Posted on 02/28/2012 7:22:06 PM PST by metmom
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
*snip*
The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.[2]
Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.[3] The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Great global warming article.
He’s off to a good start, will read later.
“Gaia” is a far cooler gal than any of her fans gave her credit for.
*bump for later*
I actually read the article before posting it (as opposed to some former FReepers who actually admitted to not doing so) and from a meteorologists point of view, the article is very credible.
It’s exactly the kind of things we discussed in my climatology class some 25 years ago.
For the record, most meteorologists I know with the NWS do NOT adhere to the global warming nonsense. It’s a real hot button issue for them.
“For the record, most meteorologists I know with the NWS do NOT adhere to the global warming nonsense.”
Ah, that’s the case *now* - but wait until the hot air alarmists get their way and decertify all you guys. . .
i’ll check it out tomorrow. I like the start since CO2 does capture IR and warm the atmosphere even in its small amount.
Nobody is denying that. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas.
It’s where it goes from there that is the issue.
Happy reading.
I wish I could get through to people.
People who believe in AGW are like acolytes of a cult. They have so completely invested their faith in man-made global warming, the mere mention of the subject shuts them down from being able to listen to a hint of dissent.
I keep trying to get through, but nobody will even hear the argument. The excuses are always parroted by the acolytes from what they’ve read and heard from the MSM.
“It’s settled science. There is a consensus of all serious scientists.”
That’s it. I can’t shatter that shield. I can’t broach that roadblock.
More and more the science is being discussed by those who know that the AGW supporting scientists have not made their case, but you can’t get an acolyte of the cult of AGW to even listen to 3 words. Literally.
The green schools have done their jobs all too well brainwashing everyone under 35. I’m at a loss how to convince them until they are freezing their asses off in winter, and paying $8/gallon gas with rolling blackouts.
Maybe then we will get their attention, but right now, the acolytes are in a brain-dead stupor of blind religious faith.
It is very frustrating to be able to cite the science - to show that the models don’t work, to explain about solar storms, the changing tilt of the Earth’s axis, the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, the effect of clouds and water vapor on the greenhouse effect, the miniscule atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the fact the oceans are heating from below, the fact that all of the planets in the solar system experienced warming in the late 20th century — knowing all the science and seeing nothing but anger behind the glassy stares of the acolytes as you have just blasphemed their faith and deity.
It’s downright scary and many of these people vote.
I should have said “most people”, not all people.
I can usually shut people down after telling them why I don’t believe in global warming and when they try to argue, telling them that I am a meteorologist.
Very few have ever argued further with me, although I have no idea if I ever convinced anyone who’s mind is already made up on the subject.
Anthony Watts having some fun:
Best – warming – headline – evah---BBC -- Global Warming is Making the World Colder
Meteorologists know two things really well, they know the physics by training and the weather by training and intuition. They know that warmer climate may indeed lead to negative feedback (mainly convection) just like warmer weather leads to negative feedback. They also know that the CO2 greenhouse effect is real, unlike some claims (Postma, Claes Johnson, etc) because they know, for example, that it is warmer on cloudy nights (all other things being equal). So they don't fall for physics that tries to ignore simple facts like that.
I agree with most of your points. The thing about CO2 is that it vibrates in lower frequency modes matching some infrared wavelengths Once added to the atmosphere, even in a tiny amount, it will absorb outgoing infrared and then pass that heat to the O2 and N2 that make up most of the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means the atmosphere gets warmer.
The problem like you imply is dogma on the other side, we should not add our own on our side.
The curse of genius.
I found a very detailed analysis
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
Reconsidering the Climate Change Act
Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms
Westminster, London
22nd February 2012
58 slides
I can't agree with your statement although it is possible it is true. In fact, I would say that is at the heart of the debate.
I think the most you can say is that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means that the localized CO2 absorbs more heat. Then from there, it remains to be seen if the additional heat absorbed by the CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer ultimately, or if there are feedback mechanisms that make the atmosphere cooler ultimately (I'm talking about years down the line.)
So in the short term, yes more CO2 warms the atmosphere. In the long term, can we honestly say that more CO2 warms the atmosphere? I don't think the science is conclusive on that point yet. I mean, is it not possible that more CO2 warming causes more cloud formation which then causes less solar radiation to penetrate and therefore ultimately cooling.
But then maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't know the ultimate answer, and I will say I have enormous respect on your informed opinions regarding AGW, so I am happy to learn if you think I am on the right track or off base.
I am sure you are well armed to make the compelling argument. My problem is that nobody listens. They refuse to listen to the arguments. And that is the problem. How do we get through to these voters who support wrecking our economy to limit CO2 emissions.
Here in California we have just implemented Cap and Trade, and most Californians are just dandy with it, since they believe the AGW alarmist argument.
How do you educate them?
I don’t see any way until crippling gas prices and electricity costs wake them up and get them listening to our side.
And that feedback mechanism is exactly what the heart of the article is about.
It's not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's a given. It's what the feedback mechanisms are and how much the models forecast vs what reality is showing and so far, reality is not matching up with the forecast models.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.