The origin of "Global Warming".

[Old Rocks]

OK. Then let's just stick with the "wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming". It was a good prediciton 13 years ago, and still is getting it's validity confirmed on nearly a weekly basis now.

It`s not good enough to claim "wider and wilder" or "more severe". Hard science does not work that way and unless You quantify "wider and wilder" it`s not hard science.
again:
Simply stating "extreme" is a qualitative assertion which evades doing the math to show the quantity.
And when You do the math the vapor pressure curve for H2O applies to an air mass the same as it does to water in a psychrometric vapor pressure instrument. Dry air expands or shrinks only by 1/273 rd. per degree delta K and with a 100% water vapor saturation pressure it shrinks by the partial pressure component %.age of the total pressure carried by the water vapor.
2.27 % at 20C and at a "temperature anomaly" of 21 C it`s only increased by 0.2%

"Extreme storms" are not caused while water evaporates, they happen when the evaporated water/ air mixture is rapidly cooled.
And to evaporate water quicker raising the "average temperature" by only 1 C does not have anywhere near the effect an increased airflow has.
You can try that out the next time You do Your laundry. Plug up the lint screen and observe how the safety thermostat cuts the power because the drum overheats,...but the clothes are just as wet as before.
The same laws are at play for wind speed over a large body of water or moist terrain. Just "warmer" by itself and only by 1C has no more than 0.2 % impact at standard pressure and temperature.

And again I pose the question, how do you link CO2 to "more extreme" weather events which are only possible if moisture rapidly condenses due to an increased rate of cooling, while CO2 is said to decrease the rate of cooling.
It`s easy to insist that somebody predicted "more extreme weather events" 13 years ago when "more extreme" is a matter of interpretation instead of a mathematical quantity.
Have you noticed that "fortune telling" a.k.a. "cold reading" also works like that? Add to that how many people recall only the predictions that suit their beliefs. It is human nature to forget all the other ones that turned out to be false. I was under the impression that computer "climate models" had to be improved over what was in use 13 years ago. If their predictions were so "right" then there would have been no need to revise them.

Here is that link, for a Phd meteorologist;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve, that is just plain nonsense. The whole idea that a constituent of the atmosphere could aid in warming the earth came about when Fourier noted that by the albedo of the earth, the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. He stated that there must be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the energy in the outgoing reflected and emitted energy.

That was in the early 1820's, well before we were a power. In 1858, Tyndall did the experiments that did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases. He found that CO2, CH4, H20, and NOx strongly absorbed energy in the longwave infrared. In 1896, Arrhenius quantified the numbers for CO2 and did a pretty accurate prediction of the amount of heating for the doubling of atmospheric CO2. Each and every one of these scientists have their reputations established on other fields of investigation, and each of their observations and predictions in this field have been upheld since then.

Had the science been left at Arrhenius's predictions, it would have been adaquete to explain the observations that we are now seeing. From the continental ice caps, sea ice, and alpine glaciers, we see how the increasing warmth is changing the world we live in. The very seasons have responds, over the last 100 years, falls come later, springs earlier, and summers are warmer in both hemisphere.

None of this is connected to anyones politics. And it will only happen faster and be more extreme if we continue to put GHGs into the atmosphere.

Let`s examine little bit closer what Fourier noted about the albedo, Tyndall`s experiments "mapping absorption spectra " and Arrhenius "pretty accurate predictions".
Starting with the albedo:
1.) Fourier had for sure no better idea what the "average albedo" of planet earth was than we do today even though we now have satellites that attempt to get more accurate values.
2.) The CO2 captures only a very tiny fraction of what is being converted to longer wavelengths by a low albedo surface.
You might as well worry about by how much the stopping distance of your car is increased after you exit a fast food drive through with a MacD quarter-pounder on your dashboard.

