Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5269
    Brian H
    Participant

    JimmyT wrote: Ding dong Cap & Trade seems dead. For now anyway. At least the Copenhagen rendition of it.

    High cost, negligible benefit. What could possibly have gone wrong? :-S

    #5577
    Transmute
    Participant

    Excuse me but I’m not a fan of Gore and I object to this thread title, I did not create this thread and it was a split off from some other thread.

    #5579
    Brian H
    Participant

    COP15 died, too. A well-earned ignominious collapse. Of course, the existing carbon-swapping Kyoto regime is retained until further notice, so Gore and Pachauri* et al. can continue to milk the market for millions.
    *IPCC president, railway engineer with lotsa connecting rails to green-gobblers.

    #5583
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    Was millions a typo, Brian? Seems like chump change on a global scale.

    #5588
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    They are trying to set up a Methane trading market now

    #5592
    Brian H
    Participant

    Aeronaut wrote: Was millions a typo, Brian? Seems like chump change on a global scale.

    I was referring to them individually; it would eventually amount to a billion plus for Gore, taking into account his interests in various firms, notably the sole provider of an instrument “approved” to monitor CO2 at or near sources.

    The entire global carbon credits cap&trading;system, of course, is in the hundreds of billions potentially, or more.

    “…Lawrence Livermore Laboratories … concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool.” p.36, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

    AGW is not just wrong, it is an evil hoax.

    #5605
    HermannH
    Participant

    Brian H wrote:
    “…Lawrence Livermore Laboratories … concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool.” p.36, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

    AGW is not just wrong, it is an evil hoax.

    Interesting use of ellipsis, Brian, you should be a tabloid newspaper editor. You seem to imply that Lawrence Livermore Laboratories investigated the issue and came to the conclusion that AGW is a hoax.

    Here is a more complete quote from the paper. They referred to a 1990 movie called the “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” and state:

    In the movie these four pillars were dismantled bringing the building down. The speaker states:
    “In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, Professor Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major US research establishment in California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool.”

    The Ellsaesser paper was from 1984, apparently the last year he published in a peer reviewed journal. And, of course, he has close ties to ‘think tanks’ that are heavily funded by the oil industry.

    Here is one example of a more up to date publication from Lawrence Livermore Laboratories:

    Santer’s expertise is in the area of “climate fingerprinting,” which seeks to identify and separate human effects on climate from purely natural climate influences. His presentation will describe how human fingerprints have been detected in many different aspects of the climate system — not only in the temperatures of the land surface, ocean and atmosphere, but also in atmospheric moisture, rainfall and circulation patterns.

    Or have a look this IPCC page and search for ‘Lawrence Livermore’: 10 different hits.

    Brian, how does this square with your above (mis)representation of their position?
    You delight in making forceful and provocative statements about global warming, but why should I or anyone else trust any of it?

    Happy New Year!

    #5607
    Brian H
    Participant

    ‘Ere’s a quick summary for you, H.:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343

    Speaking of “ellipsis”, note the omitted CO2 readings in Figure 1 for most of the 19th Century. These were done with the same technique used today, and would have no more than 1% lower accuracy than the best current technology. But they didn’t make it into the IPCC graphs. Because it would change the linear slope since then to a decline.

    Have you actually read any of the exposed CRU/East Anglia emails? These are men determined to avoid the critical examination that real scientists love because every challenge met is a new indicator they might be right. These swine tried to make sure they were credited with being completely right by by-passing and suppressing all challenges. They had researchers who published articles in Climate Science journal blackballed, and pulled strings behind the scenes to have the editors of Geophysical Review fired for having dared publish challenges to their dogma. They agreed to delete all emails covering a crucial period in 2008, and to wipe their raw data rather than release it under UK’s new FOIA, should their ‘enemies’ twig to the fact that it was now on the books.

    You are associating yourself with sleazeballs. How’s the smell in there?

    #5612
    HermannH
    Participant

    Brian, your did not address the fact that you clearly misrepresented the official position (if there is such a thing) of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a well respected institution. And you did it in a sneaky way.

    Does fighting sleazeballs give you clearance to act like one yourself?

    #5614
    HermannH
    Participant

    Brian H wrote:
    Speaking of “ellipsis”, note the omitted CO2 readings in Figure 1 for most of the 19th Century. These were done with the same technique used today, and would have no more than 1% lower accuracy than the best current technology.

