THE question for "luke warmers".

[Derek]

Hi All,
As it appears one in particular is coming "out" as a "luke warmer" here, I thought I'd profer the question, (yet again) that
I have not seen a "luke warmer" ever even attempt to answer cogently anywhere as of yet.
"True believers" just side step, or ignore the question.

Yet most skeptics do not really seem to have grasped it yet either...

THE question is simple really.
Yes, "we" have observed the "physics" of CO2 in a laboratory, and yes according to this "science" CO2 has a high specific heat content.
This is the "justification" for the supposed warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Man made global warming is the amplification of these "measured" effects of CO2 in the atmosphere by
James Hansen's (unobserved, and no experimental evidence for) positive water vapour feedback mechanism.

YET Chemists know from their mass based calculations that CO2 in the real, mixed, and open system atmosphere has a low specific heat capacity.

These are completely opposite and opposing "known" properties of CO2,
that leaves AGW and "true believer" physicists in a total quagmire.

If AGW or CO2 warming are a "fact" then CO2 must have a high specific heat capacity in the real, mixed, open system atmosphere,
BUT IT DOES NOT.
Otherwise the chemists calculations showing a low specific heat capacity for CO2 would not work.
BUT THEY DO WORK.

JohnWho, over to you.
AND PLEASE, a plain straight answer that makes sense from you for a change.

[Sunsettommy]

LINK

Here it shows how negligible CO2 warm forcing is.

LINK

Here it shows that the IPCC left out critical factors in their report in the level of understanding.

LINK

This is about the Logarithmic curve of CO2 warm forcing effect.There is little left for CO2 to absorb to make any significant difference.

That is why they lean HARD on the positive feedback effect claims.

[Derek]

(05-16-2010 12:45 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  LINK

Here it shows how negligible CO2 warm forcing is.

This is one of my points SST, or rather my "luke warmer" question.
HOW do they go from the lab "measurements" to open atmosphere "effect". ?
Observation says "it" does not happen like that.

That's the point of the physicicst / chemists question I keep on trying to get across.

I also found this link you gave, which again hammers home the point, "it" is being accepted...
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/0...ivity.html
By the time you get to your third point "it" has already been accepted as hapening in the atmosphere as in the lab,
when by observation, "it" does not.

[Sunsettommy]

(05-16-2010 12:58 PM)Derek Wrote:  

(05-16-2010 12:45 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  LINK

Here it shows how negligible CO2 warm forcing is.

This is one of my points SST, or rather my "luke warmer" question.
HOW do they go from the lab "measurements" to open atmosphere "effect". ?
Observation says "it" does not happen like that.

That's the point of the physicicst / chemists question I keep on trying to get across.

As far as I know Lab measurements of CO2 absorptivity and emissions leave out the real atmosphere constituents.They just measure CO2 alone in a column in the lab.

Meanwhile Dr. Spencer and a few other scientists use the Aqua Satellite data that shows NEGATIVE feedbacks are the reality versus the MODELED runs that suggests POSITIVE feedbacks would be the virtual reality.

At this point in time is looks like the NEGATIVE feedback supporters are the ones who have the better supporting science.

[Derek]

(05-16-2010 01:05 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  As far as I know Lab measurements of CO2 absorptivity and emissions leave out the real atmosphere constituents.
They just measure CO2 alone in a column in the lab.

That is the whole point of the question I am trying to get across.

That needs justifiying before being applied to the real, open, mixed atmosphere.
Observation, by chemists give good evidence "it" does not.
This is THE point "luke warmers" completely ignore.

[Sunsettommy]

(05-16-2010 01:09 PM)Derek Wrote:  

(05-16-2010 01:05 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  As far as I know Lab measurements of CO2 absorptivity and emissions leave out the real atmosphere constituents.
They just measure CO2 alone in a column in the lab.

That is the whole point of the question I am trying to get across.

That needs justifiying before being applied to the real, open, mixed atmosphere.
Observation, by chemists give good evidence "it" does not.
This is THE point "luke warmers" completely ignore.

