|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2009 13:28:12 GMT
I have read G+T and it is cojones of the nth kind. If someone can explain to me what they're on about in page 80-90, then I'll be prepared to have a dialog about the rest of the tripe.
As a starter:
1. Whether the "greenhouse" misnomer is deliberate doesn't affect the physics. 2. Measurements of temperature anomalies are insensitive to methods for calculating them and to climatological variations in temperature distribution, so this point is irrelevant. 7. A perpetuum mobile of the 2nd kind doesn't arise as adding CO2 merely changes the energy balance - it doesn't cause heat to move from warm to cold regions. Exactly the same dubious arguments could be made against real greenhouses. 8. A considerable change is not required to deliver the expected warming. 11. (and many of the other points including 14 and 16) Climate models can do many things. But mostly they are perturbation experiments. If you think astrophysical phenomena are responsible then you can include them in the model. If you think changes in the heat conductivity of air is important then you can model it. Climate scientists are happy that most of the astrophysical phenomena are not responsible for most of the recent warming, and that most of the parameterised parts of the model are sufficiently accurately representing expected changes in response to warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2009 17:23:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 15, 2009 0:40:42 GMT
Socold Were the integrals wrong, the cherry picked lambda or just a general misconception on the authors part.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 15, 2009 1:28:50 GMT
The IPCC Greenhouse effect is based on the theory that Heat radiated from the Earth will be back scattered to the earth, warming the earth. The whole theory is based on a static model - ie. that the Earth is modeled as frozen in one place (as far as the atmosphere is concerned) and in radiative equilibrium.
This is patently nonsense. The Earth is a multi-surfaced spinning globe, heated from one direction. It is NOT a backbody emitter of radiation (so the simplified equations dont work).
What does happen is that parts of the surface are warmed by the sun. These parts will warm the (usually cooler) air by convection, conductance and radiation. Note: if the air is warmer than the surface, then the surface is warmed by radiation (night)
The other major heat transference is latent heat. Moist land or sea absorbs heat as water is turned to water vapour. This stores heat. When the vapour condenses (as water droplets in dew or as clouds) then the heat energy is released. This water can move a lot of heat around through this mechanism.
Nowhere in these mechanisms does the concentration of CO2 play any part in the amount of energy moved about, though I concede that the speed of heat transfer by radiation will be higher - but the transfer itslef is driven by temperature change.
So the classic greenhouse effect is nonsense. The biggest con has been that we have been playing along with all the "saturation", widths of absorption spectra etc etc.
Like the skilled magician, our eyes have been averted from what is really happening.
There is no magic. The GreenHouse effect has nothing to do with "greenhouse gases" - anymore than a agricultural greenhouse relies on glass - where plastic does the job just as well, but has a shorter life!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 1:53:00 GMT
The IPCC Greenhouse effect is based on the theory that Heat radiated from the Earth will be back scattered to the earth, warming the earth. The whole theory is based on a static model - ie. that the Earth is modeled as frozen in one place (as far as the atmosphere is concerned) and in radiative equilibrium. This is patently nonsense. Indeed. It's not the "IPCC Greenhouse effect", it's the "Greenhouse Effect" as found in any book of any level on atmospheric physics. Neither is it based on a "static model" That's entirely an expectation of the greenhouse effect. A perfect blackbody earth would be 33K cooler than observed. "the air" isn't warmer than the surface at night. Nothing that you write explains why the Earth is 33K warmer than a blackbody with Earth's albedo at 1AU from the sun. The problem is you have ignored the effect greenhouse gases have.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2009 2:58:50 GMT
The IPCC Greenhouse effect is based on the theory that Heat radiated from the Earth will be back scattered to the earth, warming the earth. The whole theory is based on a static model - ie. that the Earth is modeled as frozen in one place (as far as the atmosphere is concerned) and in radiative equilibrium. This is patently nonsense. Indeed. It's not the "IPCC Greenhouse effect", it's the "Greenhouse Effect" as found in any book of any level on atmospheric physics. Neither is it based on a "static model" That's entirely an expectation of the greenhouse effect. A perfect blackbody earth would be 33K cooler than observed. "the air" isn't warmer than the surface at night. Nothing that you write explains why the Earth is 33K warmer than a blackbody with Earth's albedo at 1AU from the sun. The problem is you have ignored the effect greenhouse gases have. "'the air'; isn't warmer than the surface at night."It is here - you must live in the Great White North. Sit on a cool beach or backyard in the evening and feel the hot breeze blowing over you. How do you think advection fog forms? Warm humid air over a cold surface.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 15, 2009 3:49:17 GMT
Nothing that you write explains why the Earth is 33K warmer than a blackbody with Earth's albedo at 1AU from the sun. The problem is you have ignored the effect greenhouse gases have. Actually, think about it...he did touch on the most important aspect of that...water. Water is what ties up the MASSIVE amounts of energy necessary to keep the earth warm. It vaporizes during the day keeping temperatures a little lower then releases it slowly, preventing the temperature from falling as it does so. Phase changes are the most efficient at holding energy. Even the ice/water phase change can store energy. So long as water can phase change over a large portion of the earth, the temperatures will be moderated by it. Everyone that's overly concerned about run-away greenhouse affects apparently doesn't realize that the only "tipping point" we're actually very close to...is the one that results in a snowball earth. Temperatures and CO2 have been far higher in the past and the earth seems to have been just fine during those periods. It's the cold periods that cause the greatest hardships for life.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 15, 2009 4:04:25 GMT
Nothing that you write explains why [...] You sure do talk like you actually know something. What are your bona fides? Are you a climate scientist, or just a typical blowhard knowitall? No offense.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 14:13:43 GMT
