Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/10/2010 12:30:14 AM PST by neverdem
Right, and available as a pdf with just a click. Thanks!
That is an example of true scientific transparency and openness, right there! Something the Warmists could learn from.
;-)
“The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere”
Says who?
It may very well be but nobody knows what that is.
Dang, I get sucked into believing that too, but we need to remember the warmist shtick isn't scientific it's political, and they can't learn from this any more than they can learn from anything. It's like how they keep asking us to prove they're wrong, when all along they should carry the burden of proof.
This kind of thing either needs the passage of time (long ago people used to believe in stuff like global warming and that the earth was flat) or some extreme major catastrophe (he built the autobahn but I was never a Nazi).
Agree. There is some data from rocks, and other things but “normal” is a dangerous claim to make in planetary mechanics.
..that old song says it all
Says who?
Lacis at NASA on Role of CO2 in Warming
In this way, by utilizing global-mean decadal-average quantities, we have come to understand that water vapor accounts for 50 percent of the (33 K, 60 deg F) greenhouse effect. Longwave absorption by clouds contributes 25 percent, and CO2 accounts for 20 percent. The remaining 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is split between methane, N2O, CFCs, ozone, and aerosols. Significantly, CO2 and the minor GHGs do not condense or precipitate at current atmospheric temperatures. This provides a stable reference temperature structure for the fast feedback processes to operate and maintain the amounts of atmospheric water vapor and clouds at their quasi-equilibrium concentrations. Hence the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse is sustained and effectively controlled by the atmospheric temperature floor that is provided by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases. (More detail is contained in my Greenhouse Tutorial which is a related supporting commentary.)
Here's another:
In the case of the simplified earth-atmosphere system, the Earth’s surface warms from the sun’s incoming shortwave radiation. As it is now a warm body floating in cold space, Earth radiates long-wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature. If that were the whole story, the earth would have balanced its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long-wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18°C and it would be a rather inhospitable place. As it is, the content of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing long-wave radiation and send it back down where we all live. The earth must balance this by warming enough so that it can radiate this additional energy back out again. The totality of this natural effect is around 33°C, bringing our average surface temperature to a comfortable +15°C.
The source for "The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide," Watts Up With That, is an AGW sceptic source.
Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
writes a rebuttal to
Kerry Emanuel who is director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
PROF BILL GRAY REBUTS CLAIM THAT CLIMATE CHANGES ARE PROVEN FACT
***************************EXCERPT***************************
Emanuel “..., the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly 60 F higher than it would otherwise be thanks to a few greenhouse gasses that collectively make up only about 3 percent of the mass of our atmosphere.”
Gray – The globe’s greenhouse gas induced higher temperatures are due almost exclusively to water vapor (the overwelling greenhouse gas) not much at all due to CO2 and methane. It is the variation of atmospheric water vapor (particularly in the upper troposphere) that is of dominant importance to the greenhouse gas warming question. It is likely that increases in CO2 and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to small reductions in upper tropospheric water vapor which will bring about greater loss of infrared radiation energy flux to space. Increases in CO2 and lesser greenhouse gases should (due to their influence on upper level water vapor) lead to little global temperature increase. Such conditions appear to be presently occurring. During the last decade and a half when CO2 amounts have risen there has been an increased (not decreased) infrared radiation flux to space. Little or no global warming has occurred in the last decade.
Emanuel “..., in the absence of any feedbacks except for temperature itself, doubling carbon dioxide would increase the global average surface temperature by about 1.8 F.”
Gray – You can’t at the outset eliminate water vapor and cloud feedback and consider only temperature feedback and expect to have a realistic explanation of CO2’s future influence on global temperature. Water vapor and cloud feedback changes can negate most or all the lesser greenhouse gas influences on global temperature.
Emanuel “The rate of rise of surface temperature is consistent with predictions of human-caused global warming that date back to the 19th century and is larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years.”
Gray – this is pure ‘off-the-wall’ assertion that the global warmers want to believe in because they do not want to consider other causes of climate change which would negate their human-induced warming hypothesis. The global warming community has yet to come to grips with the powerful potential climate altering influences of multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulations. The Medieval warm period and the early Holocene warm period are believed to have been warmer than today’s temperatures. Some natural processes brought about these changes. Why could these same natural processes not be acting today?
Emanuel “... current models predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide should result in global mean temperature increases of anywhere from 2.5 to 7.5 F.”
Gray – All the global General Circulation Models (GCMs) which predict future global temperature change for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They do not realistically handle the changes in upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. They give unrealistically high upper-tropospheric moisture and temperature condition for CO2 doubling. Model global warming estimates for a doubling of CO2 are thought by thousands of us to be many times larger than what will likely occur. The GCMs are not yet simulating the fundamental influence of the multi-decadal and multi-century scale variations of the ocean’s deep circulation patterns.
***************************************
It should be noted that the GCMs have failed to account for the weak global cooling over the last decade. It is also important to note that the GCM groups do not make official shorter range global temperature forecasts of 1 to10 years which could accurately be verified. If they won’t do this why should we believe their forecasts at 50-100 years? Any experienced meteorologist or climate scientist who would actually believe a long range climate model should really have their head examined. They are living in a dream world.
Emanuel “... models... represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation.”
Gray – As discussed above, the global GCM climate models are likely our worst (not best) guide to the future. The physics and numerical coding within the global climate models will never be able to replicate the overly complex global atmosphere-ocean environment and its continuing changes. Especially so with the need for integrations over hundreds of thousands of time steps. Increases in future measurement detail accuracy and future increases in computer power will likely never be sufficient to make skillful long range climate modeling a possibility. Climate prediction skill should be considered and will likely continue to be about as reliable as long range stock prediction.
Our only guide to the future climate rests with the study of past observations of the globe together with judicious physical reasoning of the primary process which in the past have influenced climate change.
Emanuel “That they are uncertain cuts both ways; things might not turn out as badly as the models now suggest, but with equal probability, they could turn out worse.”
Gray – Ridiculous. The global models have grossly errored on the side of too much global warming though their assumptions of unrealistic positive water vapor feed-back loop and lack of consideration of deep ocean currents. There is absolutely no way the models could have underplayed the role of human-induced CO2 increases on global warming.
Emanuel “We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come, nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger.”
Gray – Living in an academic ‘ivory tower’ relieves Emanuel of having to face up to the hard economic and social realities of reducing fossil fuel usage. Following Emanuel’s logic we should move to implement the Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, agree to international standards to implement fossil fuel restrictions and follow UN-global government dictates. I wonder if Emanuel has factored in the ensuing much higher costs of renewable energy and the resulting significant lowering of the global population’s standard of living, which large fossil fuel reductions would bring. I wonder if Emanuel realizes the effects these changes would have on the increased poverty and starvation within 3rd world countries. And has he considered how little the environment would really improve if such human sacrifices for nature were made?
We should all feel an obligation to assassinate ‘faulty’ science wherever we see it, including the blind belief (without evidence except the faulty models) that humans are largely responsible for climate change.
Emanuel “We might begin by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way.”
Gray – Emanuel needs to make a better effort to follow his own advice. His Op/Ed piece is one- sided and is less than an honest and fair representation of the global warming controversy.
Thanks Ernest
Excellent article. The comments are worth reading also.
btt
Thanks. Interesting exchanges between Grey and Emanuel. And I believe Grey came out on top.
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.