The IPCC leaves out too many KNOWN factors to be able to credibly claim that it is CO2 doing most or all of the warm forcing.They are irrationally narrow minded about it.

[Sunsettommy]

The comical part is that back in 1988,they were already shrieking about global warming,yet at that time it was no more than 9 years old.

LOL

Most of that warming was in ONE YEAR at the great climatic shift of 1976/77 time.It was negligible warming if any during the 1980's.

It was a politically created pablum that started this baloney in the first place.

[Mike Davis]

There is evidence to support that clouds are both positive and negative in the overall climate picture. That includes all forms of H2O and transitions from one state to another. There is evidence that climate has High sensitivity and low sensitivity to so called external factors that most are probably feed-backs or internal factors. Because every one seems to pick what "fits" through their preferred method we are still at first base in the understanding of climate. Climate is NOT an average over a period of time but a range of extremes.
The CO2 thing was buried in 1906 and resurrected as a means to find funding. It has become a growth industry and just another "Balloon" issue that is bursting.
SST:
You need to go back to Revelle and Keeling. Hansen was a puppet who thought he could stand on his own! His mission was to procure funding for GISS to remain on contract and for NASA to continue receiving government funding, or increase funding by finding some imaginary problem and blowing it out of proportion.
Some blame Monckton because he put the CO2 bug in Thatcher's ear as a means to promote Nuclear as a means to counteract the Coal miners strangle hold on energy production. (That was a rumor I heard).

My position is that "Luke Warmers" are maybe a step above alarmists and are part of the problem not part of the solution!

[Derek]

With the greatest of respect to you both,
please do either of you understand the question I am trying to ask. ?

From your replies so far, you do not appear to.

[Mike Davis]

Maybe if you posed a question rather than two general statements we could answer. You posed the theory of physics that CO2 has a high heat capacity that can be observed in a lab. Then you posed the chemistry side showing a low heat capacity. This is a normal situation in different fields of science where different fields come to different conclusions. Paleobiology and geology, Archeology and Biology. It is just investigating the little understood mysteries of the natural universe. To a certain extent both theories have some weight however the real world seems to be somewhere in between and of little or no consequences. This entire line of research should never been funded because it was equal to Don Quixote chasing windmills and has lead climate researchers on a merry blind chase! The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere negates the need to investigate it.

[Derek]

You've missed the whole point of the question Mike.

The phrasing was done as it is to explain what the problem is, and
therefore why the question of how do they justify "it" arises.

I would also query your
"This is a normal situation in different fields of science where different fields come to different conclusions. "
That is irrelevant to this question, AGW is NOT a normal situation.
Where / when two fields contradict each other in a very basic component
of what is now THE major theory effecting us all. in one way or another.
If it was "normal" or "science" then the "theory" would be questioned (thrown out), it is not.
That is the point.
That is why the question should be asked.

[Mike Davis]

Derek:
The CO2 issue is a dead horse! It is not a well mixed gas! It is not properly measured! Its abilities are not completely understood! Its contributions to long term climate are probably non existent!

You are not dealing with NORMAL science in any way shape or form. In fact you are not dealing with science at all as what we are observing is the antithesis of science philosophy!
AGW is a political situation and not scientific! AGW is a fairy tale, Religion, Fantasy, or even a fraud but not science! It is going to be the downfall of science as it was known before this fiasco began. Real science will take many years to recover from the damages caused by not discrediting this fraud because it lead to more funds for research and every one else was getting in on the Gravy Train.
For whatever reason this was not stopped long ago by the real scientists they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the backlash from this. The scam artists will take their money and disappear! It could have been stopped!

[Derek]

Absolutely SPOT ON Mike in all respects.
We agree completely. AND
you have spelt "it" ("it" being what AGW really is) out in very clear, simple, and understandable terms.
Although I would of substituted "we" for you in your text, and possibly removed completely from "Its abilities are not completely understood!"

My question in this thread will hopefully make many more question the scam, and
realise AGW for what it is.
A scientifically baseless scam.

[Derek]

OK, let us see if this thread can get back on track as such.
That said at least the question being raised is hopefully a lot clearer in people's minds.

