Coffeehouse Thread

153 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    cbae

    Ahem.

    http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_Layperson_20100927.pdf

    http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf

    http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/ferenc-miskolczi/

    When deniers mention that GHG theory is entirely wrong and that, in fact increased CO2 cancels out the GHG properties of water vapour thus creating a natural balance you know they have latched on to Ferenc Miskolczi's theory. Other clues are the use of terms like 'black body' 'thermo dynamics' and various laws of physics. The usual argument goes something like this- [randomly trawled from the internet]

    Anybody who thinks there is significant CO2 contribution to the GHE via atmospheric warming demonstrates extreme scientific ignorance. Firstly most of the surface IR emission in the CO2-GHG band is switched off. Secondly, CO2 self-absorbs from ~200 ppmv so its absorptivity plateaus [below the AGW point]. Thirdly, the Law of Equipartition of Energy at Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium coupled with Gibbs' Principle of Indistinguishability means that an incoming photon absorbed in a local volume cannot, as claimed by climate science, specifically Ramanathan, be converted to kinetic energy in the average time needed for it to be re-emitted.

    This is the most childish of climate science's mistakes. Gibbs principle is that in a thermodynamic system, there is no memory. What really happens is that the concentration of activated CO2 molecules is set by the temperature through the bidirectional transfer of that energy to N2/O2 kinetic energy but is constant on average.

    Therefore, the incoming photon energy is lost by an already thermally activated molecule instantly ejecting a similar photon out of that volume, restoring LTE. These peripatetic energy packets diffuse to heterogeneities such as clouds and bare aerosols to be thermalised, much into grey body radiation, to space or back to the surface. The atmospheric window grey IR from the tops of clouds is a cooling process.

    blah blah blah....

    You should practice what you preach and view the claims of skeptics denialists with skepticism too instead of slurping it up like pablum.

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae:

    Move goalposts much?

    These are not peer reviewed articles, but blog posts.

    If you want to rebuttle the idea that mass is responsible for climate change, you have to do it in a peer reviewed journal.

    Until then, this is the best model we have. In order to invalidate it, you will have to come up with a better alternative.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @Maddus Mattus: Just because a paper is published and peer-reviewed doesn't mean the position is accepted by the scientific community. Publishing is merely the first step. There's no point in publishing a paper to refute another paper whose findings have yet to be accepted nor even reproduced by another scientist. Nice try though.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    I especially love these parts Smiley

    This paper has purposely been kept more qualitative than quantitative to avoid
    elaborate formula and explanations – and to make it easy for all to digest. The more
    theoretically competent readers should have few problems if they wish to perform
    quantitative calculations for themselves, following the guidelines presented here.

    and

    5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
    The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without which this paper would not have been produced and two brave anonymous peer reviewers making the publication a fact.

    Seriously? That's what you call a peer-reviewed paper?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Well, I must commend Maddus for actually having sources this time. I guess there's a first time for everything. Wink

    I don't have time right now to check the paper myself to see if it can convince me (it's my last week in Japan and my parents are here), but I certainly will read it later. But at least there is something for me to check.

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    The earth is in thermal balance with the sun, if it's output increases, so does our thermal radiating. If that wasn't the case, we couldn't live here.

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    The activity of the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. The evidence is against CO2 being any factor.

    These two statements are in contradiction. Also: what evidence? I've seen tons of evidence that suggests CO2 is a factor, but you seem to reject that evidence purely because it's used by people who don't come to the conclusion you like.

    Yeah, that was about another topic entirely, but the sentiment is appropriate. Maddus seem to reject climate change only because he doesn't like the implications, or because the science sounds "too crazy" to him. Well here's the thing: the more complicated science gets, the crazier it sounds to the layman, and the more it defies expectations and goes against things that are "obvious".

  • User profile image
    Proton2
  • User profile image
    Proton2

    Maddus is correct about there being no climate change, attributable to humans. The IPCC even says so:

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/

    "Most importantly, the IPCC should be congratulated for delivering a message that
    cannot have been comfortable to deliver.  The IPCC has accurately reflected  the
    scientific literature on the state of attribution with respect to extreme events
    -- it is not there yet, not even close, for events such as floods, hurricanes,
    tornadoes, bushfires and on other topics there remain enormous uncertainties. 
    That is just the way that it is, so that is indeed what the IPCC should have
    reported."

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2011/11/few-comments-on-ipcc-srex-report.html

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Proton2 wrote

    Maddus is correct about there being no climate change, attributable to humans. The IPCC even says so:

    *snip*

    No, it doesn't. The quote from that blog states that the IPCC has not attributed "extreme events" to AGW. And it's really just "not yet attributed" because of the uncertainties.