Tyndall had no way to "map absorption spectra". To map a spectrum You need a precision grated "mono-chromator" which is capable to SCAN over a spectral range. All Tyndall and everybody else had then was a crude band pass filter which can "see" only at a fixed wavelength. He was also unaware that any such measurement is meaning less, unless You first exclude all water vapor and that the absorption is a log function that progressively levels out as the CO2 concentration increases...the absorbance per distance unit decreases no matter how much more CO2 You add....the effect decreases per delta ppm.

Arrhenius` "pretty accurate" predictions turned out to be wrong by a factor of 80 times..!!! after the effect of CO2 doubling has been accurately measured with a state of the art Infrared Spectrophotometer.
The increase in absorption is so minute that you can`t observe it at all unless you exclude any trace of water vapor and work with Sodiumchloride crystal cell windows. If you use glass like Tyndall etc did a century ago that increase can`t even be measured because the moisture and the glass absorbed way more than the increase of CO2.
Go and visit a Chem Lab in a campus near you and ask them to show you an infrared spectrophotometer + a demonstration.
I`ve done thousands of IR analysis on Beckman, Perkin Elmer and other state of the art instruments and believe me I know what I`m talking about.

Let me put it in terms of Spencer`s "Yes Virgina" blanket analogy.
If you cover yourself with 200 blankets each "insulating" you as 1 ppm CO2 would you won`t get any warmer with 300 blankets

Two items here. You state that CO2 captures only a tiny amount of heat, yet you give no links for anything that backs that statement up. Second, Tyndall's apparatus did give him very good observations on the heat absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases. Not to the accuracy of todays equipment, but quite good, nonetheless.

File:TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases annotated.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

An older study, still valid;

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

It was terrible PR to call it global warming in the first place.

Warming sounds so benign, doesn't it.

I mean who doesn't like WARM?

GLOBAL WEIRDING is the term that truly descibes the trend.

The word WEIRD is derived from the German word for FATE, incidently.

I do NOT believe that we can actually predict how this change in climate will effect the world.

For instance, while the overall earth might be getting warmed, that does not mean that some places won't, experience something akin to an ICE AGE.

The northern Hemiphere on the E coast and Europe might, as a result of the end of the GULF current, experience extreme COLDER weather since it is the GULF STREAM that keeps both of those places so warm today.

We have probably opened a pandora's box as it regards climate.

And even if we had NOThing TO DO WITH IT, it seems fairly evident to me that something drastic is taking place.

I'll tell you what one thing most concerns me.

The ACIDIFICATION of the world's oceans.

We can as a species at least, survive almost any change in the climate.

But what we cannot survive is the collapse of the microfauna of the world's oceans.

Ands as so much of that microfauna are calcium shelled creatures, and the acidification of the oceans will kill off those speceies?

Well the ocean's microbiological life is really the system that has kept the balance between carbon dioxide and the world's oxygen for the last couple hundred million years.

When that balance is screwed up?

Shit's gonnas get REAL, folks

That is the primary point that so many scientists have been trying to make. We are throwing a monkey wrench into a very complex system, with absolutely no idea of what the results are going to be. Thus far, the results look to be anything but benign.

 

[IanC]

Let me put it in terms of Spencer`s "Yes Virgina" blanket analogy.
If you cover yourself with 200 blankets each "insulating" you as 1 ppm CO2 would you won`t get any warmer with 300 blankets

let's go with that analogy, but we have to realize the systems are wildly different. conduction rather than radiation for one, and the body core stays at a fixed temp with varying input rather than the earth which has a fixed input with a varying temp.

a man in a cold room has to produce, say 200W to keep his core at 37C

after covering himself with a blanket he only needs to produce 100W.

an extra two blankets (for a total of three) cuts his requirement to 50W

an extra four blankets (total of seven) cuts it to 25W

an extra eight blankets (15 total) drops it to 12.5W

and so on.....every extra blanket causes less change in energy requirement to keep the core at 37C but it still makes a difference, at least theoretically. basal metabolism only goes so low and pretty soon you would have to stick limbs outside the blanket so that you wouldnt overheat.


with the earth it is different but still kinda the same.

the first one part per million warms the planet 1C

it takes two more ppm to add another 1C (total 2C)

four more ppm (total 7ppm) to add another 1C (total 3C)

.........

