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

[Alfio Puglisi]

2009/12/2 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>


> 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.
>
> Hello Mirco,
I suggest that you apply a bit of skepticism to your sources: asserting that
global warming is against laws of thermodynamics is, frankly, ridicolous.
The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper makes basic mistakes. A good place to
start is the realclimate wiki page on the subject:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner


 "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%
>

I'm not sure which units you are using.  0.03% of what? If it is in W/m^2,
it seems way too small.



>
>  ### 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?
>

To my knowledge, there is no stellar model that suggests 100 kilo-year
cycles with abrupt transitions.

But, if the CO2 have a forcing effect, the two must compound.
> Why didn't a "runaway effect" start in the past?
>

Because evidently the positive feedbacks have limits, or other negative
feedbacks kick in. For example, the ice-albedo feedback disappears after
there is no or little ice during arctic summer. The ice age cores tell us
that: 1) there are some positive feedbacks  2) they are not enough to
trigger runaway effects under natural conditions.


> 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



The opening sentence of the page you linked:

"The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for
equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate.
Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global
warming."

is nonsense. Just because your knowledge is not perfect, it doesn't mean
that you can make valid conclusions. If that was the case, science would
have made no progress since 1600.


Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/b8ac2294/attachment.html>