Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: erschroedinger on 18 Feb 2010 09:22 On Feb 17, 10:15 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:38:01 -0800, Igor wrote: > > On Feb 17, 12:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > >> Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the > >> science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, > >> those details being: > > >> 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > > > There'd better be warming. Else it would be too cold for life. And who > > is Jones? > > I, and Jones, said there was no warming. Liar. >Specifically, there has been no > warming since 1995. Liar. >Not that there is a AGW hypothesis to test other than > "it will get warmer as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase", > but what we've observed is that as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere > increased, the mean global temperature either didn't change, Lie. >or > decreased. Lie. The 2000s are the hottest decade ever. >In real science this would me that the hypothesis would be > rejected. What you know about "real science" wouldn't fill a thimble. > > You seem to have confused "warming" as in a global increase in > temperature, with the greenhouse effect. You seem have to confused right-wing web sites with science. >I didn't say there was no > greenhouse effect, as is highlighted in problem 2. > > >> 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > > > Both do. But CO2 doesn't cycle into and out of the atmosphere as > > quickly. Hence the potential problem. > > Again, water vapor contributes the vast bulk of the greenhouse effect. But water vapor isn't increasing, so it can't be responsible for the warming. > Some 30 Kelvins. You're NOT going to get rid of the water vapor, due to > earth's oceans. The way the AGW propagandist count it, they do CO2 first, > and then water vapor. No... that's deceptive as the water vapor is going > to be there no matter what. The effects of CO2 are like wearing lightly > tinted Ray-Bans under your welding goggles. Yes, it may absorb 3 dB, but > it's 3 dB of next to nothing. Hence the calculated 0.03 Kelvins of > warming attributed to the increased level of CO2. You're confusing the natural GH effect with the additional GH effect. > > As for the "cycling" red herring, CO2 exists in equilibrium with > dissolved CO2 in the oceans, Very slow exchange. Water is taken out of the atmosphere by rain, quickly. >and ocean CO2 concentration is fixed by > temperature. This "cycling" argument is also based on the false premise > that the only sequestered source of carbon (by isotope ratio) is fossil > fuels, ignoring that carbonate rocks in the sea are a VAST source of > sequestered carbon. So we have 2 scenarios: 1. Humans emit x Gtons of CO2 every year; 0.5 x stays in the atmosphere and 0.5 x goes into sinks, including the ocean. 2. Humans emit x Gtons of CO2 every year, which magically disappear; x Gtons dissolve from rocks in the ocean and 0.5 x come out into the atmosphere, even though nobody has ever found any evidence for this in the ocean. >We couldn't possibly have put that much old carbon > into the ocean/atmosphere system! We produce about 5.5 GtC per year into > a system of 40,000 GtC. Again, it's the increase that's important. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate > > >> 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. > > > We certainly put some of it into the atmosphere. What do you think is a > > by product of so many chemical reactions? > > No, we didn't put squat, as not even a trivial amount (okay, first order > trivial). That's simple chemistry. Yes it is, and you fail to understand it. > > The amount of CO2 in the ocean is determined by temperature alone. Uh, no, also turn over. >That's > undergrad chem 101 stuff. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in > the oceans is also fixed by temperature. With a considerable time lag. >If we add CO2 to the atmosphere, > 95% of it is absorbed into the oceans. \ Uh, no, about 50%. And over a long time period. >If this increases the CO2 > equilibrium of the oceans above the equilibrium constant, it precipitates > out as carbonate rock. > > In other words, if the amount of CO2 in the air is A, and the amount of > CO2 in the ocean is O, then we note from chemistry: > > A/B = a constant. > O = a constant. > > So, adding more to A means that the additional amount is removed by the > equilibrium process. Over a long time. > > >> 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. > > > It's still an open question. Apparently one that's too complicated for > > your silly litte brain. > > Ad hominem noted. However, given Climategate (the CRU e-mails and other > documents) and now Climategate II it appears that irrational gibber is > all that anyone could offer in defense of the association that AGW is > bullshit and leftist propaganda. Given your ignorance about science, it appears you don't know what you're talking about. > > >> 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. > > > So much for silly sophomoric statements. > > Again you offer Ad hominem gibberish. No, it's not ad hominem when it's true. >Given that history has shown that > the medieval warm period was a period of good health and prosperity, the > claims of disaster due to similar warming are overstated. No paper on the > coming disaster has explained why the MWP was not bad for humans, while a > new warming period means megadeath. Given that water is good, it follows a world-wide flood would be terrific?
From: erschroedinger on 18 Feb 2010 09:24 On Feb 18, 12:57 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Feb 17, 4:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/17/10 11:22 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > > > 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > > > 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > > > 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that.. > > > Three strikes and yer out! Marvin! > > > There is lots of evidence that the earth is warming at an > > accelerating rate. > > You bet, Marvin! I just saw all the proof I need on PBS. Extinction > of whales, extinction of polar bears, in general hoards and hoards of > poor suffering polar animals begging mankind for more ICE. It was very > heart-rendering and sad I tell ya! The nightly news and newspapers > abound with statements proving global warming. What more scientific > proof do ya need? > > > CO2 is a well know greenhouse gas, it is the major driver > > of this warming trend and we add to its increase by burning > > fossil fuels, making cement and concrete and by reducing > > CO2 sinks. > > Hitler says if you repeat a big lie often enough the people will > believe it. The bigger the lie the more they will believe it. The > Fuhrer points out that ordinary people are familiar with minor "white" > lies. They can see governments doing that, but somehow they just can't > imagine a government telling a huge lie so large that it defies all > credibility and yet they believe it hook, line and sinker! > > > Climate Change Factsheet > > >http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Fac... > > Here's your proof, bunky. It's a "fact sheet" from a AGW promotion > organization. Worm posts this link over and over as it it were some > kind of proof of something. > > <snip remaining bullshit> > > Note the proper use of propaganda techniques here. Worm starts with a > true statement (CO2 IS a "greenhouse gas") and then immediately veers > off into the big lie (that Earth atmosphere CO2 can have anything more > than a miniscule effect on climate). So why do scientists say otherwise? Why does a pissant little failure like you think he knows more than thousands of scientists? > > "Sam Wormley" (if that is in fact a real person and I strongly suspect > it is not) clearly has lined up at the money trough with Algore.
From: Cwatters on 18 Feb 2010 10:28 "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message news:zemdnfpQkPlRuOHWnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the > science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, > those details being: > > 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. Explain how that applies to Venus. Venus has a lot of CO2, and not much water vapour, yet the greenhouse effect has raised it to 600K.
From: Cwatters on 18 Feb 2010 10:30 "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message news:icKdnWNeoqhILeHWnZ2dnUVZ_h-mnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > I, and Jones, said there was no warming. Specifically, there has been no > warming since 1995. No he said their hadn't been statistically significant warming since 1995. There is a difference.
From: Bill Ward on 18 Feb 2010 11:38
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:28:10 +0000, Cwatters wrote: > "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message > news:zemdnfpQkPlRuOHWnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the >> science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, >> those details being: >> >> 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. 2) CO2 doesn't >> cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > > Explain how that applies to Venus. Venus has a lot of CO2, and not much > water vapour, yet the greenhouse effect has raised it to 600K. Venus has a lot more atmosphere than Earth, so the surface pressure is much higher. The lapse rate from the radiating layer down to the surface causes the high surface temperatures. As the altitude decreases, the temperature increases because of adiabatic compression. |