128 more ppm (total 255 ppm) to add another 1C (total 8C)

256 more ppm (total 511 ppm) to add another 1C (total 9C)

512 more ppm (total 1027 ppm) to add another 1C (total 10C)


as you can see we are in an position where adding more ppm CO2 is having a small effect. not only that but temperature increases also trigger compensatory mechanisms (sticking your foot out from under the blankets).

 

[editec]

It was terrible PR to call it global warming in the first place.

Warming sounds so benign, doesn't it.

I mean who doesn't like WARM?

GLOBAL WEIRDING is the term that truly descibes the trend.

The word WEIRD is derived from the German word for FATE, incidently.

I do NOT believe that we can actually predict how this change in climate will effect the world.

For instance, while the overall earth might be getting warmed, that does not mean that some places won't, experience something akin to an ICE AGE.

The northern Hemiphere on the E coast and Europe might, as a result of the end of the GULF current, experience extreme COLDER weather since it is the GULF STREAM that keeps both of those places so warm today.

We have probably opened a pandora's box as it regards climate.

And even if we had NOThing TO DO WITH IT, it seems fairly evident to me that something drastic is taking place.

I'll tell you what one thing most concerns me.

The ACIDIFICATION of the world's oceans.

We can as a species at least, survive almost any change in the climate.

But what we cannot survive is the collapse of the microfauna of the world's oceans.

Ands as so much of that microfauna are calcium shelled creatures, and the acidification of the oceans will kill off those speceies?

Well the ocean's microbiological life is really the system that has kept the balance between carbon dioxide and the world's oxygen for the last couple hundred million years.

When that balance is screwed up?

Shit's gonnas get REAL, folks

That is the primary point that so many scientists have been trying to make. We are throwing a monkey wrench into a very complex system, with absolutely no idea of what the results are going to be. Thus far, the results look to be anything but benign.

Even putting aside the issue of whether or not we are responsible, (let's assume we aren't for purposes of this discussion) I think we're in serious trouble.

Hell we can only HOPE that MANKIND is responsible for the changes, because in that case we MIGHT be able to mitigate the problem.


If, as some believe, Global weirding is happening naturally and not because of human activity?

Then citizen, we are probably truly fucked.

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic’s Case



Sources?


Impeccable

 

[skookerasbil]

Very compelling article......the alternative energy scam........




NEWS & COMMENTARY

The Alternative Energy religion is based on a false premise


Now our county fathers are chasing "alternative energy." They are junketing to Washington to cozy up to Federal officials in attempts to get a wind farm going near Pantego. The only way that project can make a go of it is to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. It's a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. But then, that's exactly what all these economic development schemes Al Klemm and Jay McRoy sold to us. Take from other businesses and give it to a few. But wind energy is much more of a boondoggle than anything our leaders have chased, except perhaps ethanol.

The alternative energy movement is a scam. A huge, gigantic scam. That is so, because of nothing else is considered it is based on a false premise to start with—that we are going to run out of oil and natural gas—fossil fuels if you will. But that is a bogus idea, as is explain in this article by Bill Freeze:
One of the most persistent beliefs among proponents of alternative energy is that we are in danger of running out of fossil fuels. This economic theory, known as "Peak Oil," was first articulated by geophysicist M. King Hubbert in 1956. It states that for any geographic region—indeed, for the world as a whole—the extraction of fossil fuels follows a bell-shaped curve that eventually hits a maximum and then must inevitably decline. It seems like a commonsensical, compelling theory—except for a few small problems. It ignores the role economics plays in shaping supply and demand, it completely discounts the power of human ingenuity to come up with novel ways to solve problems, and it has been repeatedly refuted by the facts.