    The figure you refer to shows measurements between 250 and 550 ppm in a span of a few years.
    If you look at modern measurements you will find that average CO2 is increasing very smoothly at a rate of about 15 ppm per decade. Superimposed on that steady rise is an annual cycle with an amplitude of about 5 ppm: the northern hemisphere has more vegetation so in the summer more CO2 is absorbed and in the winter more is released. If you zoom in closer you will probably detect a diurnal cycle: plants absorb CO2 only during the day while CO2 goes back up at night. I would expect that the diurnal cycle is much more erratic than the annual cycle and depends on many local factors. It probably has an even larger amplitude than the annual cycle.

    These daily and yearly cycles are well understood and they average out over longer time spans.

    The article you link to disputes this and claims that the extremely smooth CO2 curves from Mauna Loa are flawed for a variety of reasons. Given the extreme care that goes into the measurements I do put a lot of faith into those curves. Also, very similar measurements have been recorded at numerous other locations around the globe. None of these curves exhibit any of the huge variations shown as ‘CO2 chemical’ in figure 2 of the article. And somehow the highly variable ‘CO2 chemical’ measurements stopped after the Keeling ‘s Mauna Loa measurements started. Why is that? Could it be that it was generally acknowledged that Charles Keeling had come up with a more reliable way of measuring CO2 and it could be shown (in each case) that measurements that contradicted Keeling’s measurements where flawed when closely examined?

    I haven’t seen any report from the last 50 years that claims to have recorded CO2 variation even remotely approaching the wide swings as shown in the historic data in the article. If there was a study that contradicts the so-called Keeling Curve it would be explosive news; I haven’t seen it.

    I certainly don’t want to denigrate the accomplishments of those early scientists; they made remarkable progress with the equipment and knowledge they had available. But claiming they performed delicate measurements of CO2 concentrations with 1% accuracy seems naïve, at best.

    #5615
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    I doubt you could detect a meaningful diurnal variation in these figures as it would vary by timezone – whereas Keeling’s figures come almost exclusively from the mid-pacific.

    You are being a little unforgiving in your critique of Mr H. Any average will tend to be smooth by its very nature.

    Heres a (2009) raw data view of things for the same period. (With a nice smooth average thrown in).

    The top line is man-made CO2. The very wobbly line underneath is the total annual (i.e.already seasonaly adjusted) atmospheric CO2 reading. The dashed line is the average.

    Attached files

    #5616
    Brian H
    Participant

    Phil’s Dad wrote: I doubt you could detect a meaningful diurnal variation in these figures as it would vary by timezone – whereas Keeling’s figures come almost exclusively from the mid-pacific.

    You are being a little unforgiving in your critique of Mr H. Any average will tend to be smooth by its very nature.

    Heres a (2009) raw data view of things for the same period. (With a nice smooth average thrown in).

    The top line is man-made CO2. The very wobbly line underneath is the total annual (i.e.already seasonaly adjusted) atmospheric CO2 reading. The dashed line is the average.

    BS.
    The point is that the ENTIRE AGW case rests on the assertion that CO2 is rising, which in turn depends on the “chosen” 19th C. number(s). Those were cherry-picked to be at the very bottom of the range observed.

    If you bothered to read the link, it is also noted that the Mona Loa swings of up to 600 ppm/day are manually excluded from the record.
    The graph looks impressive, but it’s smoke and mirrors. That’s a graph of CO2 added, and begs numerous questions.
    Basically, % change, significance of change, and reliability of data sources.

    And the fundamental question, which the link I gave is at pains to point out, is “SO WHAT?” The physics underlying the CO2-temp connection is not just weak, it’s missing. Read or re-read http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4 (Falsification of Physics Greenhouse Effect)

    I will summarize: the physics and math of the actual energy budget of an atmosphere is so far beyond current or imaginable math, modelling and physics, that not even 1,000 years of Moore’s Law will produce a computer capable of handling it. It is impossible that the “climate scientists” are unaware of this. The simplifications and assumptions in the IPCC-funded “scenario” systems reduce them to computer game illustrations of whatever the designer or programmer wants. They are scientifically worthless, and to base policy on them is deceptive and criminal. Nevertheless, the climate cabal aggressively does so.

    To be a bit more specific: even a first rough pass at the math eliminates any possible projection of CO2’s influence. And a first rough pass at the physics says that THERE IS NO SUCH THING as “radiative balance/conservation”, a fundamental assumption and requirement of Greenhouse Theories. The law of conservation of energy has no preferences about how it is transferred, converted, and moved about.

    To be even simpler and clearer: the Greenhouse Hypothesis is totally untenable within the bounds of Physics. Therefor any decision based on its assumptions and conclusions is CERTAIN to be wrong.