Namely,
How is the application of laboratory measured, closed system, single gas "known" physics justified as being applicable to
the open system, mixed gases of differing properties, in the real world of atmospheric physics of the supposed CO2 effect. ?

I would suggest most peoples understanding / knowledge is at least partially based on David Archibald's works,
or it is just an accepted (unquestioning) assumption, that it does.
For reference here is the plot of David Archibald's that is probably most relevant.


Sometime ago now I think it was Hans Shreuder said to me that the above plot was based upon a misinterpretation.
I can not remember off hand the exact arguement (if it was Hans who said it) as stated,
niether do I have a relevant link handy, but I do remember the arguement was quite logical and compelling.

So, where does that leave this thread. ?
Firstly I will look up later the arguement I refer to, and post it here. Unless someone beats me to it of course.
So, for discussion purposes can we at least temporarily "ignore" David Archibald's plot, as question marks do hang over it.
And so, therefore secondly, I will ask here is anyone aware of any other supporting evidence that justifies "it". ?

[Mike Davis]

Derek:
If "IT"s abilities were well understood we would not be carrying on this conversation!
I think D A goes to the other extreme and for the most part disregard him and Warwick Hughes! His graph is based on the presumption that CO2's contribution is well understood to be different than what others believe the contribution is also well understood. Gravity is an accepted theory that has not been falsified but it is not well understood. That is why science is important: creating better understanding of natural phenomena. Science should not care what the results will be but rather observe to see what the results are to either prove or disprove a theory. Those promoting AGW by their actions and words have renounced their membership in the scientific community and should be treated as such!

[Derek]

(05-18-2010 09:19 AM)Mike Davis Wrote:  I think D A goes to the other extreme and for the most part disregard him and Warwick Hughes!
His graph is based on the presumption that CO2's contribution is well understood to be
different than what others believe the contribution is also well understood.

Please explain this Mike, I can not make sense of it.
Can you also expand on your reason/s why I should disregard David Archibald.

(05-18-2010 09:19 AM)Mike Davis Wrote:  Gravity is an accepted theory that has not been falsified but it is not well understood.
That is why science is important: creating better understanding of natural phenomena.

You seem to be saying, in regard to this thread, that the question I am trying to raise is not important,
because whether "it" applies to the open atmosphere should just be accepted. ?
You may be saying my question is not important, or relavant.
I would strongly disagree with you, if that is what you are saying,
and ask you to explain why you would apparently (possibly) be attempting to suggest such.

(05-18-2010 09:19 AM)Mike Davis Wrote:  Science should not care what the results will be but rather
observe to see what the results are to either prove or disprove a theory.
Those promoting AGW by their actions and words have renounced their membership in the scientific community
and should be treated as such!

Well yes, but is that a reason not to show and question an assumption regarding "it" that most
have just accepted, or not realised they have just accepted. ?

I would also reiterate for everyone else reading this thread,
is there any other evidence please (excluding David Archibald - for discussion purposes)
that "it" does apply to the real, open, mixed atmosphere.

Below is a recent paper that also suggests that the physics of the atmosphere overwhelms the (supposedly known) physics of CO2.
(Thank you Richard111)
http://www.climatephysics.com/PDFs/Chili...%20CO2.pdf
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
January 2008.
So, that adds another dimension to THE question for lukewarmers.
Not only is the question does "it" ("known" [closed isolated measurements] physics of CO2 ) apply in the real, open atmosphere.
BUT ALSO are the "known physics" of CO2 more powerful the the atmosphere's own physics.
Apparently the answer to the latter question is a resounding, and not unsurprising emphatic NO.

AND as of yet I'm not aware of any evidence (excluding David Archibald) that supports
the first questioning of the assumed applicability of "it" to the atmosphere anyway.

[Derek]

Important addition.

I have just recieved this by email from Hans Shreuder.
The relevance to the question of this thread is immediately apparent,
namely the "known" physics of CO2....

Attached is Ralf Tscheuschner's extended response to Halpern's attack on his Falsification of Greenhouse Effect paper.

