Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Ace0f_5pades on 18 Feb 2010 11:46 On Feb 18, 4:15 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. Specifically, there has been no > warming since 1995. 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, or > decreased. In real science this would me that the hypothesis would be > rejected. > > You seem to have confused "warming" as in a global increase in > temperature, with the greenhouse effect. 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. > 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. > > As for the "cycling" red herring, CO2 exists in equilibrium with > dissolved CO2 in the oceans, 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. 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. > > >> 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. > > The amount of CO2 in the ocean is determined by temperature alone. That's > undergrad chem 101 stuff. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in > the oceans is also fixed by temperature. If we add CO2 to the atmosphere, > 95% of it is absorbed into the oceans. 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. > > >> 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. > > >> 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. 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. OK Dude, u want a definition 4 AGW that u can challenge. I submitted AGW theory as changes in entropy: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/335261e2ebcdd4f8?hl=en It is crude as far properly laying out a theorem for AGW and it naturally assume an equilibrium based system. The discovery of water in the stratosphere is limited because of the temperature-structure atmosphere->tropopause->Stratosphere & therefore the tropopause boundary implies a degree of irreversibility -- check link http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/74847507d07bbc3f?hl=en I welcome any reasoned rebuttals u may wish to offer!!! u assert that carbonate rock precipitates when extra CO2 is added to the atmosphere since you assume the overall temperature of the atmosphere is constant -- OK for arguments sake, why would the change in atmospheric entropy (due to burning the max daily oil consumption of 9.5 * 10^15 l/day as given in 1st link above) drive a change in the oceans (i.e. precipitate carbonated rock) over the much easier/DIRECT to change atmosphere's Volume & Pressure since the atmosphere will always be variable pressure and volume? It is far more likely that any oceanic temperature change will be driven by the sun? ok, lest say that on average, humidity is low, and therefore all the burning of fossil fuels causes the pressure above land to increase slightly, this generates a favourable sea breeze which may increase enough to generate enough wave motion to raise the temperature significantly enough to make your claim valid; now lets say that on average the humidity has reached its highest possible, which according to the albedo principle will mean that there will be greater deflection, and less absorption or irradiance energy as defined by equations 3, 4 & 5 in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf Doesn't this mean a less responsive system? since there will be less energy available @ ground level to drive a significant temperature difference to generate enough pressure difference at ground level that creates the sea breeze difference which causes greater wave motion enough to increase the temperature of water? even in the case of an albedo of lower humidity, It is far more likely that the energy dissipation of extra CO2 (Anthropogenic) will be in the atmosphere.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Feb 2010 12:17 On 2/18/10 10:38 AM, Bill Ward wrote: > 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. Cite References Please.
From: I M on 18 Feb 2010 13:03 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:03:23 -0800 (PST), matt_sykes <zzebowa(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 17 Feb, 18:22, 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 is, in some places, and there isnt elsewhere. No one knows why. > >> 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > >Many gasses are GH gases, CO2 amongst them, but the dont cause >warming. Thy average out the temperature extremes by acting as a heat >sink. Without them we would be as hot and as cold as the moon. The GHGs don't have enough mass to be the major heat sink, and the ocean doesn't turn over every year, so the N2 and O2 are the major heat sink. There needs to be some basic repeatable experiments to frame a theory that covers all aspects of what controls the temperatures on Earth. >> 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. > >No, we are propducing CO2, which is good. It means a more benevolent >climate and better plant growth. Up to a point, perhaps it is a good thing fossil fuels will run out before a real problem develops. > 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. > >True. Good science is needed, but there is a lack of experiments and way too much wasteful computer modeling and future telling. >> 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. > >True. It would not be good in the Mid-East, and some other very hot places, luckily the claim of warming is based on not getting as cold at night. A lot of work went into constructing data sets that do not show if high temperatures have been going up or not. And there may not be much hope of ever finding out true facts, it won't be like the movie "True Lies".
From: I M on 18 Feb 2010 15:37 In Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:38:12 -0600, Bill Ward <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >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. So you are saying that if the atmosphere at 100 miles altitude is zero C, then all the layers below that have to be warmer? Perhaps that should be the case if direct rays from the sun never make it to the surface. But how can it be known if Venus has any internal heating mechanism, or has not cooled as rapidly as Earth because of the atmosphere.
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Feb 2010 14:26
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 surface pressure of 9.3 MPascals, 96% of which is CO2, for a partial pressure of 8.9 MPascals. Earth has a surface pressure of 0.10 MPascals, 0.038% of which is CO2, for a partial pressure of 0.0038 MPascals. BTW, Venus has about 1% water vapor in its atmosphere. That puts the partial pressure of water at 0.093 MPascals. Venus has about as much water vapor as we have air, pressure wise. So, the "very little water vapor (implicit as being relative to Earth)" is utterly wrong. So, you're off in your comparison by a factor of about 2300. Further, Venus is 0.72 AU away from the sun, which means Venus receives almost twice as much solar energy. Your using Venus as an argument for CO2 caused global warming on Earth is simply silly and un-informed. A better comparison would be Mars to Earth. The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is 0.95 kP, more than 9 times that of Earth! And yet, my planet is a frozen iceball where even Carbon dioxide freezes. While Mars gets half the solar energy of earth, you'd think that CO2 as a greenhouse gas would have a bigger effect. Things are not a simple as you wrongly think they are. |