Nothing that you write explains why the Earth is 33K warmer than a blackbody with Earth's albedo at 1AU from the sun. The problem is you have ignored the effect greenhouse gases have. Actually, think about it...he did touch on the most important aspect of that...water. Water is what ties up the MASSIVE amounts of energy necessary to keep the earth warm. It vaporizes during the day keeping temperatures a little lower then releases it slowly, preventing the temperature from falling as it does so. Phase changes are the most efficient at holding energy. Even the ice/water phase change can store energy. So long as water can phase change over a large portion of the earth, the temperatures will be moderated by it. Everyone that's overly concerned about run-away greenhouse affects apparently doesn't realize that the only "tipping point" we're actually very close to...is the one that results in a snowball earth. Temperatures and CO2 have been far higher in the past and the earth seems to have been just fine during those periods. It's the cold periods that cause the greatest hardships for life. None of that explains why the planet is 33K warmer than it should be given it's distance from the sun. The denial of the greenhouse effect being spread like muck on this thread is sheer "6000-year old earth" level pseudoscientific nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 14:16:49 GMT
Nothing that you write explains why [...] You sure do talk like you actually know something. What are your bona fides? Are you a climate scientist, or just a typical blowhard knowitall? No offense. Yes I know that the Earth is 33K warmer than it should be given it's distance from the sun. The calculation is quite simple you don't need to be a scientist to manage it. The explaination for the discrepancy is the greenhouse effect. If you want to deny the greenhouse effect you have to explain where the 33K extra comes from instead.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 15:45:52 GMT
The IPCC Greenhouse effect is based on the theory that Heat radiated from the Earth will be back scattered to the earth, warming the earth. The whole theory is based on a static model - ie. that the Earth is modeled as frozen in one place (as far as the atmosphere is concerned) and in radiative equilibrium. This is patently nonsense. Indeed. It's not the "IPCC Greenhouse effect", it's the "Greenhouse Effect" as found in any book of any level on atmospheric physics. Neither is it based on a "static model" That's entirely an expectation of the greenhouse effect. A perfect blackbody earth would be 33K cooler than observed. "the air" isn't warmer than the surface at night. Nothing that you write explains why the Earth is 33K warmer than a blackbody with Earth's albedo at 1AU from the sun. The problem is you have ignored the effect greenhouse gases have. Thats complete nonsense. First a perfect black body has a zero albedo.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 16:04:46 GMT
A blackbody emitting about 240wm-2
(earth recieves ~340wm-2 but due to its albedo it only absorbs about 240)
A blackbody emitting 240wm-2 should only be about 255K
The Earth is about 288K, hence it's 33K warmer than it should be if it were a blackbody
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 16:05:28 GMT
Nothing that you write explains why [...] You sure do talk like you actually know something. What are your bona fides? Are you a climate scientist, or just a typical blowhard knowitall? No offense. Here Ron in the vein of a 4th Century Emperor turns democracy on its head on who gets to speak (or presumably vote) without being assaulted. Guess it depends upon the number of bona fides issued by James Hansen. Perhaps if you stuck to educating, debating the topic, providing links and explanations. . . .you would be a nicer person. Ultimately this is all an exercise in making some wings and jumping off the ridge board of the barn. The IPCC went first hopefully we can learn from their mistake.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2009 16:14:46 GMT
You sure do talk like you actually know something. What are your bona fides? Are you a climate scientist, or just a typical blowhard knowitall? No offense. Yes I know that the Earth is 33K warmer than it should be given it's distance from the sun. The calculation is quite simple you don't need to be a scientist to manage it. The explaination for the discrepancy is the greenhouse effect. If you want to deny the greenhouse effect you have to explain where the 33K extra comes from instead. That's easy - don't call it the 'greenhouse effect' which works in high school and for the media and politicians - call it instead the Hydrologic Cycle. ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/home.rxmlwww.und.edu/instruct/eng/fkarner/pages/cycle.htmAs stated in the post by poitsplace above, water and its various state changes that store and release energy providing positive and negative feedback to any temperature change and radiation imbalances is all that is needed to keep the Earth at a constant temperature. There is no requirement for CO 2 for this to work.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2009 16:28:24 GMT
The IPCC Greenhouse effect is based on the theory that Heat radiated from the Earth will be back scattered to the earth, warming the earth. The whole theory is based on a static model - ie. that the Earth is modeled as frozen in one place (as far as the atmosphere is concerned) and in radiative equilibrium. This is patently nonsense. The Earth is a multi-surfaced spinning globe, heated from one direction. It is NOT a backbody emitter of radiation (so the simplified equations dont work). What is patent nonsense is to take a simplified description of a phenomenon, twist the words a bit, claim the twisted version is the full description of the phenomenon and then claim that the problems with the description are problems with the full theory. I'll go along with that. In equilibrium the amount of CO2 doesn't affect the "amount of energy moved about". It's not a centrally important point, but it is wrong to say that the speed of heat transfer by radiation will be higher with more CO2 - check out the statistics of random walks. Like a not very skilled magician you are attempting to avert the eyes of a willing crowd from the basic theory by shovelling in manure-contaminated straw of the G+T and Miskolczi kind. I'm still waiting for a sceptic to give me a layman's description of what the **** they're going on about in page 80 onwards other than more specious distraction. The basic theory is that the extra CO2 reduces the net outgoing radiation in the upper layers of the atmosphere putting the earth out of balance. The basic theory is just the same as the theory used to model the energy balance of stars as they progress through their lifecycle. The balance is only returned when these higher layers are warmed sufficiently that they can radiate extra energy away.
|
|