4 of 7
4
1 stop summary of global warming “skeptic” arguments at Skeptical Science.com
Posted: 25 June 2010 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
TromboneAndrew - 24 June 2010 09:17 AM

I think he’s asking for something more like this:

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/papers-on-co2-temperature-correlation/

There’s no public-forum debating, there.  Just references of research papers.

Oh wow!  I wasn’t familiar with that page - dang, so much valuable information out there and so little time to explore, consume and digest.

Thank you for that link.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 07:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 25 June 2010 06:38 AM

TA,
At the site you linked, Gerlich wrote the following in a Physics Journal:

“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

But, there’s another side to the story…
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

Title:    COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”
Author(s):   
JOSHUA B. HALPERN
Department of Chemistry, Howard University, Washington, DC, 20059, USA
CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706-1695, USA
CHRIS HO-STUART
JOEL D. SHORE
Physics Department, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA
ARTHUR P. SMITH
JÖRG ZIMMERMANN
Quality Management, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Frankfurter Str. 135, 63067 Offenbach, Germany
History:   
Received 11 March 2010

Abstract:   
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed.

Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.

[ Edited: 25 June 2010 07:15 AM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
Analytic - 25 June 2010 06:38 AM

TA,

At the site you linked, Gerlich wrote the following in a Physics Journal:

.

.

.

Nice find.  Citizenschallenge - also, nice find.  That looks like peer review to me.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 25 June 2010 06:38 AM

TA,

At the site you linked, Gerlich wrote the following in a Physics Journal:

It has been four and a half days Mr. A.
... not a word, just another vacuous black hole…
Does that mean you are at a loss?
Does that mean your notion has been pummeled and you refuse to admit it?
Does that mean you are afraid to learn from new information?

As you know Analytic I am very frustrated with the phonies who present themselves as possessing intellectual integrity,
yet every time they get called on their misconceptions they run and hide.

Are you simply another such example?  If not, where’s the beef?

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

Meanwhile, the globe continues to warm…..  rolleyes

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 05:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18

CC,

I’m sorry for appearing to avoid you. I just had the impression that you had little to no interest in alternative

views on the “agw” speculation.

I can bash my head against a brick wall, but I have a limit on how long I’ll bash it against a “true believer” wall.

And maybe the basic problem is that the “AGW” zealots pile speculation on hypothesis on conjecture on theory and offer little to no

evidence on the meager scientific supporting evidence.

You are - as are many - beguiled by the apocalyptic prognostication of a phenomenon based on a clearly poorly supported theory.

Fear of the unknown can also be disabling - it’s a psychiatric term called PARANOIA!!

You may yet get the evidence essential to predict apocalypse.

After all, nearly a century passed before Galileo provided evidence that Copernicus was correct that the sun was the center of our

solar system, not earth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Big A, you are amazing - rather than talking to the information offered up in #47 - pointing out obvious flaws in the single study you seem to chose to “believe” you come at me with this uppity little rhetoric.

1)  An amazing claim - considering I have actually looked into every “skeptics” claim I’ve been presented.  For instance regarding your Gerlich paper/quote, I actually read it (well ok the abstract), then I went on to look for what others had to say about it and shared one of those peer reviewed critiques. 

In reply I receive blah,blah and not the slightest attempt to stay OT with the study you believe in. 
PS: It’s the science you are avoiding not me!

2)  “Speculation?”  Yea, and its speculation that Jupiter is made of gases - speculation backed by some pretty fantastic science - but speculation none the less.  I know so long as you can ignore all the information that is being gathered you can go on fuming about speculation.

Here’s a little more “speculation”:

Papers on CO2-temperature correlation
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on February 18, 2010
This is a list of papers on the correlation between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature. This subject was suggested by Brad Carpenter in the paperlist suggestion thread. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

Modern climate
>>>  Correlation Analysis between Global Temperature Anomaly and two main factors (CO2 and aa index) – Moon (2008) “We have made the correlation analysis between gloabl temperature anomaly and two main factos: geomagnetic activity (aa index) and CO2 content. … These results imply that the CO2 effect become very important since at least 1990.”
>>>  Is Granger causality analysis appropriate to investigate the relationship between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and global surface air temperature? – Triacca (2005) http://www.springerlink.com/content/grfehq8hmd4jd7nl/
>>>  A Bayesian Statistical Analysis of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect – Tol & De Vos (1998) http://www.springerlink.com/content/x324801281540j8u/
>>>  Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries – Mann et al. (1998) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/abs/392779a0.html
>>>  Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance – Thomson (1997) http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8370.abstract
>>>  Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980 – Keeling et al. (1995)
>>>  Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature – Kuo et al. (1990) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6260/abs/343709a0.html

Past climate
>>>  Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene – Siegenthaler et al. (2005) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5752/1313
>>>  Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III – Caillon et al. (2003) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728
>>>  Carbon dioxide and climate over the past 300Myr – Retallack (2002) http://www.jstor.org/pss/3066466?cookieSet=1
>>>  The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka – Mudelsee (2001) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-42BTK7W-2&_user=10&_coverDate=02/28/2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1199478146&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=afdd07749321d44ca4cffc5a588c1725
>>>  Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction – Cuffey & Vimeux (2001) “http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html
>>>  Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination – Monnin et al. (2001) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;291/5501/112
>>>  Atmospheric CO2 concentration and millennial-scale climate change during the last glacial period – Stauffer et al. (1998) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6671/abs/392059a0.html
To mention just a taster of the “meager evidence.”