Every prediction over the last half century—and there have been many—that global oil production has or will soon hit a peak has been proven wrong. In fact, Peak Oil advocates have been so thoroughly debunked that they seem to now inhabit an alternate reality—one where fracking and horizontal drilling were never developed. Today, U.S. oil production is soaring, and the International Energy Agency predicts that the U.S. is on track to become the world's largest crude oil producer by 2017.

Yet the Peak Oil theory lives on, like a zombie that refuses to die. The Wikipedia entry on the subject still states "Hubbert's Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s. Since then, it has been in a gradual decline." A new report published by the Post Carbon Institute, A New Era Of Energy Abundance? reprises Hubbert's arguments and dismisses the current boom as a bubble destined to fizzle out. No word from the report's author, David Hughes, on whether he is willing to reprise Paul Ehrlich's famous wager with Julian Simon that the price of a basket of scarce minerals would rise due to resource exhaustion and overconsumption. (I can't wait to see the look on his face when teachers from the bankrupt state of California begin marching to allow drilling in the Monterey Shale so their underfunded pensions can get paid.)

The purpose of this column is not to review the laundry list of reasons why neo-Malthusian theories like Peak Oil consistently fail to predict reality—many others have done so in impressive fashion, especially Julian Simon in his classic opus, The Ultimate Resource. Rather, it is to point out that if somehow fossil fuels were to start to "run out," that would necessarily imply that solar, wind, biofuel, algae, and any other politically favored alternative energy source that got a seat at the subsidy table could not possibly have captured a lion's share of the market. For had any of them done so, the reduced consumption of fossil fuels would keep fossil fuels from running out!

This is not a complicated concept, but grasping it requires forever abandoning the static analysis that so distorts the debate over energy and natural resources. Every school kid understands the basic law of supply and demand and the role that changing prices play in balancing the two. And yet Peak Oil promoters and alternative energy zealots seem to believe that increased oil prices will not bring about increased exploration, innovation, and discovery (never mind that they brought us the current fracking boom) and that decreased consumption due to a massive switch to alternative energy will not lower fossil fuel prices, making it ever harder for alternative energy sources to gain market share.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Very compelling article......the alternative energy scam........




NEWS & COMMENTARY

The Alternative Energy religion is based on a false premise


Now our county fathers are chasing "alternative energy." They are junketing to Washington to cozy up to Federal officials in attempts to get a wind farm going near Pantego. The only way that project can make a go of it is to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. It's a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. But then, that's exactly what all these economic development schemes Al Klemm and Jay McRoy sold to us. Take from other businesses and give it to a few. But wind energy is much more of a boondoggle than anything our leaders have chased, except perhaps ethanol.

The alternative energy movement is a scam. A huge, gigantic scam. That is so, because of nothing else is considered it is based on a false premise to start with—that we are going to run out of oil and natural gas—fossil fuels if you will. But that is a bogus idea, as is explain in this article by Bill Freeze:
One of the most persistent beliefs among proponents of alternative energy is that we are in danger of running out of fossil fuels. This economic theory, known as "Peak Oil," was first articulated by geophysicist M. King Hubbert in 1956. It states that for any geographic region—indeed, for the world as a whole—the extraction of fossil fuels follows a bell-shaped curve that eventually hits a maximum and then must inevitably decline. It seems like a commonsensical, compelling theory—except for a few small problems. It ignores the role economics plays in shaping supply and demand, it completely discounts the power of human ingenuity to come up with novel ways to solve problems, and it has been repeatedly refuted by the facts.

Every prediction over the last half century—and there have been many—that global oil production has or will soon hit a peak has been proven wrong. In fact, Peak Oil advocates have been so thoroughly debunked that they seem to now inhabit an alternate reality—one where fracking and horizontal drilling were never developed. Today, U.S. oil production is soaring, and the International Energy Agency predicts that the U.S. is on track to become the world's largest crude oil producer by 2017.

