'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

You post blogs as a refutation to a paper published in a physics journal....are you serious? Do you understand the concepts in the paper and blogs being talked about, the equations and potential issues at hand? Or do you just take a pseudo-scientific position? Whether or not the greenhouse effect by CO2 breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is uncertain since this theory has yet to be tested; however it is highly falsifiable. I advise you to read some Karl Popper to get a grip on the process of science.

 

Respond to me when you have studied Complexity Theory.

 

Kiehl & Trenberth 1997. Table 3.

 

Are you serious? How could this paper prove anything without any experiments? If you READ the paper and UNDERSTAND the paper the point they are making is AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ABSENT calculations that are to complex to compute. I laugh at a layman questioning my education.

 

So, Einstein was wrong and Newton was right? Please go read some philosophy of science.

 

Sorry, but the IPCC relies on multiplying factors and not solely on CO2 for warming but uses CO2 as the catalyst. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas which accounts for about 95% of greenhouse gases.

If you don't believe that, then why do you have to bundle up on a clear night? More infrared can be radiated to space without clouds. This is really some simple stuff.

When we reach equilibrium you are talking only a couple of degrees of warming, nothing substantial, not even close to run away temperatures.

Seas were only about 30 feet higher and that is where Gore got that number, but think about it. Antarctica will not be a frozen wasteland. All seas will be passable. More life will be possible in the oceans and on land. More food grown. Only good things. When this inter-glacial ends, more ice. Not good.

 

There is a process to measure a gas’s absorption ability called atomic absorption spectrometry. Suspicious of the entire global warming hysteria, atmospheric physicist James A. Peden put carbon dioxide through just such an analysis. Based on where and how much of the sun’s total radiation output, which consists of light and other wavelengths not visible to human eyes, Peden estimates that carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere takes in no more than 8 percent of the sun’s total radiation.

It’s the same percentage for heat radiated back from Earth. “Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat passing upward through the atmosphere,” Peden writes. “And, if all the available heat in the atmosphere is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit.”

Holy cow! Hard scientific analysis finds carbon dioxide not guilty as charged because this gas simply does not have the molecular mojo to play the role of atmospheric heater. The real culprit is water vapor, which Peden estimates is responsible for 95 percent of all greenhouse heating in the atmosphere.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/...cause-global-warming-it-doesnt-have-the-mojo/

 

Either there is a greenhouse effect or there isn't. There is no middle ground.

Only G&T say there isn't. If that's what you believe, then all those other skeptical scientists are wrong.

Einstein didn't falsify Newton, he showed that Newton's laws were a special case of a more widely applicable set of laws. Go read some philosophy of science yourself.

 

We aren't talking about the existence of the greenhouse effect were talking about its cause and no G&T are not saying the greenhouse effect does not exist they are saying CO2 is not causing it. And LOL, Special Relativity does falsify Newtonian mechanics you clearly do not know anything about the philosophy of science. Newtonian Mechanics are a great approximation but are not true.

 

On a molecular-count basis, perhaps (though I have not seen a citation to support this). But different molecules are different in their ability to absorb outgoing IR, so molecule-counting is not an accurate way to measure.

Strawman. Where did I ever say water does not contribute to the greenhouse effect?

Citation, please.

Citation, please. Sea level in the Middle Miocene was 25 to 40 meters higher than today, according to Tripati et. al. 2009.

We're looking at 100 million climate refugees by mid-century, and the cost of dealing with that problem is offset by the economic benefits of wheat in Siberia?

The problem with conservatives is, they don't know a dang thing about economics.

 

Citation, please, to peer-reviewed literature?

 

And all of these other people are saying that CO2 is part of it. They can't both be right.

 

You have any proof of 100 million climate refugees by mid century? Site? You think the oceans will rise, what did you say, 100 feet in 40 years? Please. If you mean the rich will have to move inland from the shore, so be it. Tsunamis are more deadly than a slowly encroaching shore. You don't think that moving inland over a couple hundred years is doable?

 

Please compute the difference between Newton and Einstein for objects moving at less than 100 meters per second, and then show how Newton is not a special case of special relativity.

 

What you mean to say is that everyone cannot be right. Who is right? Since it is theory and nothing proven, time will tell.

 

Meyers 2002.

Strawman. Never said that.

On what planet do only the rich live by the sea?

How do 1 million Bangladeshis making $140 per month move somewhere else, in an already overcrowded nation? That's what we can expect with just the first meter of sea level rise, in one nation.

 

So if things are as the NOAA say it is, you think that by 2050 a 1.5" rise in water will displace all those people?

 

Do you accept all blog post criticisms of alarmist papers?

 

That is now the fourth time the Halpern paper has been brought up as something new.

It is a 41 page rebuttal that is in much more detail than that,

- Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris H0-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann" (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp. 1333-1359, April 2010)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

I never claimed they were my standard. I am simply claiming the paper exists and has been peer-reviewed. If you believe there are gaps in their work, I suggest publishing your comments so G&T can respond.

 

I was responding to this post, not to the G&T paper.
So are you also claiming that energy cannot flow from a cooler object to warmer object?

 

If the science is sound, yes?
Same question to you: Do you accept blog criticism of denial papers?

 

This is debated,

Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1297-1310, December 1993)
- Chauncey Starr

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, November 2009)
- Wolfgang Knorr

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
(Energy & Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)
- Robert H. Essenhigh

 

No, because none of the papers deny the climate changes or the holocaust happened.

 

Note the wording. The "absorption ability". And "being captured". He does not have a clue!

 

This is incorrect,

Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact (PDF)
(Natural Science, Volume 3, Number 12, pp. 971-998, December 2011)
- Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi