Leading Scientists Weigh In on the Mother of All Climate Reports

[Iormlund]

Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994,

Looks like I was wrong about Europe

Much of the drop in emissions can probably be traced to the economic crisis rather than a shift in energy policies.

[Tamas]

Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994,

Looks like I was wrong about Europe

Much of the drop in emissions can probably be traced to the economic crisis rather than a shift in energy policies.

And I bet it doesn`t mean shit with China and India puffing CO2 like there was no tomorrow (or like they felt like joining Europe in standards of living!)

[Razgovory]

 

[viper37]

And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.

how so?

[jimmy olsen]

And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.

how so?

War between great powers over declining resources?

[Siege]

jake, no amount o  data will convince me global warming is real, because of how
politicized the whole issue has become. I'm at that point where I do not believe
a word out of the liberals. Everything is about their agenda for big government control.

Economically neutral? ok. I can support that.As long as is not cutting back on oil
consumption. I love swimming in oil, and I love controlling world resources, to stall
Chinese economic growth. Not that is working, though.

[CountDeMoney]

War between great powers over declining resources?

Why not?  Both China and Russia are modifying their military postures--particularly their navies--accordingly.

[Valmy]

jake, no amount o  data will convince me global warming is real, because of how
politicized the whole issue has become. I'm at that point where I do not believe
a word out of the liberals. Everything is about their agenda for big government control.

I guess I do not get how the Conservatives differ on this agenda.  The only thing, as far as government control, they seem passionate about stopping are entitlements (and even then that is just for poor people, entitlements for old people they love).  I mean there are a few nutty Libertards () in there now...but guess what?  Most of their allies for curtaling government power are leftwing nutters on the other side.

[Gups]

Siege, no amount of data will convince you because you don't want to be convinced. It's a matter of blind faith to you and facts don't come into it.

[grumbler]

jake, no amount o  data will convince me global warming is real, because of how
politicized the whole issue has become. I'm at that point where I do not believe
a word out of the liberals. Everything is about their agenda for big government control.

Economically neutral? ok. I can support that.As long as is not cutting back on oil
consumption. I love swimming in oil, and I love controlling world resources, to stall
Chinese economic growth. Not that is working, though.

Because of how politicized the whole issue has become, I don't believe that this is really how you feel.

[Razgovory]

It's a shame they restored military pay at the last minute.

[viper37]

And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.

how so?

War between great powers over declining resources?

That's already going to happen over water and oil.  What I want to know, is how R&D in newer form of renewable energy, or better energy conservation will lead to the end of history?

[Syt]

Well, that's settled. Gary Novak for pravda.ru calls it all baloney. I kinda zoned out while reading this.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-09-2013/125769-global_warming_controversy-0/

Global warming controversies

According to the most noted "deniers" (critics of global warming) within science (Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and others), they all agree with climatologists that greenhouse gases create global warming; they only disagree on how much.

The primary effect of carbon dioxide is called sensitivity, secondary effects, forcing. Climatologists say that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a primary effect (sensitivity) of about 1°C temperature increase, and the only dispute is the secondary effects.

The primary effect is the science; the secondary effect is the witchcraft. Therefore, the science of climatology is reduced to a number (1°C), and only the witchcraft is studied or disputed.

The basis for sensitivity cannot be located. The closest thing to a source is Hansen's fudge factor (http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html), which in itself does not have an identifiable source. The fudge factor says: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase.

How can all scientists agree upon something which cannot be located with a source? What is in their minds which fixes sensitivity in place? Why can't they tell us what it is?

I think what happened is that the result of Hansen's fake equation was repeated over and over in the scientific literature causing scientists to assume it must have a valid basis. Maybe they saw the fudge factor and assumed it must be unquestionable fact. If so, they are not real scientists. Scientists could not miss the absurdity of the fudge factor.

And now that the graph for the average global temperature stopped showing an increase, some say the sensitivity number should be reduced. If the amount was wrong, how can sensitivity be so unquestionable?

In fact, the original fudge factor yields 2.8°C increase with doubling CO2, but it has been whittled down to 1°C at this time, which requires the original constant to be reduced from 5.35 to 1.92. In other words, climatologists keep changing constant (5.35) in response to criticisms and increased complexities which they have to consider.

The fudge factor undoubtedly was constructed by extending the past into the future, as sugested by Norm Kalmanovitch. One of the frauds inherent in the fudge factor is the assumption that no other influences in the past but CO2 determined temperature increase of so-called global warming. Yet "deniers" in science say numerous factors influence global temperature. Do they not know that the fudge factor includes everything which influenced global temperature? They don't seem to know that. A real scientists could not have missed it. When real scientists see a fudge factor, alarm bells go off, and they find out where it came from. The source of sensitivity cannot be located, yet it gets used and repeated, and no explanation exists of where it came from.

There is no scientifically valid basis for assuming a certain amount of CO2 will produce a defined temperature increase.

Where is the Mechanism?

Scientists used to try to explain how greenhouse gases create global warming, but they totally failed. They produced dozens of explanations for the public, and none of them were consistent with each other. So they sort of stopped trying to explain it and are now simply saying, we can observe the temperature increase, and our models show it, regardless of how it is happening. But over the past 18 years, the graphs stopped showing an increase in temperature. What then is there left to the subject? Are they now going to go back to the scientific details? What is the science which shows it?

Before they gave up trying to rationalize the science, climatologists were arguing a mechanism based upon the shoulders of absorption peaks. Saturation forced them onto the shoulders of the peaks. Saturation means a small amount of greenhouse gases absorbed all radiation available to them, so more of the gases cannot absorb more. But the gases only saturate at the center of each peak. Supposedly, the shoulder frequencies are not saturated.

This depends upon how saturation is defined. At the center of the main peak for CO2 (15 micro meters), all radiation is absorbed within 10 meters (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten) in the atmosphere. In other words, at 11 meters, no more radiation at that frequency can be found. But change the frequency a little, and less absorption occurs.

At about 14.7 µm, absorption is one tenth, and radiation goes 100 meters to be completely absorbed. More distance is required, because fewer CO2 molecules have the stretched shape which absorbs at that wavelength.

At about 14.1 µm, radiation goes 1,000 meters, which means still saturated. At about 14.0 µm, radiation goes 10 kilometers. Is that saturation? Upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance is half (5 km). Is reducing the distance from 10 km to 5 km increasing the near-surface temperature? Not really. This is a miniscule amount of heat spread over 5 km of height.

Why Shoulder Effects are Miniscule.

The assumption that shoulder effects are where global warming occurs is greatly in error. The real quantities involved are ridiculously small for the following reasons: Using the example of about 14.1 µm, where there are 1/100 as many CO2 molecules, the distance increases from 10 meters to 1,000 meters for complete absorption of available radiation (ignoring atmosphere getting thinner to make simple points). Doubling the CO2 reduces this distance to 500 meters.

The total amount of heat increase for CO2 is said to be 1°C upon doubling. So this 1°C must be divided by 100 due to one hundredth of the CO2 molecules at 14.1 µm, and divided again by 50 due to the molecules being spread over 500 meters of height instead of 10 meters. Spreading the molecules over more distance reduces their density and results in less temperature increase upon doubling.

So 1°C ÷ 100 = 0.01, and this divided by 50 = 0.0002°C.

The shoulder effects are miniscule, because very few CO2 molecules are involved, and they are spread over a lot of height in the atmosphere.

The Hansen fudge factor has a rudimentary logic, which says doubling the amount of CO2 doubles the temperature of the air at the surface of the earth. This logic would be correct, if there were no other factors involved. Even with saturation, more molecules absorbing at a particular location will produce more heat at that location. But consider these absurdities: Air rapidly mixes near the surface due to convection, and therefore, the total heat within the convecting volume determines the result, and it does not change with increases in CO2 due to saturation. Then the starting point is determined by the constant, 5.35, and it cannot be determined except through past observations, which include a hodge podge of factors.

Crunching the Numbers.

Climatologist may have acquired a concept of CO2 sensitivity by combining the NASA energy chart (http://nov79.com/gbwm/rad.html) with an application of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html) (SBC) to greenhouse gases, both of which are extremely erroneous and misused for the purpose. The SBC says the temperature of the earth would have to be -19.3°C without an atmosphere, because solar energy is 235 Watts per square meter. With an atmosphere, the measured near-surface average is said to be 15°C. The atmosphere increased the temperature by 34°C by this analysis (The number 33°C is usually shown. Don't know why.).

The NASA energy chart says 41% of the energy leaves the surface of the earth by radiation. About 30% of that radiation is said to radiate directly into space, while 70% is absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. CO2 takes up 8% of the bandwidth for infrared radiation leaving the earth, which is 11% of the greenhouse gas influence. One side of one band (out of three) overlaps with water vapor; so the 11% is reduced by one sixth to 9.17%. This times 41% equals 3.76% of the assumed temperature of 34°C, which totals 1.28°C. This is how much temperature increase CO2 supposedly added to the earth before humans influenced the result. Doubling the CO2 would supposedly add another 1.28°C to the atmosphere.

There is a major error in referring to this number as sensitivity. It represents what CO2 in the atmosphere did during saturation of greenhouse gases. The number tells nothing of what will happen post saturation. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will not produce much increase in temperature after saturation. Due to saturation, this number crunching method is not appropriate for determining present-time sensitivity.

The Hansen fudge factor is also not appropriate for the purpose. Inherent forcing cannot be tweezed out. Due to inherent forcing, the fudge factor is not really a representation of sensitivity but a combination of sensitivity and forcing in addition to unknown influences over past temperature, which it vaguely parallels.

Where is the real sensitivitry? It can't be found. Yet the "deniers" claim it is the most certain and agreed upon fact of global warming.

The saturation question prevents a simple determination of sensitivity, unless one admits there is no sensitivity due to saturation. How then can sensitivity be the most certain fact of global warming, which even the deniers do not question?

Beyond these problems, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is grossly in error, which means 34°C is nothing close to the effect which greenhouse gases or the atmosphere produced before human influences.

Why Sensitivity Contradicts Knowledge.

There are two perspectives on global warming. Extremely uninformed persons have a very simplistic view. They assume that heat would radiate into space, if it were not stopped by greenhouse gases. Scientists argue minutia, which keeps getting more minute, as they try to cope with increasing counter-arguments.

Most heat leaves the planet from the atmosphere, not from the surface. Uninformed persons do not know that. The Nasa chart shows 10% of the earth's energy radiating from the surface into space. The rest of the energy goes from surface to atmosphere through conduction, evaporation and radiation. The NASA chart shows 14% conduction, 45% evaporation and 41% radiation. It should be about 52% conduction, 45% evaporation and 3% radiation. The logic is that conduction should be about 20 times radiation (with normal wind). Cooling fans would not be used, if the ratios were much different from that. The NASA chart shows 3 times as much radiation as conduction on the surface of the earth, which is absurd.

The perspective of both uninformed persons and most scientists is that global warming is about heat entering the atmosphere. They error. The temperature of the atmosphere is about heat leaving, not entering. Heat entering the atmosphere produces an undefined result apart from heat leaving. This fact is due to the second law of thermodynamics, which says heat dissipates from warmer areas to colder areas. Heat leaving creates a steady state, called equilibrium.

Equilibrium means there is a temperature which causes heat to escape at the same rate it enters. For the atmosphere, that temperature is fixed by the rate of heat leaving. Increase the temperature, and heat will leave at a higher rate. But heat must leave the earth at the same rate solar energy enters. Therefore, the temperature from which the heat leaves is fixed by the amount of solar heat entering.

Scientists will sometimes mention equilibrium claiming or implying that more heat entering the atmosphere will shift the equilibrium temperature upward. The equilibrium temperature can't be shifted upward, unless something makes escape of heat more encumbered. The original greenhouse gases slightly encumber radiation escaping from the surface of the earth into space (5% radiation x 70% bandwidth = 3.5% temperature increase); but that effect ended with saturation of the gases. Any increase in greenhouse gases does nothing due to saturation.

The earth (surface and atmosphere) is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. The escaping radiation allows equilibrium to be established, which fixes the atmospheric temperature in place, beyond weather effects, which could be quite significant for an ice age, but not due to greenhouse gases.

About the author: http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/midweek-cuckoogary-novak/

[Syt]

Huh, he has a second article about it there: The Contrivance of Global Warming

[Razgovory]

Gary Novak, that name sounds familiar, is that the guy who claims all physics since Newton is a conspiracy?