    As for CO2, here’s the deal:
    Once the smoke clears from Climategate, and the full extent of the carbon-control hoax is exposed, all the subsidy-grabbing greenie projects will have to be defunded, and many of their scamboni founders and floggers jailed. Then we can begin encouraging maximum CO2 production to help Planet Earth get over its CO2 famine*. A target of returning to the geological average of 1,000-2,000 ppm should be set, which will greatly boost agriculture and food supply.

    (FF doesn’t need to hitch its wagon to the diseased CO2-remediation horse. Economics is more than sufficient motive power.)

    *Current low levels have previously obtained only in one, relatively brief, era in the last 600M years of Earth’s history. (Carboniferous/Permian, ~45 m.y. ).

    #5618
    HermannH
    Participant

    Brian H wrote: The physics underlying the CO2-temp connection is not just weak, it’s missing. Read or re-read http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4 (Falsification of Physics Greenhouse Effect)

    I did just that, well almost. I read this annotated version (sorry, German only and possibly slow link).

    Needless to say the author finds many faults with the paper; his annotations to the original are in blue. I will quote just one short piece here that deals with the apparent paradox that an atmosphere that is far colder than earth’s surface somehow manages to heat the surface. Gerlich and Tscheuschner claim that this is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. I chose this example because the arguments can be easily understood by a layman.

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner (3.9.3 A paradox):

    The renowned German climatologist Rahmstorf has claimed that the greenhouse effect does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics [141]:

    “Some `sceptics’ state that the greenhouse effect cannot work since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.”

    Rahmstorf’s reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.

    Here is Ebel’s reply as translated by me:

    The second law of thermodynamics is not redefined in Rahmstorf’s quote. In equation (70) the emission of a body is handled correctly, that is implicitly independent of the surroundings. The surroundings can be warmer. Consider the case of a cooler sphere inside a hollow sphere that is hotter. Where do its emissions go? Why is it that the outside sphere cools down faster if the interior sphere is colder? How does the outside sphere know when to stop heating the inside sphere; once equilibrium is reached? The explanation is simple if one takes into account that the inside sphere emits radiation as well: When it is very cold it emits almost nothing so the emissions from the outside hollow sphere encounter almost no compensation the other way. With rising temperature the inside sphere emits more strongly until, when temperature equilibrium is reached, as much power is emitted by the inside sphere as it receives from the outside hollow sphere. Prevost knew this already 200 years ago. If you have heat radiations in opposite directions the difference is the net heat transfer.

    If you want to see the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper debunked in English have a look at this page.
    Or a much shorter piece here.
    There is also a formal proof that the greenhouse effect exits, available here.

    So Brian, I hope you opened your champagne bottle on New Year’s and didn’t waste it on this paper.

    BTW, you still didn’t respond to my accusation that you blatantly misrepresented the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory position on AGW.

    And there is something else you need to do: If you are still convinced that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist you should remove the ‘MAXIMIZE CH4’ part from your signature.

    #5619
    Brian H
    Participant

    HermannH wrote:

    If you want to see the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper debunked in English have a look at this page.
    Or a much shorter piece here.
    There is also a formal proof that the greenhouse effect exits, available here.

    So Brian, I hope you opened your champagne bottle on New Year’s and didn’t waste it on this paper.

    BTW, you still didn’t respond to my accusation that you blatantly misrepresented the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory position on AGW.

    And there is something else you need to do: If you are still convinced that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist you should remove the ‘MAXIMIZE CH4’ part from your signature.

    Yawn. Actually read the paper. Those ancient inapplicable examples were dealt with, rather thoroughly.
    And as for your “debunker”, here is the rebuttal — which was never responded to. Your “debunker” vanished in the weeds, never to be heard from again:

    >”Today I’m in a good mood, so I’ll give you a twofer: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Neither of these
    physicists has produced a single peer-reviewed paper bearing on any aspect of climate science, or even on the
    radiative physics underpinning climate science.”
    Indeed, this is a great advantage for the whole discussion, both scientifically and politically. It is a presupposition for to
    have a fresh look at the topic. We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are unbiased totally independent
    theoretical physicists, familiar with stochastic description of nature and quantum field theory, respectively, and last but
    not least familiar with the physics lab and software engineering. Of course, we have published our papers in peer-
    reviewed journals, and on topics that belong to science, not to science fiction as the computer games of global
    climatology do. We are physicists, not climatologists.
    The main results of our paper are:
    – the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist;
    – computer aided global climatology will not be science, if science is defined as a method to verify or falsify
    conjectures, according to the usual definition of science.
    (We do not get into the ideas of e.g. Feyerabend “anything goes” here in that they do not apply to physics, in particular
    to applied physics, e.g. aeroplanes).
    Due to research grants, huge amount of financial support, virtual global climatologists suffer from a kind of
    omnipotence delusion comparable to the state of highness of the early super string community.
    However, physics is different. “Physics is where the action is”, i.e., finally, reproducible results in the lab. We cannot
    overemphasize that science is a method to prove conjectures, and not to go on-stage like the pop star Al Gore
    performing what-if-when-scenarios beyond any reality and scaring kids.
    >”The two links you provide in fact point to the same paper. What you seem to be unaware of is that this paper has not
    been published in any journal. It appears only in the unreviewed ArXIV repository of manuscripts. This repository has
    no screening whatsoever as to the the content of the papers posted. Indeed, a look at the paper by anybody who has
    even a nodding acquaintance with radiation physics shows why they wouldn’t dare subject it to peer review. About 40
    pages of this 90 page opus is in fact devoted to discussing the well-known flaws in the glass-greenhouse analogy
    sometimes used in simplified explanations of the phenomenon. These flaws have no bearing whatever on the manner
    in which the greenhouse effect is actually computed in climate models.”
    We are not sure, whether you, Dr. Pierrehumbert, really know what you are talking about. The full
    theory of the atmospheric system must be a fusion of magnetohydrodynamics and radiation theory including earth’s
    gravity and rotation. The full theory should be a multi component theory and should include phase separation
    (interesting!), plasma physics, and highly involved boundary conditions which, in general, even cannot be written
    down. You, Dr. Pierrehumbert, first solve the turbulence problem, and then we can discuss the existence of a local
    thermodynamic equilibrium for the photon bath in which the atmosphere is embedded. Point us to only one source in
    the literature, where the CO2 term enters the fundamental equations (not the useless phenomenological toy model
    equations).
    Mathematically, even within the most simplified models you cannot predict anything, because all these ones
    crudely approximate non-linear partial differential equations with unknown boundary conditions. There is
    simply no physical foundation of the computer models with and without CO2.
    (my emphasis)

    >”The rest of the paper is simply bad physics; in fact, if they were right, not only would there be no anthropogenic
    greenhouse effect, there would be no greenhouse effect at all!”
    Boy, you got it.

    >”They’ve proved too much!”
    We did not prove anything.
    We did not show anything.
    We only demonstrated that you and your virtual global climatology buddies and Al Gore and the peace Nobel
    prize committee do not know anything about fundamental university physics. We conclusively showed that
    you guy and your buddies never will prove or disprove anything in the context of your unproven computer
    models.

    Nothing from Dr. P. since. With good reason.

    #5620
    Brian H
    Participant

    As for your “proof” that the GH effect exists, it again relies on the discussed inapplicable one-dimensional math for radiation exchange, as though the beams were trapped in a wave-guide. No physical system operates like this. You REALLY should read the full English version of the paper; it was written in English by the professors themselves, and is a bit un-fluent in spots, but is quite clear.

    In any case, as Lord Monckton points out, this and all models and studies (of the 17 available making predictions) predict a declining % of available heat being radiated to space as the planet warms. Finally someone crunched the numbers for the last 20 years from satellite observations. Result: a nice, smooth, linear climb of exiting radiation each time the surface warmed — THEREBY UTTERLY FALSIFYING EVERY ONE OF THE MODELS.

    None have made accurate predictions. They have only generated floods of double-talk and baffle-gab and tautological reasoning from the GW Hypothesis Alarmist Cabal.

    It is, BTW, an indictable crime to withhold public data as Jones, Mann, et al. did (notwithstanding their risible claims that there was “proprietary” information involved). In the US, RICO may and should have something to say on the matter. Billions have been misappropriated, misdirected, and misallocated as a direct result of the misrepresentations entered into with malice aforethought by the East Anglian Cabal, and American Friends of Mann (who is quite vicious, egotistical, and vindictive by all accounts, especially those discussing him in the Climategate emails!).

    P.S. I see the Russians are now wondering why East Anglia excluded the lowest 40% of all temperature measurements from their territories. Just askin’, y’know? Between friends, like. 😆

    As has been observed, the principal effect of Climategate is going to be that the actual hard scientists and mathematicians and forecasting model experts who have been browbeaten into silence are now going to stop shutting up. The plugs are popping out of the holes in the leaky jerry-built mega-scow which is GW and AGW theory!

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.