Posted on 08/06/2013 1:10:17 AM PDT by neverdem
Global warming is a scientific theory, but is mostly about faith. Faith plays a bigger role in science than we care to admit. Allegedly well-meaning intellectuals of the 1930s believed in and defended Stalin's Russia in the face of massive and accessible evidence that "scientific" communism had given birth to a terroristic, totalitarian state. Today's believers in global warming, like the intellectuals in the 1930s, fiercely defend their wacky faith in the face of massive and contrary evidence. They are vested in a theory that is precious to them. Their scientific studies pick and choose from an evidence buffet.
When an ideology is precious, the believers become aggressively hostile toward infidels...
--snip--
A wonderful example of ideological conformity and half-baked science is the Atmospheric Sciences department of Texas A & M University. The Atmospheric Sciences department is considered to be among the best in the world. All tenured and tenure track faculty, except one assistant professor, have subscribed to what amounts to an IPCC loyalty oath or a confession of faith. This is what was published on their website followed by the names of 23 faculty members:
We, the faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:
1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
A lot of the rising generation would gladly feed everybody over 65 into the Soylent Greet grinder.
BUMP!
Quite to the contrary, Water in the atmosphere has enormously more effect that CO2.
From Miltonconservative
This is THE ESSENSE of the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Enormous amounts of energy (principally translational and vibrational) are carried from the surface into the atmosphere by fast moving free or loosely associated water molecules.
Collisions between water molecules and the majority nitrogen and oxygen molecules transfer the energy to the greater atmosphere. As the energy level of the water molecules diminishes, the probability that water molecules will reaggregate increases. This leads to condensation and has the effect of transferring that 539 calories per gram to the rest of the atmosphere.
Now for the Kicker!
Carbon dioxide does NOT form aggregates. It is not lighter than air and thus does not rise quickly. There is no phase change when carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide carries less than half the heat per molecule compared to water.
One gram of Carbon Dioxide heated at the surface by incident sunlight carries (2 * 539 = 1078) 1078 times less energy into the atmosphere than one gram of water.
Carbon dioxide represents 0.0387 % of the atmosphere. Water in the lower atmosphere represents 1% to 4% or 25 to 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide.
Combining the two statements above, Water is (25 * 1078 = 27,175) to (100 * 1078 = 108,700) times more responsible for greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately Ex, as a professional geologist I am miffed that the Geological Society of America has bought the AGWT hook, line and sinker - inspite of the fact that the numbers have been repeatedly cooked (so much for the integrity of the scientific review process) and the fact that it is known that the geologic record shows cyclical periods of heating (gonna blame dinosaur farts?) and cooling. As one who’s done predictive computer modeling and looked at the models ‘predicting’ global warming all I can say is bunk. These models doen’t even get the historical data correct, let alone validated to even begin to look into the future. Without a validated model of historical data - one that doesn’t cook the books - predictive modeling results are bogus.
You might take a look at this (Is Global Warming A Sin?):
http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/is-global-warming-a-sin.html
The late Mr. Cockburn was about as militant hard-left as you could get, but was rational on this topic.
You might also pursue the writings of Dr. Martin Hertzberg, mentioned in the Cockburn article.
Clearly a creed, not science.
Thanks for the ping!
That’s a very interesting explanation of the greenhouse effect, and it makes a lot more sense than other explanations I have seen.
I have often questioned what it is about CO2 that supposedly gives it such a disproportionate ability to increase total atmospheric heat (energy) content. No one has ever been able to explain it, even those who are rabid advocates of the AGW hypothesis.
One explanation that I have seen is that CO2 has an unusually broad fluorescence band in the IR range. However, that does not make sense as a mechanism for retaining energy, since fluorescent absorption and emission happen almost instantaneously. Someone told me that during the nanoseconds between absorption and emission, the CO2 molecule can shed that energy by bumping another molecule. In that case, the atmosphere would have to be of a certain density for that mechanism to have any effect. Without that critical density, the shedding of energy by fluorescent emission would be the primary way the CO2 loses the energy gain of fluorescent absorption.
Your description of the greenhouse effect makes far more sense. The energy change of phase transition of water accounts for a lot of energy—and, of course, CO2 under normal atmospheric conditions only undergoes one phase transition at a very low temperature, lower than that encountered almost anywhere on earth. So CO2 cannot store energy, while water does.
Thank you.
I could go on and on about my frustration with life scientists who have swallowed the AGW line. I have many things I could say about it, but I will restrict myself to one story. I went to an American Society of Microbiology meeting, and listened to a woman talk about the problems of food poisoning. She explained that the incidence of food poisoning seems to be increasing and described various factors which she thought responsible. For instance, foods grown all over the world are shipped thousands of miles, creating multiple opportunities for contamination, starting with the fields where foods are grown, to the point of distribution. There are many areas where microbial growth control could be improved. Okay, those are good points. Then she added that the increased bacterial content of foods results from global warming. Um... excuse me? Is there a shred of evidence for that, or did she throw that in there because mentioning global warming looks good to the funding agencies? Things like that just make me want to yell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.