- We even see evidence from satellites that greenhouse gases reduce the Earth’s ability to cool to space.
- But to extend those observations to the conclusion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause substantial global warming is another matter entirely.
Compare with the following from WUWT:
- I have been badgered repeatedly to carry “Slayer” articles on WUWT, and with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed. In his latest essay, Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and slayettes, but has sliced and diced and made julienne fries in two easy steps. – Anthony.
If now Roy has opened up his mind, will then Anthony follow and reconsider his assault on slayers?
Inlägg
Everyone has made mistakes in the debate--some worse, and for a much longer time, than others. I have posted on this at
SvaraRaderaThe Climate Science Debate: All Should Come Clean
HDH, your findings are facts, nobody can claim something else. But what conclusions can be drawn from your findings? They describe circum-stances valid in an equlibrium state. But what do they tell about what an increase in eg CO2-concentration will cause. A temperature overshoot? How big will it be? How long will it last?
SvaraRaderaLasse H,
SvaraRaderaYou have seized upon the "equilibrium state" as if that were all I had uncovered (after a generation or more of neglect by climate scientists), but it is not all. Neither I, nor (I think) anyone else in the scientific world, is used to the level of difficulty today in communicating either simple scientific facts or their simple, factual conclusions. One of my readers scolded me for not distinguishing between facts and reasoned deductions, but he was wrong, and I will say here what I tried to explain to him: There are empirical, experimental facts, and there are logical facts, and both kinds are inarguable.
Today's scientists, full of false theories taught as fact, have great difficulty in focusing upon DEFINITIVE empirical facts, whose consequent logical facts therefore elude them. Your question, for example, shows that you haven't focused upon the empirical fact that Venus's atmosphere contains over 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere (96.5%, versus 0.04%)--over 11 doublings of Earth's CO2 level. But the ratio of atmospheric temperatures, Venus/Earth, is a constant (1.176) that is due solely, precisely to the ratio of their distances from the Sun. The much greater concentration of CO2 in the Venus atmosphere has not elevated its atmospheric temperatures by even a fraction of a degree, above that to be expected from Venus's smaller distance from the Sun. If there were a CO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2, the temperature vs. pressure curve of Venus should be elevated above Earth's T-P curve by some 33°C. From my Venus/Earth data, away from the Venus cloud layer, I have calculated the CO2 climate sensitivity to be essentially zero, or well within the uncertainties of observation.
Now I know you are likely to think, and quickly respond, that I haven't answered your question. You also have not focused upon the fact that my comparison is between the Earth Standard Atmosphere model--obviously an equilibrum model--and a snapshot of the Venus atmosphere on one day (October 5, 1991). This tells me, as a logical fact, that the Venus atmosphere must ALWAYS be in its equilibrium state, and it further tells me that the Earth atmosphere is close enough to its equilibrium state for the Standard Atmosphere to have been uncovered by years of detailed observations of the real atmosphere, and used for example in the aircraft industry for a century or more. All the increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere, between the time when the Standard Atmosphere became widely accepted (say 1920) and the time when the Venus data was obtained (1991), obviously had no effect upon the matchup in the two atmospheres. I used the 1976 U.S. Standard Atmosphere, which is based upon data taken well before 1976, before the supposed global warming of the later 20th century, yet it fits perfectly with the Venus atmosphere on October 5, 1991, to within a bare fraction of a degree (i.e., to within the uncertainty in the Venus profile graphs I utilized). To me, the conclusion is obvious, and a logical fact not to be denied, while your question, to me, betrays a characteristic of current climate science: Climate scientists have no proper sense of physical scale (in time, in spatial extent, often even in magnitudes) of the causes and effects they presume to lecture upon, and the mental fog of their underlying, fundamental uncertainties keeps them from addressing the simplest definitive facts against their "consensus". The absurd arguments, and continuing vain debates, over the impossible effects of "backradiation", is another example of the blind enchantment of scientists today (and--this is my wider, deeper warning--not just climate scientists):
"The Enchantment of Settled Science"
HDH, I think your discovery means that at equilibrium (after long time) the amount of CO2 has no effect on the temperature(at least below low concentrations). At rapide changes in CO2 conc there will probably be some kind of (damped) transient in temperature (or not). He who lives will see! No one can tell with 100 % of certainty, neither alarmists, nor sceptics and not deniers. It is a religion like discussion so far, with some facts in the bottom, like yours, but I think we have to wait some 10 or 20 years before we can begin to forecast with higher precision. But I think the debate is entertaining.
SvaraRaderaLasse,
SvaraRaderaYou are doing what everyone else is doing--grasping at straws to avoid the hard facts. This is not surprising in laypersons, dependent upon experts and bombarded with the consensus rhetoric (which is not science). But I also don't see Claes setting you straight, or any other academic, or supposed expert. If you all continue that way, it will take far longer than 20 years for climate science to progress (and I am NOT talking about being able to "forecast with higher precision"--your mind is changing the subject, so you can avoid the truth--I am talking about having true understanding of a fundamental point of physical cause and effect, instead of an obviously false theory). I CAN tell you, with 100% certainty, that there is NO increase in global mean atmospheric temperature with increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, on any time-scale--if I couldn't do that, I would be as incompetent as everyone who accepts, at any level of confidence, that "greenhouse gases trap(/warm/slow down) heat"--beyond the effect of specific heat, which all molecules have--or that, in addition to the real energy supplied by the Sun, the Earth itself "produces" its own heat in "blackbody radiation from the surface" (which then must be balanced by an imagined "backradiation" from the atmosphere). The consensus theory is total garbage, as any competent scientist should know, and as the direct evidence of two planetary atmospheres inescapably demonstrates (to any reasonable mind). Because of the near-universal avoidance behavior, the present holds no promise of better forecasting in the future at all, but only recrimination and regret when the "settled science" is finally admitted to have been a total farce, and a fraud on the part of those who were expert enough to be expected to recognize simple evidence invalidating their theories, when it is presented to them. My Venus/Earth comparison is not needed to disprove the "greenhouse effect" being pushed upon the peoples of the world; it merely makes the truth obvious, so that it is no longer a matter of scientists being merely blind to the fundamental physical truth, but of scientists determinedly denying the truth to save their high opinions of themselves.
The debate you find so entertaining is nothing less than a war for the soul of science, and you who are entertained by it, instead of nauseated and disgusted--as real war always evokes in healthy minds--have no business expressing your opinion, which is twisted beyond your ability to recognize the harm you do in the "debate", simply by prolonging the nonsense (which has suborned all of our institutions, to their ultimate shame).
HDH, of course I hope you will be right and not the alarmists, but what I would like to see is some comments from real climate experts on your facts/theory. You have perhaps already got some?
SvaraRadera