4))  You seem to be unfamiliar with the AGW science, to be able to make such claims.  Besides, those sentences being nothing but an insult parade meant to redirect attention from the real topic at hand.  Defending Gerlich’s flawed paper.
It must be fun being so absolutely sure of yourself that there’s nothing else for you to consider or learn from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Analytic - 30 June 2010 05:51 AM

CC,

1))  I’m sorry for appearing to avoid you. I just had the impression that you had little to no interest in alternative

2))  views on the “AGW” speculation. I can bash my head against a brick wall, but I have a limit on how long I’ll bash it against a “true believer” wall.

3))  And maybe the basic problem is that the “AGW” zealots pile speculation on hypothesis on conjecture on theory and offer little to no evidence on the meager scientific supporting evidence.

4))  You are - as are many - beguiled by the apocalyptic prognostication of a phenomenon based on a clearly poorly supported theory.
Fear of the unknown can also be disabling - it’s a psychiatric term called PARANOIA!!
You may yet get the evidence essential to predict apocalypse.
After all, nearly a century passed before Galileo provided evidence that Copernicus was correct that the sun was the center of our solar system, not earth.

[ Edited: 30 June 2010 09:43 PM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

Yo, Analytic,
Have you had a chance to read my essay: Questioning the Intellectual Integrity of the AGW “Skeptic” ?
This ones for you big guy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“... Dear citizen global warming skeptic: please, try to check your ideology at the door, allow yourself to be skeptical of your own notions, then start actually looking at and considering the real data coming in.

Very big, long lasting, tough changes actually are unfolding behind your turned backs. But, the truth is out there. You only need to be brave enough to look it straight in the face.”

[ Edited: 30 June 2010 09:11 AM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

Fear of the unknown is a phobia, paranoia has a very different meaning, doctor. wink

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
Analytic - 30 June 2010 05:51 AM

You may yet get the evidence essential to predict apocalypse.

Global warming does not predict apocalypse.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
TromboneAndrew - 30 June 2010 03:20 PM
Analytic - 30 June 2010 05:51 AM

You may yet get the evidence essential to predict apocalypse.

Global warming does not predict apocalypse.

I missed THAT one! Where the heck did you see anyone predicting (or even mentioning) apocalypse?? Global Warming, is just that, GLOBAL WARMING. There are disagreements on how fast it is occurring, how bad it can get and how to mitigate the damage, but any mention of apocalypse would be (if mentioned) strictly rhetorical.

[ Edited: 30 June 2010 07:31 PM by asanta ]
 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 06:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18
asanta - 30 June 2010 01:50 PM

Fear of the unknown is a phobia, paranoia has a very different meaning, doctor. wink

I know, dear heart.

Phobias are fears of fairly specific ‘things’. Like fear of Friday the 13th, or being too fat for the dress!! Hallucinations are never involved.

Paranoia is delusional fear of many things and leads to other fears. I know this from the DSM-IV manual which listed paranoia as a psychosis, and from my personal experience with a “paranoid schizophrenic”.

Paranoia is often fueled by delusions and hallucinations.

Homophobia is a stupid term requiring very low intelligence to spew. It is NOT fear that motivates some to DESPISE homosexual behavior. It is either religious in nature, and/or considered “abnormal” and/or “evil”.

I despise DISEASE, especially the most lethal transmissible disease mankind has ever faced.

The black plague killed 1/3rd of its victims. HIV/AIDS kills everyone infected, whether sooner of later. No one survives it, but life can be chemically prolonged.

A dictionary might help.

By the way, the word “apocalypse” has been used many, many times in the lay press.

Just one example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece

[ Edited: 01 July 2010 06:58 AM by Analytic ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  260
Joined  2010-05-18

CC,

I’ve read many of the publications you sited, but not the books, speeches or conference proceedings which are not reviewed, or publications in lesser journals in which only the editor’s decision is necessary.

Few laymen even bother to read all the ‘stuff’ published on man-made global temperature increases.

Of the publications you so tediously listed, pick JUST your favorite and I will apply all my critical analytical skills to it as I would any supposedly reputable paper in a scientific journal.

Try to provide both your “favorite” and most recent.

Analytic
——————————————————————-
PS. The linkage between atmospheric CO2 and the so-called “green-house” effect is yet another mistake widely distributed and uncritically accepted.

In a greenhouse, green plants would thrive on the CO2 within. IF it were elevated; but it isn’t. Green plants absorb CO2 and along with water, and fertilyzer, produce glucose to meet their own needs and grow profusely in a well-maintained greenhouse.

Ambient CO2 levels are always low since the ability of green plants to absorb and use it is so efficient.

Maybe it would be a wise agricultural action to leave all the green house windows and doors wide open. In fact, they ARE during the growing period.
—————————————————————-
So why is CO2 considered a “greenhouse gas”? Green plants don’t emit it, and use it very efficiently to grow and prosper. Similarly, green ocean plants exist in vast concentrations; they also absorb CO2.

And fortuitously, these plants EMIT O2 (oxygen) on which almost all animals depend for life.

Animals including humans - now approaching 7 BILLION strong - emit CO2 and methane gases.

Is the atmosphere a “greenhouse” making excess CO2, or can increases be explained by animal-emitted CO2 and methane?

Just asking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4626
Joined  2007-10-05
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM

Just asking.

And still dodging the issue of the only article you cited (not sited) which supports your viewpoint on AGW yet was thoroughly shredded by another paper.

[ Edited: 01 July 2010 08:25 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2010 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Analytic - 01 July 2010 06:54 AM

By the way, the word “apocalypse” has been used many, many times in the lay press.
Just one example:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece

You point out one of the thing I really hate about the “skeptical” movement - they keep waving lay press stories around as though that was the science.  Such as the idiotic 1970’s global cooling consensus that consisted of a few sensational articles that misrepresented the actual studies they were reporting on.  Yet the “skeptics” continue toss that pucky in our faces.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 7
4