Posted on 11/28/2009 7:33:53 AM PST by neverdem
I believe that this statement “Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically correct manner”, should be changed to read “Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically wealth distribution manner”.
I think I proved this to myself a couple of years ago when I built a backyard shed. Rather than closing in the soffits, I simply used window screen fabric between every other set of rafters. Based on experience with closed sheds, I expected the structure to get very hot in the summertime. I was surprised, however, to find that the interior never got hotter than the outside temperature. No doubt it's due to the air circulation cased by the open soffit space.
One bright point, even thought the left may not even “admit that it is an admission” -
they are now saying that we must have the radical “carbon reducing” (ie, LIFESTYLE reducing) policies put in place anyway.
They are admitting that this was the goal and the whole point of the “climate change” crap in the first place.
HAMMER ‘EM ON IT.
The computer models created by CRU are attempts to fit the historical temperature data statistically. Then they extrapolate the fit into the future.
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research
BBC's paleo-news site finally runs a real scoop story on Climategate's Michael Mann
Will Climate Scandal Be a Tipping Point?
Climategate: White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for MSM to Ignore
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Yep...they are all over the morning cable shows poo pooing this as little more than a few rogue scientists and that proven studies go back to the 80s and 90s. They are not going to let this die...the green elitists have far too much invested. Protests around the world wouldn’t stop them. Obama WILL proceed as planned.
Oh, wait -- they're physicists, not climatologists . . . does that disqualify them from this discussion??? ;-)
Gerlich and Tscheuschner next show that even the simplest forms of the special equations needed for a true analysis of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) relationships involved in planetary atmospheric heating cannot be solved — even for small-space regions and small-time intervals — because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered. The real world is just too complex.
However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for “radiative transfer,” and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. 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 clearly these two upstarts didn’t get the memo that the science is settled. And the rest of us are just ignorant deniers who are hopelessly lost so what would be the point of releasing the sacred data and models. That would only confuse the unenlightened.
Thanks neverdem.
The science actually gets in the way of AGW theory speculation. The climatologist aren't really doing science, they are data fitting. When you disagree with them, it demonstrates that you don't understand the topic.
Empirical models (logarithmic, polynomial, power series, or exponential) can be made to reproduce any amount of historical data (curve fitting). It is an exercise in mathematics to generate such equations by calculating numerical coefficients that have no real world relationships with the phenomenon being modeled (average temperature, or the Dow average for instance). Only a fool would would bet that the same model can predict the future as they do not represent cause and effect and therefore they can only reflect the past (data that was used to formulate them).
Regards,
GtG
I haven't seen anything in the climate models that I've seen that go into the effects of hurricanes and thunderstorms. An average hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (1018 J) per day, transporting heat from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated away. The warmer the oceans get, the more hurricanes we'll have, and the more heat gets radiated away in a negative-feedback system.
To put this in perspective, wiki says the total solar energy the earth gets is 1.7 * 1017 Watts. A watt is 1 joule/sec, so the daily energy is 3600 * 24 * 1.7 * 1017 = 1.5 * 1022. If a hurricane transports between 5 * 1019 and 2 * 1020 joules/day to be radiated away in the upper atmosphere, this seems to be a pretty decent amount of energy, on the order of 1% of the total the earth receives. I would think that honest global warming theories would need to take into account this negative feedback system?
Does anybody want to check my math above?
The reaction from the AGW cult will be that the authors are "only" physicists, not *cue heavenly choirs* climatologists.
Essentially the response is "It's a climatologist thing, you wouldn't understand."
But neither is Dr. James Hansen. He's an astronomer, not a climatologist.
LOL - great find, neverdem.
Thanks for posting this! The original paper apparently came out last January . . . but I guess it didn’t pass the
AGW “peer review” test . . . :(
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.htm
Interesting that all this was birthed back in 1988 by the UN and to follow the evolution of where liberals intend to make this world become.
Very, very interesting.
I came across the technical article by the Germans that is referenced here about a year ago. While I haven’t been active in the heavy duty aspects of their paper for some years, I do have a strong background in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and thermophysical properties of materials, enough to at least follow along with the paper (versus being totally overwhelmed, as I’m sure most are).
It was my take at the time that it was a compelling arrow to the heart of AGW theories based on CO2 emissions. I have been linking others to it, especially those pushing AGW nonsense, though I doubt many even attempted to read it.
I am glad to see they are continuing their work despite the opprobrium I am sure they have been getting from some quarters.
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.