[ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate again]

[Mirco Romanato]

Il 02/12/2009 21.08, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:

> -------------- . Lindzen knows full well that water vapor is a
> feedback,
>> and that even if it is carrying most of the natural greenhouse
> effect on its
>> shoulders, it can't do anything to change Earth's temperature on
> its own.
>
> ### Do you understand what you wrote? I certainly don't.

> Sorry, English is my second language. What I meant is that you can't
> influence climate using water vapor, because its residence time in
> the atmosphere is something like two weeks, and any extra water
> vapor will soon become rain and fall to the ground. So even if water
> vapor is the main contributor the overall greenhouse effect, it is
> irrelevant to the issue of current global warming. Lindzen of course
> knows this.

I understood both, but you must make a rational and scientific claim
that a greenhouse effect exist and what it really is.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
>> Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to
>> global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to
>> actually violate basic laws of physics.
>>
>> The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed
>> in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations,
>> 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205
>> references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard
>> Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated
>> versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears
>> in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern
>> Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas
>> model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC
>> application.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


>> Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the
>> cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or
>> "forcing" effect on the warmer surface below violates both the
>> First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Well, I suppose that the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are some
inconvenient truths.

>> "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance
>> between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"
> 2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of
> 290K. And he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about
> water vapor a few lines before? Why not now?)

I think the right number is 0.03%

>> ### Because nobody knows the feedback but available data are
>> consistent with absence of positive feedback.
> Unfortunately, ice age data can't be explained without positive
> feedbacks. Orbital forcings are too small.

Changing solar energy output?
Solar cycles are known. What we don't know is how and why they change.
But we know they change.
In the last few decades the solar cycles lasted 10-11 years.
The current cycle is projected to last 15 years (it is posed to break
the number of consecutive spotless days) and during the Maunder Minimum
some cycle lasted for 25 years.
If not, how do you explain the Little Ice Age?

> You probably mean 800, which is the typical CO2 rise lag at the end
> of a glacial period. In that case, the periodical change in Earth's
> orbit change the solar flux. That's the forcing, CO2 in that context
> is a feedback.

But, if the CO2 have a forcing effect, the two must compound.
Why didn't a "runaway effect" start in the past?
Did CO2 changed its physical features in the past?


>> It's not the same. (and what is an "anti-skeptic view"? :-) Global
>> warming is a well-developed theory with multiple supporting lines
>> of evidence: different kind of observations, and physics-based
>> models.

Physic-based models validated by who? Physics?
Is it like the statistical models never validated by any statistician?
But it is difficult to validate stuff nobody saw, apart the true prophets.
Then there is the mathematics, that could be uncomputable with the 
current tools:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html




> But we do know that at no time in the past 600 million years did
> Earth exceed a temperature anomaly of +8C, despite CO2 levels much
> higher than today and this is enough to summarily reject the idea
> that CO2 is likely to cause catastrophic warming.

> You think +8C would be a walk in the park? That's about the
> difference between an ice age and the present climate. That's 120
> meters of sea level rise.

Given a large part of the industries emitting CO2 are located near the 
seas, there would be a stopping of emissions after a sea raise of 1 m.
So what are you worrying about?


Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00