Yet the Peak Oil theory lives on, like a zombie that refuses to die. The Wikipedia entry on the subject still states "Hubbert's Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s. Since then, it has been in a gradual decline." A new report published by the Post Carbon Institute, A New Era Of Energy Abundance? reprises Hubbert's arguments and dismisses the current boom as a bubble destined to fizzle out. No word from the report's author, David Hughes, on whether he is willing to reprise Paul Ehrlich's famous wager with Julian Simon that the price of a basket of scarce minerals would rise due to resource exhaustion and overconsumption. (I can't wait to see the look on his face when teachers from the bankrupt state of California begin marching to allow drilling in the Monterey Shale so their underfunded pensions can get paid.)

The purpose of this column is not to review the laundry list of reasons why neo-Malthusian theories like Peak Oil consistently fail to predict reality—many others have done so in impressive fashion, especially Julian Simon in his classic opus, The Ultimate Resource. Rather, it is to point out that if somehow fossil fuels were to start to "run out," that would necessarily imply that solar, wind, biofuel, algae, and any other politically favored alternative energy source that got a seat at the subsidy table could not possibly have captured a lion's share of the market. For had any of them done so, the reduced consumption of fossil fuels would keep fossil fuels from running out!

This is not a complicated concept, but grasping it requires forever abandoning the static analysis that so distorts the debate over energy and natural resources. Every school kid understands the basic law of supply and demand and the role that changing prices play in balancing the two. And yet Peak Oil promoters and alternative energy zealots seem to believe that increased oil prices will not bring about increased exploration, innovation, and discovery (never mind that they brought us the current fracking boom) and that decreased consumption due to a massive switch to alternative energy will not lower fossil fuel prices, making it ever harder for alternative energy sources to gain market share.

No link? Is the source too embarrassing?

 

[Old Rocks]

Let me put it in terms of Spencer`s "Yes Virgina" blanket analogy.
If you cover yourself with 200 blankets each "insulating" you as 1 ppm CO2 would you won`t get any warmer with 300 blankets

let's go with that analogy, but we have to realize the systems are wildly different. conduction rather than radiation for one, and the body core stays at a fixed temp with varying input rather than the earth which has a fixed input with a varying temp.

a man in a cold room has to produce, say 200W to keep his core at 37C

after covering himself with a blanket he only needs to produce 100W.

an extra two blankets (for a total of three) cuts his requirement to 50W

an extra four blankets (total of seven) cuts it to 25W

an extra eight blankets (15 total) drops it to 12.5W

and so on.....every extra blanket causes less change in energy requirement to keep the core at 37C but it still makes a difference, at least theoretically. basal metabolism only goes so low and pretty soon you would have to stick limbs outside the blanket so that you wouldnt overheat.


with the earth it is different but still kinda the same.

the first one part per million warms the planet 1C

it takes two more ppm to add another 1C (total 2C)

four more ppm (total 7ppm) to add another 1C (total 3C)

.........

128 more ppm (total 255 ppm) to add another 1C (total 8C)

256 more ppm (total 511 ppm) to add another 1C (total 9C)

512 more ppm (total 1027 ppm) to add another 1C (total 10C)


as you can see we are in an position where adding more ppm CO2 is having a small effect. not only that but temperature increases also trigger compensatory mechanisms (sticking your foot out from under the blankets).

Hmmm............. No source for the figures? Do you expect them to be regarded as credible? And the person that did those figures, did they factor in the increase in water vapor. How about the increase in CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates?

You fellows are always posting that it is so complex, then use the most simple minded figures in your own arguement. Without any source for those figures.

 

[skookerasbil]

Very compelling article......the alternative energy scam........




NEWS & COMMENTARY

The Alternative Energy religion is based on a false premise


Now our county fathers are chasing "alternative energy." They are junketing to Washington to cozy up to Federal officials in attempts to get a wind farm going near Pantego. The only way that project can make a go of it is to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. It's a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. But then, that's exactly what all these economic development schemes Al Klemm and Jay McRoy sold to us. Take from other businesses and give it to a few. But wind energy is much more of a boondoggle than anything our leaders have chased, except perhaps ethanol.

