tisdag 27 mars 2012

Summary of Debate on the Greenhouse Effect

Here is a summary of the recent debate about the existence or non-existence of a physical phenomenon named "greenhouse effect", including the following groups:
  1. Alarmists: There are "ghosts" and they are dangerous.
  2. Inside Skeptics: There are "ghosts" but they are not so dangerous.
  3. Outside Skeptics/Deniers: No real "ghosts" have been identified.
Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Monckton and Watts belong to group 2, and myself to 3.

There are many possible incarnations as "ghosts" besides "greenhouse effect", like "terrorists", "viruses", "marsians", "islamists", "jews", "drugs", "comets", "aliens"...

Note that from scientific point of view, 3 is the position which is best or easiest to defend, since it puts the burden of proof on 1 and 2 who claim that ghosts exist. Position 2 is most difficult to defend since it both requires identification of ghosts and quantitative assessment of their degree of dangerousness. Position 1 has the advantage of connecting danger and ghost and compensating lack of proof of existence by inflating danger.

One may argue that good science has good defense, and that bad defense gives bad science.

8 kommentarer:

  1. I would contend that this is an oversimplification when it comes to, for instance, the greenhouse effect/climate change. Science has known for a fact for quite some time (like a century) that CO2 and other gases do, in fact, increase the temperature of the Earth. Just like the same or similar gases do on other planets. We can also readily observe that varying levels of these gases produce varying degrees of warming on other planets. If someone then claims that *more* of these gases in the Earths atmosphere would *not* produce *more* warming, I would claim that the burden of proof lies on the person making this claim. Is this not so?

  2. You are hand-waving: There is no clear science showing notable impact of a trace gas like CO2 on global climate. The burden of proof lies on those who claim impact.

  3. I am a a little (or very much) astonished that no one who is a climate expert has commented on the facts/theories by Harry Dale Huffman, see http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.se/2012/03/climate-science-debate-all-should-come.html
    Claes, what conclusions do you think can be drawn from the Venus/Earth comparison?

  4. I think the comparison is relevant but not the whole story.

  5. "science has known for a long time" said kim. OK, show me the proof or even any credible evidence of the greenhouse effect that science has known about. You won't be able to find any because there is none, because the greenhouse effect from back radiation does not exist and has was disproved experimentally in 1909 (RW WOODS) and comfirmed in 2011 (Nasif S Nahle).

  6. Hi Claes. I guess your lying, or you are ignorant if scientific facts. There are strong evidence showing that CO2 warms the planet: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm That's why 97% of climate scientists believe in antropogenic climate change. That you call all of these people "alarmist" show that your argument is not serious.

    Best regards,
    Micael Grenholm, Uppsala

  7. Michael, that "skeptical science" link just re-hashes the same old arguments of alarmists. It talks of downwelling LW IR but Claes and the other Sky Dragon slayers have explained why this downwelling LW IR cannot heat the ground.

    This radiation will have originated from the ground according to KT diagram and is incapable of further heating as the frequencies of the radiation are too low (lack in sufficient energy) to heat the more energetic ground.

    This LW IR will merely be back scattered without heating the ground because it cannot. The ground is already too energetic (warm) to be heated by this 'colder" radiation. The ground is already emitting this radiation and more energetic higher frequency radiation (including visible light and UV). So the less energetic LW IR will merely be back scattered with no heat transfer.

    Radiation transfer does not always mean heat transfer, because heat can only move from a hot object to a colder object, never from cold to hot.

    "Skeptical" science is an Australian government funded site set up to spread propaganda in support of the greenhouse effect. It is there to convince those who do not really understand the science. It does not convince me.

    97% in the surveys do not believe in AGW, they only believe that the globe has warmed and the cause is uncertain.

  8. The chart showing temperature versus pressure for the Venusian atmosphere that you can see at http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm clearly shows that the Earth and Venus temperatures are of the same order of magnitude in the range 20 to 1000 mbar (from top tropopause to surface for Earth) despite CO2 is only 300 ppm for Earth and almost 980000 ppm for Venus.

    It is evident that the CO2partial pressure is completely irrelevant in establishing the surface temperature which seems to depend on the total pressure alone. This means that the surface Earth temperature will increase from 300K to 301K if the pressure increases from 1 bar to 1.011720 bar or, if you prefer, if the total pressure increases of about 12000 ppm, ie if the current CO2 content would increase of 40 times.