    Nice try.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    No, it doesn't. The quote from that blog states that the IPCC has not attributed "extreme events" to AGW. And it's really just "not yet attributed" because of the uncertainties.

    Nice try.

    So you agree that it hasn't been proven yet.

    "Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably
    attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change, particularly for cyclones
    and floods (medium evidence, high agreement)."

    These statements come from the organization (IPCC) whose sole job is to attribute climate change to humans, and they can't find any evidence yet since they started 30 years ago.

    I recommend the book The Age of Global Warming, a History :

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Age-Global-Warming-History/dp/0704372991

    Peter Foster reviews it here:

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/03/13/peter-foster-deranged-science-peverse-policy/

    - - -

    Steve Goddard often posts news clippings from long ago weather events that mirror todays weather events. The climate is doing what it always has been doing. For example:

    1940 Shock News : Massive Arctic Warming – And Ice Thinning

    Six degrees warming in the Arctic from 1900-1940, and the ice was the same thickness (two metres) as it is today.

     

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    A recent peer reviewed paper, in Science Magazine, turns out to be junk science:

    "For those who missed the details of the Marcott paper I will provide a brief summary.  The paper was published on March 8th in the ultimate of peer-reviewed journals, Science Magazine.  The paper was loudly broadcast by the media as further proof of global warming.  The paper basically says that the most modern period of the Holocene (the current interglacial which the Marcott paper states as 11,300 years) has been warmer than ~75% of the Holocene.  The paper states that this is especially significant as the Holocene has shown steady cooling for the past few thousand years, but that has now completely reversed.  The conclusion is that mankind has drastically altered the natural climate of the Earth. "

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/wheres-the-hockey-stick-the-marcott-9-show-no-warming-past-1950/

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @Proton2: Don't conflate "climate change" with "extreme weather events". Climate change HAS been linked to AGW. The jury is still out on whether or not "extreme weather events" are linked to AGW.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , cbae wrote

    @Proton2: Don't conflate "climate change" with "extreme weather events". Climate change HAS been linked to AGW. The jury is still out on whether or not "extreme weather events" are linked to AGW.

    I think it is the very essence of what climate change is. climate change is supposed to change the weather, and when this happens those changed events are called extreme for the locations that the weather event takes place in. For example it is normal to have a lot of rain and some snow where I live. If a location that is normally warm and dry experiences my normal weather, those events would be considered extreme. They are out of the norm.

    What would your definition of climate change be, and has any place on the planet experienced this climate change? Keep in mind that weather can be quite variable and change for many years, then change back again. We are looking for trends to indicate if the change in weather is permanent.

    A climate time period is considered 30 years, less than that and it's just weather. all the datasets tracking weather events are pretty much flat for trends. Some of our data such as from satellites are only 33 years old, and the ocean Argo data is barely 10 years old. Some climate scientists say you need two 30 year periods just to be able to plot a trend keeping in mind you still only have 2 data points.

    And as I have mentioned, temperatures have flat-lined for the past 16 years. All climate scientists agree on this fact.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot: Thought we might end up discussing the validity of the papers, but that would be moving the goalposts.

    I've presented my case, it's time to draw conclusions,.

    So either you are a believer in the greenhouse theory that states that bouncing radiation between the atmosphere and the surface is responsible for warming, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. That CO2 is the main driver behind this effect and we should at considerable expense (human lives) limit the emissions of this gas.

    Or you are a believer that gravity and the sun is what determines the temperature and the climate here on earth and that we are just along for the ride.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Or you are a believer that gravity and the sun is what determines the temperature and the climate here on earth and that we are just along for the ride.

    Maddus, since you're interested in all of this, why not try taking an atmospheric physics class online? Detailed descriptions of how carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere (from a detailed mechanics point of view) and some of the other important concepts that you are missing will be included in any basic atmospheric physics course.

    I know you don't think that having a degree is necessary to take part in the discussion of whether climate change is happening - and I agree with you, at least in principle - but you need to be aware that many of the things you are stating as fact are demonstrably wrong.

    You don't need to go to university, but it might help you if you take a university course in atmospheric physics online, or go through a textbook. That way you'll understand better what parts of the climate change debate are really parts of the debate, and which parts are merely people trying to derail it (on both sides) with "facts" that fail even basic inspection.

    If at the end of your course you are still a climate change skeptic, you'll be a more informed one, and one that is more capable of moving the debate in whichever direction you want it to go.

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    That would be interesting indeed. But I'm not really interested in climate science. What I'm interested in, is what government does with climate science as a legitimacy.

    When my energy bill got raised by 50% to help save the planet, I started reading about the science that is supposed to justify this raise. The internet being the main source of information. I thought it was a dubious story, but I had no reason to distrust them. Then when additional levies got raised in order to save the planet, I started to look into the policy effects of the redistribution of these resources and meanwhile found opposing voices to the science.

