Green House Effect

[Shahun]

Hi All,

 

I recently received the following e-mail(Via a friend) from a professor at a local university. I am looking for a broader sense of feedback from the community who are involved in the field. The paper is 44 pages long according to the PDF and has a lot of formulae etc. that I do not understand.

" The Green House Effect

 

You will recall that Ireferred you to a paper by Joseph Postma that challenges current theory abouthow the GHE is supposed to work. Download from

 

www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

This has triggered a furiousdebate among the climate change community which is quite remarkable in itsintensity, reinforcing the notion that there is still a lot that is notunderstood about how the atmospere is supposed to work, and how carbon dioxideand other green house gases can cause global warming.

 

One of the more objectiveclimate blog sites has featured no less than 1 277 comments since a threadabout Postma's paper was opened. Many commentators have said that Postma iswrong, but he has himself participated in the exchanges and defended his casewith remarkable patience and good humour.

 

I recommend this blog to youfor an insight about the doubts that still exist around the very basis ofclimate change theory – the Green House Effect. And this at a time when South Africa isgearing up to host CoP17, and Al Gore is arriving here soon to tell us aboutthe terrible things that will happen if we don't stop emitting carbon dioxide.Coincidentally, I heard on the radio this morning that the seventh billionhuman being will soon be born!

 

 

http://judithcurry.c...eenhouse-effect

 

Best wishes

 

John"

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Sha

[Greg Boyles]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=385

 

Principia Scientific International is a publishing organisation recently formed by about 20 dissenting climate scientists.

 

20 scientists out of tens of thousands is hardly a ringing endorsement for their alternative hypothesis on the greenhouse effect.

[iNow]

Truth isn't determined by popularity. The number of scientists who accept it is irrelevant (it merely makes it more simple to find the valid solution, but doesn't offer any validity in and of itself). The science is sound, and the alternatives are trivially easy to show false. Humans are impacting climate, and it's a result of the metric tons of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere every single day.

 

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/videos/stuff-happens-online-clips-wheres-the-beef.html

Edited September 10, 2011 by iNow

[Greg Boyles]

Truth isn't determined by popularity. The number of scientists who accept it is irrelevant (it merely makes it more simple to find the valid solution, but doesn't offer any validity in and of itself). The science is sound, and the alternatives are trivially easy to show false. Humans are impacting climate, and it's a result of the metric tons of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere every single day.

 

http://planetgreen.d...s-the-beef.html

 

Nor is truth determined by minority radicalism.

 

The scientific process and the scientific consensus is the best defence we have against the vagaries and inconsistancies of the human psyche. It has served humanity extremely well on the whole to this point, given our technology and what we have discovered about our universe.

 

Why would you propose that we suddenly abandon them in favour of the views of these 20 climate scientists?

[iNow]

Why would you propose that we suddenly abandon them in favour of the views of these 20 climate scientists?

I did no such thing.

[Realitycheck]

How about these new results delivered by Cern via Nature Journal attributing much of global warming to cosmic rays, "the most comprehensive study yet"? Don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, as I am a proponent of clean air. I'm wondering if this is the same unprecedented study that I heard about recently involving planes measuring air temperatures all throughout the atmosphere around the world for 3 years, most likely.

 

I wonder how big of a role CO2 plays in comparison to cosmic rays.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Essay]

I read enough of that paper to get their point, which seems easily dismissed.

 

Although I'm not an expert in physics, the conventional view that the top of our atmosphere --where heat is lost to space-- is the appropriate place to measure outgoing radiation, seems reasonable.

 

This paper's view that outgoing radiation should be measured from the middle of our atmosphere seems wrong, since not all of that radiation is outgoing; but that may be an overly simplistic answer, as I'm not an atmospheric scientist.

 

But I have taken a class on climate science taught by an atmospheric scientist, and when I read this parenthetical remark in the linked "model atmosphere" paper:

 

"(There does not seem to be any readily-available data on separate day-time and night-time average temperatures for the Earth, which is very curious, while there is a wealth of data on daily average temperatures. The day-time and night-time averages are extremely important and would go far in helping to determine the heat retention capacity and properties of the atmosphere.)"

 

...I was pretty sure the paper wasn't written by any atmospheric scientists either.

...nor did I read any further.

 

===

But anyone, after taking an introductory thermodynamics class, could write such a paper.

Where did this come from?

 

http://www.skeptical...print.php?r=385

 

Principia Scientific International is a publishing organisation recently formed by about 20 dissenting climate scientists.

 

20 scientists out of tens of thousands is hardly a ringing endorsement for their alternative hypothesis on the greenhouse effect.

