Skip to comments.Debunking the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming
Posted on 07/21/2012 7:01:27 PM PDT by bcafrotc
The proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) believe that CO2, generally accepted as a weak greenhouse gas, is responsible for the gradual rise of global temperatures, commencing with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, circa 1850. Ironically, this purported close correlation is in itself proof positive that the very basis of AGW theory is wrong.
I dont agree. Here is my reasoning:
First, I posit that the many climatologists and other scientists who subscribe to AGW also subscribe to the essentials of the scientific method; very briefly, this refers to identifying a problem, gathering relevant data, drawing a hypothesis, followed by subsequent empirical testing. Here is an example how this venerable method, improperly applied, can lead us astray:
Let us say that we wish to determine what makes the sun rise. Observations from various sources have noted that the crowing of a rooster is invariably followed by sunrise. We painstakingly gather more data going back many years and formulate the hypothesis that the rooster crowing makes the sun rise. To test the hypothesis empirically we go back to records all the way back to New Years Day, 1850. Lo and behold there is indeed a record of a rooster crowing on that very day - followed by a sunrise. The correlation is perfect, ergo we conclude our hypothesis is correct and can now be ennobled as a theory. Obviously, this simplistic example leaves out what else has to be applied when pursuing the scientific method: all, relevant influencing phenomena and data have to also be included and considered before a hypothesis can be formulated. Correlation is no proof of causation.
Second, in recent decades computer modeling has increasingly been applied to the monumentally complex physics associated with the earths atmosphere. According to credentialed experts this modeling allows for tweaking of the many parameters involved so that a variety of predictive climatologically different conclusions can result. Such tweaking, back-dated, appears to back the AGW argument. But remember, correlation is no proof of causation.
Finally, here is some plain logic with a bit of physics thrown in. According to Newtons Second Law of Motion, (F=ma), if the venerable Queen Mary were set to float freely, absent other forces, and a clothes line attached to the bow were pulled by just one person, the ship would start moving in response to that weak force - at first ever-so-slowly and then faster and faster. Note: although there would be no time delay between the application of force to the mass and the resultant acceleration - there would be a great time delay between the application of said force and an actual, resultant, measurable motion of the Queen Marys great mass.
It is the height of irony that the very proof of AGW, the in-phase, gradual increase of global temperatures starting in 1850, rips it asunder. The proponents of AGW are effectively saying that, shortly after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, only 1.2 billion people (versus todays 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse gas produced, without time-delay, an in-phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to this day (effectively disregarding thermal inertia). That is like saying the application of a weak force to an enormous mass sets that mass into immediate and measurable motion. That does not happen in the simple mechanical system (above) nor would it in an enormously complex and massive systems such as our atmosphere with its myriad of climatological feedback mechanisms.
Though Newtons Second Law may have little direct bearing on global climate it has everything to do with illustrating the absolute necessity of applying common sense in attempting to evaluate the essence of the worlds most complex physical systems. In conclusion, in computer modeling, garbage in garbage out. Sounds familiar.
Scientists who think that way weren't at the theatre in Aurora yesterday morning ~ people got out the way!
“I posit that the many climatologists and other scientists who subscribe to AGW also subscribe to the essentials of the scientific method; very briefly, this refers to identifying a problem, gathering relevant data, drawing a hypothesis, followed by subsequent empirical testing.”
They don’t though. We saw in the East Anglie EMails that when the data didn’t support the hypothesis, they altered the data. Real scientists alter the hypothesis.
Around three years ago....some smart guys in Germany took topographical maps, digitized info, and the scenario of the water rising. It’s an odd thing...everyone thinks that if you added billion tons of water in the world...water would all rise at every single point where Earth existed...but that is simply not true. Some places might rise a foot....some might rise two feet....some might rise just an inch or two.
Again, like in so many cases....you needed to ask the right question to the right science people. Global Warming folks all think the Earth is perfectly round and that water just plain rises everywhere at the same rate...and it doesn’t work that way.
I can certainly attest to the crowing rooster.
I have at least a dozen of them within 100 feet of my cottage.
Just at dawn they start squawking their heads off, and sure enough, shortly the sun comes up.
Sooooo, if we killed all the roosters we could cause the sun to never come up.
SAVE THE ROOSTERS! ! ! ! !
And always - ALWAYS! - the so-called experts on climatology seem to totally discount the effect that water vapor has on the atmospheric temperature. As a greenhouse gas, water vapor is some 30 to 100 times the effect of carbon dioxide, but more importantly, it is also a transfer medium for regulating the daily average temperature of the atmosphere. The water molecule has tremendous capability to either absorb heat energy, or conversely, to release this same energy, and in fact, water has a very high index of energy absorption, much higher than most other compounds.
Water absorbes an enormous amount of energy from surrounding matter in the process of becoming water vapor, and releases a respectable amount of energy when it changes into ice. So to even remotely imagine that mankind could melt all the glaciers and polar ice on this planet is to imagine an omnipotence that not even God would tinker with. The heat has to come from somewhere, and it is being radiated off the dark side of the planet at night at just about the same rate as it being absorbed from ALL sources (solar radiation, internal heat from the planet core, or whatever feeble little bit that mankind manages to emit over the course of a day’s activities). Simple physics - the hotter a body gets, the faster it radiates energy. All matter is seeking equilibrium of energy distribution, and the earth is no different. And carbon dioxide is such a infinitesimally small player in this balance, it makes no difference either way. That compound neither absorbs nor re-emits energy in anything like the magnitude of water vapor, or the movement of water from solid (as ice) to liquid, to water vapor.
“SAVE THE ROOSTERS!”
Thats right....Start a “Save the Rooster Foundation”.
We then gets lots of grants and money, as we save the planet.
Carbon dioxide is less than .04% of the atmosphere. No, not 4%, but 4 one hundredth of a percent. That’s it. The atmosphere os 99.96% NOT carbon dioxide. Water vapor is by far a more important greenhouse gas. What is the percentage of water vapor in the air? Well that is called humidity. That varies with where you are. In Buffalo, New York, the humidity, or water vapor content is 55%. 55% VS .04%. Trouble is, worldwidesocialist inc. haven’t figured out how to tax water vapor. So carbon dioxide it is. AND IT’S YOUR FAULT! So pony up and submit to the world wide socialist order. Or else.
Save time and read the article here
Liberal theory holds that if enough people can be convinced to sign on to a myth it will gain it’s own realism.
Imagine just for a moment if the theory of AGW was taken as seriously as flat earth theory..... How very different and better our world would be...
Same thing while I was in Balabag, roosters everywhere in the baragay squawking just before the sun comes up.
That's true, but none of them show cooling. Increasing CO2 causes warming, the only question is how much amplification there is by weather, or if weather is a negative feedback and attenuates the warming. Alternatively solar and other natural factors may cause enough warming and cooling to overshadow the CO2 warming. Nonetheless the basics of physics (not complex models) say that increasing CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere (all other things being equal).
Not really. The first 1/5 of the CO2 concentration makes it possible to have water vapor stay in the air. Without CO2 earth would be an ice cube with a little melting on the day side. Each subsequent fifth of CO2 provides a lot less warming than the prior (logarithmic curve). So as a whole CO2 is important. The increase in CO2, not so much.
See my previous post. Also you are comparing relative humidity with absolute CO2. The proper comparison is water vapor concentration which averages about 0.1 to as much as 4%. According to this online calculator http://www.humidity-calculator.com/index.php your 55% RH at 23C is 16,000ppmv which is 1.6% (compared to the 0.04% CO2 concentration).
And if there isn't a problem, stop.