| Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong
Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
> Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> writes
>> Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
>>> Sequence is not proof of causality.
>> Right logic, wrong words, "causality" in science only means
>> the proper sequence, the cause must precede the effect.
> Causality in physical sciences doesn't require sequence. e.g.
> gravity of the Moon and Sun cause tides on Earth. The "events" are
> simultaneous and appear concurrent to observers in the same frame.
> Causality requires that things are linked by a physical
> relationship, according to the laws of nature.
Wrong.
>> My reasoning on global warming is that it is very likely going on,
>> but since there was ice a mile thick across all of Ohio and Indiana
>> 18,000 years ago, there must be a general warming trend that hasn't
>> stopped yet.
> There have been at least 5 "coolings" since the last glacial ended,
> approximately 10,000 years ago. These were between the Holocene
> optim,a at about 5000 year before present (ybp), 3000 ybp, 2200 ybp
> just prior to the Medieval Warm Period and then the "Little Ice
> Age"; starting about 700 ybp and having its last plunge about 150 ybp.
>> CO2 in the atmosphere must surely be increasing because man burns
>> coal and oil, unless there is an unknown process where carbon is
>> disassociated from the oxygen or combined with something else and
>> it falls to Earth.
> CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm. That's the main reason
> why a rise in CO2 is observed to _follow_ temperature increases.
Wrong.
> Such releases follow because the surface area being warmed is finite
> and most of the CO2 is stored a long way down; needing to travel to
> the surface via convection to re-establish the surface equilibrium
> of dissolved CO2.
Wrong.
> That CO2 flux is about 50 times greater than that
> from the burning of fossil fuels by human activity.
>> But most climatologists say that water vapor has 20 times
>> the shielding, absorbing, and reflecting effect as CO2.
> There is no global "greenhouse". Real greenhouses work by preventing free convection.
Wrong. They work by reducing the radiation of long wavelength IR.
> The "greenhouse gases" do no such thing.
They do however stop the earth radiating as much, just like real greenhouses do.
> They simply absorb part of the available radiation depending on the molecular
> arrangement; its resultant "tuning" to the wavelength of the radiation;
Meaningless gobbledegook.
> and warm themselves.
Meaningless gobbledegook.
> The molecules can't get a "second bite" of radiation already absorbed by other molecules;
Meaningless gobbledegook.
> either of the same gas or others. The resulting
> temperature increase is logarithmic; not linear.
Meaningless gobbledegook.
> Water is *the* major "greenhouse gas", responsible for the bulk of
> the 30 degrees C or so of greenhouse that make this planet habitable
> (in places) for humans.
> The most important driver of climate is solar radiation. Sunspot
> activity is a typical indicator of that and such activity has been
> recorded for longer than temperatures; since the 1600's. Sunspot
> activity was, until quite recently (<10 years) at a maximum similar
> to that estimated (from C-14 presence) for the Medieval Warm Period.
> Note also that sunspot activity also indicated how much cosmic
> radiation impinges on our upper atmosphere; which has demonstrated
> experimentally by researchers in the past year, increases the
> likelihood of cloud formation. At high altitudes, such clouds
> increase the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) and there is less
> heat available to be transmitted to the lower atmosphere.
> Albedo is also variable in the actual surface presented to the sun.
> That, in combination with the variable orbit of the Earth around
> the sun provide a significant challenge to predict how much sunlight
> reaches the lower atmosphere were one to ignore the highly-variable
> cloud cover and the variability of the sun itself.
> Not only are there too many equations; there are too many *unknown*
> equations to be able to produce a computer model with any credible
> chance of providing predictions of climate. They try to do computational
> fluid dynamics without knowledge of boundary conditions... and adjust
> the fudge-factors until the output looks right.
> Yet the IPCC is obsessed with computer models and CO2 to the costs
> of thousands of millions of dollars every year; both directly and indirectly.
> If Kyoto really worked, it'd at best cool the "greenhouse" by one
> thirtieth of a degree Celsius. The costs of implementing Kyoto far
> outweigh the benefit of that one-thirtieth of a degree. Not that
> it's actually possible to measure such a thing.
> We are after all dealing with The Church of Climatology where the
> high priests propagandize and collect their extorted moneys from
> governments and officials, lest their ignorance and incompetence be
> (more) exposed to the public that funds the Quixotic enterprise.
|