The alternative energy movement is a scam. A huge, gigantic scam. That is so, because of nothing else is considered it is based on a false premise to start with—that we are going to run out of oil and natural gas—fossil fuels if you will. But that is a bogus idea, as is explain in this article by Bill Freeze:
One of the most persistent beliefs among proponents of alternative energy is that we are in danger of running out of fossil fuels. This economic theory, known as "Peak Oil," was first articulated by geophysicist M. King Hubbert in 1956. It states that for any geographic region—indeed, for the world as a whole—the extraction of fossil fuels follows a bell-shaped curve that eventually hits a maximum and then must inevitably decline. It seems like a commonsensical, compelling theory—except for a few small problems. It ignores the role economics plays in shaping supply and demand, it completely discounts the power of human ingenuity to come up with novel ways to solve problems, and it has been repeatedly refuted by the facts.

Every prediction over the last half century—and there have been many—that global oil production has or will soon hit a peak has been proven wrong. In fact, Peak Oil advocates have been so thoroughly debunked that they seem to now inhabit an alternate reality—one where fracking and horizontal drilling were never developed. Today, U.S. oil production is soaring, and the International Energy Agency predicts that the U.S. is on track to become the world's largest crude oil producer by 2017.

Yet the Peak Oil theory lives on, like a zombie that refuses to die. The Wikipedia entry on the subject still states "Hubbert's Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s. Since then, it has been in a gradual decline." A new report published by the Post Carbon Institute, A New Era Of Energy Abundance? reprises Hubbert's arguments and dismisses the current boom as a bubble destined to fizzle out. No word from the report's author, David Hughes, on whether he is willing to reprise Paul Ehrlich's famous wager with Julian Simon that the price of a basket of scarce minerals would rise due to resource exhaustion and overconsumption. (I can't wait to see the look on his face when teachers from the bankrupt state of California begin marching to allow drilling in the Monterey Shale so their underfunded pensions can get paid.)

The purpose of this column is not to review the laundry list of reasons why neo-Malthusian theories like Peak Oil consistently fail to predict reality—many others have done so in impressive fashion, especially Julian Simon in his classic opus, The Ultimate Resource. Rather, it is to point out that if somehow fossil fuels were to start to "run out," that would necessarily imply that solar, wind, biofuel, algae, and any other politically favored alternative energy source that got a seat at the subsidy table could not possibly have captured a lion's share of the market. For had any of them done so, the reduced consumption of fossil fuels would keep fossil fuels from running out!

This is not a complicated concept, but grasping it requires forever abandoning the static analysis that so distorts the debate over energy and natural resources. Every school kid understands the basic law of supply and demand and the role that changing prices play in balancing the two. And yet Peak Oil promoters and alternative energy zealots seem to believe that increased oil prices will not bring about increased exploration, innovation, and discovery (never mind that they brought us the current fracking boom) and that decreased consumption due to a massive switch to alternative energy will not lower fossil fuel prices, making it ever harder for alternative energy sources to gain market share.

No link? Is the source too embarrassing?

Nah.....forgot to be honest. And far too lazy to bother going back to find it too although it was in todays REALCLEARENERGY.

Anyway.......doesnt matter. The green k00ks are losing big anyway in terms of renewables being anything except a fringe energy market

Epic levels of k00k losing.