    What I found, really shocked me. I found the science lacking and I found that the policies have a negative effect on the wellbeing of people. This single issue has changed my whole attitude towards science and towards government, it was a real eye opener for me.

    I just hope that on this forum, with a lot of intelligent people and many of you I consider my peers, come to see that the emperor has no clothes.

    Edit;

    Small note I would like to make, I do not doubt that our climate is changing. I doubt that CO2 emissions drive these changes. And I doubt that lowering our CO2 emissions is the right way to reverse these changes, I would much rather spend the resources on climate change adaption.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor:

    ... I started reading about the science that is supposed to justify this raise. The internet being the main source of information....

    Be very wary about trusting the Internet too much. There are lots of charlatans on the Internet who seem very authoritative (on both sides of this argument, and - let's be honest - practically every other argument).

    It's absolutely true that lots of the science in favour of the climate change argument is bad, has been mishandled, and that some of it is downright wrong or overtly political. But that doesn't mean that all of it is, and it certainly doesn't mean that the science on the other side of the aisle is any better. 

    The best way to understand whether the science is bad is not to ask the Internet, but to look at the science. And judging by how you seem to think science works, it would probably be a good idea for you to try learning a bit more about science by actually doing some - for example taking a basic undergraduate physics class (either online or at a university) so as to get a better grasp of what science is and how it is actually done, rather than merely how the Internet would have you believe it is done.

    Hopefully you'll understand fairly quickly that science doesn't progress by "proving" things right or wrong, but rather that science is all about constructing convenient models of how the world works so that we can make predictions of the future. Once you've understood that, you'll realize that climate science never was about "is climate change happening and what should we do about it", but rather about "what is the best model for our climate that fits the data we have and that allows us to predict the future of our climate".

    Once you're there, you'll understand what is actually controversial in the climate change discussion. If you're still skeptical then (and some good scientists are), you'll be skeptical of the bits that are actually controversial, rather than disagreeing with things that are basic physics, and you'll be able to argue at the level of the climate scientists you disagree with, and if necessary, defeat them with well studied evidence and models of your own to bring the consensus back to "climate change isn't happening".

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Sven Groot: Thought we might end up discussing the validity of the papers, but that would be moving the goalposts.

    No, the validity of the science on either side of the debate is at the very heart of the matter. EDIT: See evildictaitor's post above, he voices this very clearly.

    I've presented my case, it's time to draw conclusions,.

    I've yet to read the paper, though I've read stuff about this argument before as well as several papers describing the greenhouse effect, and since I believe it's all based on that one paper anyway, I don't think it's anything new. I still don't think that anyone has ever successfully demonstrated that greenhouse theory contradicts any basic laws of physics (I'll still read the paper when I have time, probably next week).

    Even if you're sticking to your flawed interpretation of what greenhouse theory is, your position still comes down to believing that either there's a massive world-wide conspiracy that all climate scientists everywhere are participating in, or all climate scientists everywhere are overlooking a mistake that anyone with high school science knowledge shouldn't make. I think both of these explanations are preposterous bordering on the insane.

    So either you are a believer in the greenhouse theory that states that bouncing radiation between the atmosphere and the surface is responsible for warming, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. That CO2 is the main driver behind this effect and we should at considerable expense (human lives) limit the emissions of this gas.

    No, that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm reverting back to the position of the previous thread. Until you agree that the process generally called the greenhouse effect, which has been known about for well over a century and repeatedly demonstrated in countless scientific experiments, does not violate thermodynamics or any other fundamental law. Then, and only then can we talk about whether or not it has anything to do with climate change.

    From everything you've said in this and previous threads it's apparent you don't understand what the greenhouse effect is, you don't understand the physics behind it (that ridiculous mirror analogy, and you're using a grade school level simplification of it to justify your belief that it's incorrect. Until we can agree on what the greenhouse effect actually is and how it works, there is no reason to continue the discussion or to draw any conclusions from your "case".

    I brought this up in the previous thread, but you sidestepped it then and I'm sure you will do so again now: the absorption gap of CO2 is clearly visible when radiation emitted by earth is seen from satellites. The radiation the atmosphere emits back to earth is clearly visible from ground-based observation. If these effects violate the laws of physics, then present to me an alternative explanation for these observations (again with sources, please).

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Sven Groot:

    Then let's begin by what you define to be the greenhouse theory, as there are several versions.

    I'm talking about this model;

    Generic Forum Image

    Where longwave radiation is bounced between the atmosphere and the surface (shown in the graph on the right hand side). The problem I have with this model, is the "Back Radiation".

    If you have an other interpretation/explanation of the greenhouse effect, please share.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.