'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Lawyers and Priests "argue", scientists formulate theories to explain and predict phenomena of interest of which are subject to rigorous testing.

 

Neither you nor I understand what you are saying, but physics do not fall in vain on your ears , with a lot of red ink you may be corrected, when AWG priests cannot be corrected, but immediately scratched out and failed with big F.

 

Since I am NOT a physicist I will leave the higher arguments to those who are and in that case I will ask you to refute my old mate from "Science of Doom"

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05...e-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

Is he right? Have they ignored some pretty basic mechanisms


That old fluffy bunny Eli Rabbett came up with this

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html

There is lots more!!

 

Not peer-reviewed.

This is the third time you have attempted to present Joshua Halpern's rebutted arguments as something new. Eli Rabbett is Joshua Halpern and his paper has been rebutted by the authors,

- 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

No there are not, there is only one that was peer-reviewed and it has been rebutted by the authors.

 

Are you implying that you agree with Gord's post and that "AGW theory and the Greenhouse Effect has been proven to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy." Because if you are your claim of being a physic's major is in doubt. Or at least a physic's major with a passing grade.
If you are a skeptic instead of a denier, I challenge you to show Gord wrong because I know hoosier would not believe the explanation of this "warmer"

 

An explanation of text book material does not have to be peer-reviewed. Explain to us where the explanation is wrong.

 

What Bowerbird posted is not textbook material but an attempt outside of anything peer reviewed to explain how the second law of thermodynamics does not apply. It is still in transition if you have not noticed. When it becomes textbook material after being peer reviewed and tested, then maybe there would be something to talk about. As it is, none of this is set in stone so there is plenty of room on both sides to prove something.

 

that is what scientists do, so why do denialists accuse them of politicising climate change?

 

Because they have. Hansen is a good example.

 

one of the leading causes of irrational behaviour is believing what you have always believed, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

these guys would rather drink their own pee in a climate change induced drought than admit that AGW is real

 

so 97% of scientists have politicised climate change?

 

Did you even bother to click on her link, never mind read and understand what was written?

 

Does not mean that the science is not sound!

 

It is called "climate".

The temperature is increasing.

To deny it is just silly.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

 

OMG!?!?!?!?

A complex system cannot be isolated or subjected to any direct or substantial indirect testing?!?!?!?


Really!?!?!?!

Quick everybody!!!! Run for your lives!!!!! Anarcho-Technocrat tells us that we do not yet know enough about the turbulent water flow in your toilet and all of your plumbing !!!!




That is quote possible one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen Mr Fist Year Science Student. Come back when you actually learn something.

 

My points are, as I stated in the original post,

1. Parabolic reflectors only work with a point source, and cannot work with a diffuse source.
2. Point (1) is high-school geometry that anyone familiar with parabolic reflectors should understand instantly.
3. Capturing IR energy from a diffuse source is inefficient;
and
4. Gerlich and Tscheuschner misunderstand the greenhouse effect so badly that they aren't qualified to comment on it, much less refute it. The second law forbids only net energy flow from cold to hot, not all energy flow from cold to hot.

 

The point is to show you have evidence for your position. So go ahead and post your links, if you have them. Some of us are happy to have the technical discussion you so assiduously avoid.

 

I see you are still misusing that quote.

 

This is.

No, it has not been rebutted. It has been replied to. The fundamental points made by Halperin et. al. were simply given the "is not!" playground treatment. That hardly constitutes a rebuttal.

But since you're holding up G&T as your standard, I assume you're willing to fill the numerous gaps in their work yourself. Let's start with this one:

G&T state, "Sometimes one describes by the natural greenhouse eect the circumstances, that without the trace gases (carbon dioxide etc.) the global average temperatures of the atmosphere near ground would have minus 18 degrees Celsius. Evidently, property (a) is not fullled, since there are no reproducible and comparable measurements."

Yet the average temperature of the airless moon has been measured at 228±10 K.

So:

1. Do you agree that G&T's statement that there are no reproducible measurements is false?

2. If there is no greenhouse effect, why is the Moon so much colder than the Earth?

 

Yes. If it were textbook, it would not be just theory but proven theory. You can see by the arguments and questions that there is not any complete agreement on the theory, much less anything proven.

 

If Gerlich & Tscheuschner are right, here are some of the scientists who are wrong:

1. Dr. Roy Spencer
2. Dr. Richard Lindzen
3. Dr. John Christy
4. Dr. Craig Isdo
5. Dr. Sherman Idso
6. Dr. Patrick Michaels
7. Dr. Claude Allegre
8. Dr. Willie Soon
9. Dr. Sallie Baliunas
10. Dr. Judith Curry

... and many others.

All of those listed are scientists skeptical of the consensus, and all of those listed accept the greenhouse effect as being real.

So here's your choice, deniers: G&T, or everyone else?

 

Heeerrrrre we go again.
Let me try it this way. Name one theory that has been "proven".
And do not bother mentioning the effects of the theory of gravity. Show me the theory and the "proof"!

 

Obviously infrared radiation is blocked by gases, the two primary gases are water vapor and CO2. CO2 does not block all infrared and is minor in comparison to water vapor. That is why the IPCC relies on forcing factors for their models since CO2 could only account for a minor amount of warming. That means that CO2 has to lead to increased water vapor to block more infrared, but more clouds means earths albedo is also raised, blocking more sunlight. No one really knows if there is a point of equilibrium. Everything now is just theory.

To get to any temperature that is beyond the range of earths temperatures during the last couple million years, it would have to change dramatically and minor amounts of CO2 increase cannot do that. To get to the temperatures that would be considered close to being run away, like Venus, would require much much more than a degree warming in 100 years. If we are capable of warming the earth, then we are in much better shape than anyone thinks since a warmer earth is much friendlier to life than the current phase of our inter-glacial which is just above freezing leaving much of the planet still locked in ice.

 

CO2 accounts for 26% of the total greenhouse effect, and water vapor 60%.

No, the reason we talk about "forcing" is that water vapor cannot force climate change, because it doesn't stay in the air long enough to do so. Image we wave our magic wand and make the whole troposphere 100% relative humidity. What's the result?

The world would get 2 weeks of rain, and then we'd be right back to where we are now. Changing water vapor changes the weather, but it doesn't affect 30 years worth of climate.

On the other hand, if you wave your magic wand and double the amount of CO2, it stays in the carbon cycle until geological processes remove it. And that's a loooooong time. So CO2 can and does force climate change, while water vapor responds to climate change. Water vapor is a feedback on climate, CO2 is forcing for climate.

Nope, clouds are made of suspended liquid water, not water vapor. Cloud formation is a function of relative humidity, which changes with temperature. An increase in temperature, considered alone, will reduce relative humidity; an increase in evaporation, considered alone, will increase relative humidity. As CO2 increases the temperature, evaporation also increases. That leads to an increase in absolute humidity, but any change in relative humidity depends on whether temperature or evaporation is increasing faster. So far, evidence indicates that both are increasing at the same rate, and overall cloudiness has not changed.

False. There is an equilibrium, but we have not yet reached it. If we were to stop all fossil carbon emissions today, we would still have several decades of warming in the pipeline from emissions we have already made. But in a century or so, we would reach equilibrium.

And it's more than just a theory: there is solid geological evidence that tells us what that equilibrium temperature is, based on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

False. The last time CO2 levels in the air were as high as they are today was the Middle Miocene, 15 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 3 to 5 C warmer than today, and sea levels were about 100 feet higher than today.

So that's what we're headed toward.

 

Citation please...

Or do you simply just know this as a "matter-of-fact", and we should all just accept that?