Best line: "Halpern et al. do not understand what a physical effect really is."

Here's a taster:
Again: We never claimed — allegedly with reference to Clausius — that a
colder body does not send radiation to a warmer one. Rather, we cite a paper,
in which Clausius treats the radiative exchange.19,20 The correct question is,
whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body
warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.

The Stefan–Boltzmann T 4-law does only apply to an idealized black body,
that is a cavity with a hole placed in a heat bath of constant temperature T .
Global climatologists use crude approximations, from which they compute tiny
variations of measurable quantities unscrupulously. This is inadmissible. One
example is the conjectured atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect. Even if their
theory were correct, the error bars would render their predictions useless, since
being gigantic.

A so-called grey body obeying a modified Stefan–Boltzmann T 4 law (i.e., a
Stefan–Boltzmann law multiplied by a factor) is a phenomenological construct
whose physical realization does not exist.

Gaseous layers never obey the Stefan–Boltzmann T 4 law. All these calculations
(e.g., the shell layer calculations performed in detail by Halpern et al.) are
fundamentally wrong and prove nothing. The corresponding four pages of the
comment by Halpern et al. are obsolete.
In the speculative discussion around the existence of an atmospheric natural greenhouse
effect11 or the existence of an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect it is sometimes
stated that the greenhouse effect could modify the temperature profile of the
Earth’s atmosphere. This conjecture is related to another popular but incorrect
idea communicated by some proponents of the global warming hypothesis, namely
that the temperatures of the Venus are due to a greenhouse effect.

... we cannot expect that a change of concentration of a trace gas has any measurable effect.
At this point, it is important to remember that the barometric formulas do not hold globally
but have only a limited range of validity.

In our falsification paper, we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects
as taken-for-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific
realm of theoretical and applied physics.
Halpern et al. did not refute our conclusions. Rather, they make false statements
about the content of our paper, on which they erect their system of objections.

[Sunsettommy]

From post # 14,

Quote:How is the application of laboratory measured, closed system, single gas "known" physics justified as being applicable to
the open system, mixed gases of differing properties, in the real world of atmospheric physics of the supposed CO2 effect. ?

There is nothing wrong with doing the lab tests of CO2 and publish the results.

But it does not tell us HOW it behaves in the atmosphere,which is a very different setting than what was set up in a friendly laboratory experiment.All they do is to measure absorption of IR and nothing else.

To say that what was determined in a SINGLE gas absorption measurement in a lab room,and apply it to the atmosphere is silly,because CO2 now has to react to many variables not found in the lab room.

[ajmplanner]

Best line: "Halpern et al. do not understand what a physical effect really is."
**************************
I read the referenced paper and admit that I am not a physicist and could not adequately follow the arguments since I did not read the Halpern paper and am not schooled in thermodynamics ( I do have masters degrees in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science). However I did understand these things in Section 5 ,Climate Models, and nominate them as tied for second Best Lines:

From page 9,

"....in our opinion global climate models and the study of scenarios do not belong in the realm of science. To put it bluntly, they are science fiction"

And then on Page 10,

"Thus, global climate models are nothing but an expensive form of computer game entertainment"

When this paper is combined with the Landesman article I have previously referenced ("The Mathemaics of Global Warming" available on the American Thinker website) in which Landesman states that it is impossible to solve the equations used in climate models with any accuracy even if the equations themselves were correct representations of climate reality, which they are not, then all of the projections of catastrophe from models have been demolished. (Gerlich also refers to the mathematics of it).

The work done by many others on this forum and elsewhere have also demolished the hypotheses, faulty analyses, and assumptions of the True Believers. Taken as a whole, all of this work is a complete refutation of AGW.

Unfortunately, the politicians trying to foist CO2 controls on the globe have closed their minds to any refutation since they are fundamentally committed to an ideology that is not science based.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:Attached is Ralf Tscheuschner's extended response to Halpern's attack on his Falsification of Greenhouse Effect paper.

Joshua Halpern is also known as Rabbet Run.

From his website is this blather about himself:

"Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts."

Zzz......