28 Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the
natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are
supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional
gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with
an uncertainty of about ±0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from
human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take into account these
other positive and negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate
that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around
1.6 Wm-2 with an estimated uncertainty of about ±0.8 Wm-2.

29 Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph
The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 6
36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.

Whaaaa? To borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart, please show how CO2 raises the temps. Vostock says warming first then CO2 rise 800 years after the fact. We are 800 years after the MWP, according to the Vostock cores the CO2 we see now is from the MWP.

Prove me wrong.

Don't have to. Tyndall did about 150 years ago.

Wrong yet again. All Tyndall did was show that CO2 is a GHG. Try again.

 

[konradv]

Whaaaa? To borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart, please show how CO2 raises the temps. Vostock says warming first then CO2 rise 800 years after the fact. We are 800 years after the MWP, according to the Vostock cores the CO2 we see now is from the MWP.

Prove me wrong.

Don't have to. Tyndall did about 150 years ago.

Wrong yet again. All Tyndall did was show that CO2 is a GHG. Try again.

That's all? Well that's enough. If it's a GHG and the levels are going up, what else do you need to know? How do you know the rise in CO2 800 years later isn't a response to some other warming factor? Now we're getting more CO2 emitted in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. When has that happened before. You can't take the past as a template for the furture, if underlying conditions have changed. That's science 101.

 

[IanC]

konradv- the effects of CO2 are logarithmic. the initial quantities make a large difference but we are now in the area of the curve where a doubling only increases temp 1 degree. (and we are less than halfway to doubling)

alarmists say that the extra heat will be multiplied by changes in water vapour. this is where the disconnect begins. water vapour does not disperse evenly in the atmosphere like CO2, it forms clouds.

clouds are the huge problem in the computer climate models. none of the models can even come close to showing heat movement in cloud systems. the models are tweaked to produce reasonable numbers in the very last stage; the temperature prediction. but they don't get there from understanding the system but by adjusting the variables until they get a good looking graph.

clouds are a complex and chaotic system that acts both as a positive and negative feedback, depending on local and global conditions. billions of years ago clouds produced similar temperatures to today even though the sun was only three quarters as bright.

My point is that CO2 does cause a minimal warming but the extraordinary extrapolations and predictions that proceed from that small increase are unproven bullsh*t that is only there because global warming funding pays for it.

 

[IanC]

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

This new study is hilarious! It shows how astrology is better than the best computer climate models in describing and projecting global temps. Queue up "This is the Dawning of the Age of Aquarious"

Im joking, but only just. Saturn and Jupiter could account for 60% of the warming in the last few decades. The peer reviewed and published paper may be right or it may be wrong, but it puts an exclaimation point to the whole settled science argument.

(Hansen's GISS ModelE gets p'wned on page 2 of the PDF. )

 

[westwall]

Don't have to. Tyndall did about 150 years ago.

Wrong yet again. All Tyndall did was show that CO2 is a GHG. Try again.

That's all? Well that's enough. If it's a GHG and the levels are going up, what else do you need to know? How do you know the rise in CO2 800 years later isn't a response to some other warming factor? Now we're getting more CO2 emitted in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. When has that happened before. You can't take the past as a template for the furture, if underlying conditions have changed. That's science 101.[/QUOTE]




konrad,

You really need to take a science class some day. I highlighted your statement above. Look up the Principle of Uniformitarianism, it basically states "the present is the key to the past." The corollary of course is what happened in the past is what is happening today. James Hutton the father of Geology first posited this principle way back in 1785 when he wrote "We find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."

In other words you must take the past as the template for today, and what will happen in the future. This is the ESSENCE of science today.

That's why review of the paleo climate record is so important and why when it shows the CO2 levels rising after temps rose it puts a dagger in the heart of the present AGW theory.

 

[westwall]

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

This new study is hilarious! It shows how astrology is better than the best computer climate models in describing and projecting global temps. Queue up "This is the Dawning of the Age of Aquarious"

Im joking, but only just. Saturn and Jupiter could account for 60% of the warming in the last few decades. The peer reviewed and published paper may be right or it may be wrong, but it puts an exclaimation point to the whole settled science argument.

(Hansen's GISS ModelE gets p'wned on page 2 of the PDF. )

That's a good article! Figures 10 and 10A on page 11 are particularly intriguing.

 

[Old Rocks]

konradv- the effects of CO2 are logarithmic. the initial quantities make a large difference but we are now in the area of the curve where a doubling only increases temp 1 degree. (and we are less than halfway to doubling)

alarmists say that the extra heat will be multiplied by changes in water vapour. this is where the disconnect begins. water vapour does not disperse evenly in the atmosphere like CO2, it forms clouds.

clouds are the huge problem in the computer climate models. none of the models can even come close to showing heat movement in cloud systems. the models are tweaked to produce reasonable numbers in the very last stage; the temperature prediction. but they don't get there from understanding the system but by adjusting the variables until they get a good looking graph.

clouds are a complex and chaotic system that acts both as a positive and negative feedback, depending on local and global conditions. billions of years ago clouds produced similar temperatures to today even though the sun was only three quarters as bright.

My point is that CO2 does cause a minimal warming but the extraordinary extrapolations and predictions that proceed from that small increase are unproven bullsh*t that is only there because global warming funding pays for it.

Ian, are you a physicist, or a climatologist? Then give us somebody stating that who has some credibility in that area. You know like a physicist, kind of like these people, who state otherwise

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[westwall]

konradv- the effects of CO2 are logarithmic. the initial quantities make a large difference but we are now in the area of the curve where a doubling only increases temp 1 degree. (and we are less than halfway to doubling)

alarmists say that the extra heat will be multiplied by changes in water vapour. this is where the disconnect begins. water vapour does not disperse evenly in the atmosphere like CO2, it forms clouds.

clouds are the huge problem in the computer climate models. none of the models can even come close to showing heat movement in cloud systems. the models are tweaked to produce reasonable numbers in the very last stage; the temperature prediction. but they don't get there from understanding the system but by adjusting the variables until they get a good looking graph.

clouds are a complex and chaotic system that acts both as a positive and negative feedback, depending on local and global conditions. billions of years ago clouds produced similar temperatures to today even though the sun was only three quarters as bright.

My point is that CO2 does cause a minimal warming but the extraordinary extrapolations and predictions that proceed from that small increase are unproven bullsh*t that is only there because global warming funding pays for it.

Ian, are you a physicist, or a climatologist? Then give us somebody stating that who has some credibility in that area. You know like a physicist, kind of like these people, who state otherwise

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Look up the Beer-Lambert Law there olfraud, you may learn something...like Ian is correct for one thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Astrology, eh. Hmmmm......

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)







<=Simple models

The subtle difference did not occur to anyone for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the few scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)



=>Simple models
=>Radiation math

A few scientists dissented from the view that changes of CO2 could have no effect. An American physicist, E.O. Hulburt, pointed out in 1931 that investigators had been mainly interested in pinning down the intricate structure of the absorption bands (which offered fascinating insights into the new theory of quantum mechanics) "and not in getting accurate absorption coefficients." Hulburt's own calculations supported Arrhenius's estimate that doubling or halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature, and thus "the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages... is a possible theory."(11) Hardly anyone noticed this paper. Hulburt was an obscure worker at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and he published in a journal, the Physical Review, that few meteorologists read. Their general consensus was the one stated in such authoritative works as the American Meteorological Society's 1951 Compendium of Meteorology: the idea that adding CO2 would change the climate "was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor."(11a)