 

[IanC]

Let me put it in terms of Spencer`s "Yes Virgina" blanket analogy.
If you cover yourself with 200 blankets each "insulating" you as 1 ppm CO2 would you won`t get any warmer with 300 blankets

let's go with that analogy, but we have to realize the systems are wildly different. conduction rather than radiation for one, and the body core stays at a fixed temp with varying input rather than the earth which has a fixed input with a varying temp.

a man in a cold room has to produce, say 200W to keep his core at 37C

after covering himself with a blanket he only needs to produce 100W.

an extra two blankets (for a total of three) cuts his requirement to 50W

an extra four blankets (total of seven) cuts it to 25W

an extra eight blankets (15 total) drops it to 12.5W

and so on.....every extra blanket causes less change in energy requirement to keep the core at 37C but it still makes a difference, at least theoretically. basal metabolism only goes so low and pretty soon you would have to stick limbs outside the blanket so that you wouldnt overheat.


with the earth it is different but still kinda the same.

the first one part per million warms the planet 1C

it takes two more ppm to add another 1C (total 2C)

four more ppm (total 7ppm) to add another 1C (total 3C)

.........

128 more ppm (total 255 ppm) to add another 1C (total 8C)

256 more ppm (total 511 ppm) to add another 1C (total 9C)

512 more ppm (total 1027 ppm) to add another 1C (total 10C)


as you can see we are in an position where adding more ppm CO2 is having a small effect. not only that but temperature increases also trigger compensatory mechanisms (sticking your foot out from under the blankets).

Hmmm............. No source for the figures? Do you expect them to be regarded as credible? And the person that did those figures, did they factor in the increase in water vapor. How about the increase in CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates?

You fellows are always posting that it is so complex, then use the most simple minded figures in your own arguement. Without any source for those figures.

there is no source for those figures Old Rocks. other than the accepted factoid that CO2 doubling causes ~1C increase. I was making an homage to common sense, pointing out how the human body and the surface of the earth operate differently but with the same 'law of diminishing returns'.

Old Rocks- you are always harping on clathrates. why didnt the MWP or the Roman Warm Period, or any of the other warmer periods in this respite from ice age conditions, cause the earth to warm up uncontrollably? you simply arent making sense. if it hasnt happened already in this interglacial, or in previous interglacials, why are you so certain it is going to happen now?

 

[SSDD]

there is no source for those figures Old Rocks. other than the accepted factoid that CO2 doubling causes ~1C increase. I was making an homage to common sense, pointing out how the human body and the surface of the earth operate differently but with the same 'law of diminishing returns'.

Factoid. Good word. Something that is ficticious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact especially to gain publicity and is accepted as fact because of constant repetition.

The so called evidence that CO2 can cause warming in the atmosphere is really nothing more than the output of a couple of models that have been claimed to accurately represent radiative transfers. Modtran is the primary culprit. There is a version of Modtran that can be run over the internet HERE.

Modtran will give a forcing figure of 3.7 W/m2 if you double atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 600ppm. The problem is that such a figure has never been substantiated outside of the workings of the model itself. Without that 3.7W/m2, there is no AGW alarmism.

Try running Modtran on an atmosphere with CO2 being the only greenhouse gas present and run it from 0.0 to 1.00 ppm.


•OLR = 397.524 for 0
•OLR = 397.524 for 0.001
•OLR = 397.21 for 0.01
•OLR = 396.582 for 0.05
•OLR = 395.64 for 0.1
•OLR = 392.814 for 0.5
•OLR = 390.616 for 1 0

You get a radiative forcing of 0.3 W/m2 from 0 to 0.01 ppm, 2 W/m2 from 0 to 0.1 ppm and 7 W/m2 from 0 to 1 ppm. This is a very large effect from a change as small as one part in 100 million for a trace gas. It is hard to believe that this effect can be viewed as a scientifically evidenced real effect.

3.7 W/m2 if we double atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm but 7 W/m2 if we go from 0.0 W/m2 to 1.0 W/m2. Can you look at those figures and actually believe the claims that doubling CO2 will raise the temperature by any amount? The program is obviously flawed.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- i certainly have sympathy for your dislike of the 2xCO2 constant, and the hopelessly simplified energy budget, but until someone gets published with better estimates we are forced to deal with them.

you would think with all the money available that these basic issues would be rock solid by now. but they are not.