 

Oh, right! Thanks!

 

~

[Realitycheck]

Oops, I was wrong about the experiment involving the planes - it was a different one called HIPPO. So we have two new studies concluding increased global warming caused by natural sources. Interesting to see what a little fabrication can do to scientists' resolve.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1267.html

 

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1943/2073.short

Edited September 10, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Essay]

Interesting to see what a little fabrication can do to scientists' resolve.

Fabrication? Resolve? What are you talking about?

...but whatever....

===

 

I wouldn't pass up an important topic with a title based on either of those two links you put on this thread. But only when I have time, not now or here please.

===

 

RC, your points seem fairly off-topic. Usually you live up to your name --from the few months I've seen-- but your posts here just seem like those of a typical denialist. So what is your point? I don't have time now to read and reply to those very interesting-sounding and authoratative links you put on this thread.

 

But whatever they might say about our present climate, do they change our understanding surrounding the effect of CO2 as a GHG or ocean acidifier?

 

...or do they apply to this "model climate" topic, where somebody claims that we are measuring our global system incorrectly?

 

~

[Realitycheck]

Like I said, I am pro clean air, but if you choose to ignore puffery, that's your spiel. Maybe you just didn't read about it. I have not changed my perspective, and how do my links diverge from the topic?

[Shahun]

I read enough of that paper to get their point, which seems easily dismissed.

 

Although I'm not an expert in physics, the conventional view that the top of our atmosphere --where heat is lost to space-- is the appropriate place to measure outgoing radiation, seems reasonable.

 

This paper's view that outgoing radiation should be measured from the middle of our atmosphere seems wrong, since not all of that radiation is outgoing; but that may be an overly simplistic answer, as I'm not an atmospheric scientist.

 

But I have taken a class on climate science taught by an atmospheric scientist, and when I read this parenthetical remark in the linked "model atmosphere" paper:

 

"(There does not seem to be any readily-available data on separate day-time and night-time average temperatures for the Earth, which is very curious, while there is a wealth of data on daily average temperatures. The day-time and night-time averages are extremely important and would go far in helping to determine the heat retention capacity and properties of the atmosphere.)"

 

...I was pretty sure the paper wasn't written by any atmospheric scientists either.

...nor did I read any further.

 

===

But anyone, after taking an introductory thermodynamics class, could write such a paper.

Where did this come from?

 

 

 

Oh, right! Thanks!

 

~

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the feedback. Although it would be nice to have someone inside of the field take a look at it.

[Realitycheck]

My apologies, I am guilty of citing a flimsy, third party source, despite the fact that he appears to be a liberal reporting against his typical platform. I was having trouble locating the smoking gun, since the abstract is hardly representative of the claims made in the blog, in a hurry on my cheap phone. He uses some pretty strong words. I just can't imagine a liberal distorting the facts so severely if he's going against his platform. But alas, digging a little deeper, I found a Discover Magazine blogger contradicting his report, so I would agree that further investigation is warranted.

 

http://www.biggovernment.com/tag/anthropogenic

[superball]

Hi All,

 

I recently received the following e-mail(Via a friend) from a professor at a local university. I am looking for a broader sense of feedback from the community who are involved in the field. The paper is 44 pages long according to the PDF and has a lot of formulae etc. that I do not understand.

" The Green House Effect

 

You will recall that Ireferred you to a paper by Joseph Postma that challenges current theory abouthow the GHE is supposed to work. Download from

 

www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

This has triggered a furiousdebate among the climate change community which is quite remarkable in itsintensity, reinforcing the notion that there is still a lot that is notunderstood about how the atmospere is supposed to work, and how carbon dioxideand other green house gases can cause global warming.

 

One of the more objectiveclimate blog sites has featured no less than 1 277 comments since a threadabout Postma's paper was opened. Many commentators have said that Postma iswrong, but he has himself participated in the exchanges and defended his casewith remarkable patience and good humour.

 

I recommend this blog to youfor an insight about the doubts that still exist around the very basis ofclimate change theory – the Green House Effect. And this at a time when South Africa isgearing up to host CoP17, and Al Gore is arriving here soon to tell us aboutthe terrible things that will happen if we don't stop emitting carbon dioxide.Coincidentally, I heard on the radio this morning that the seventh billionhuman being will soon be born!

 

 

http://judithcurry.c...eenhouse-effect

 

Best wishes

 

John"

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Sha

 

I think it was very refreshing. Only a physicist could have done it, I like it, in fact I love it.

 

It gives quantity, gives formula, the number of supporters is irrelevant. It cover so much information..

 

I have an experiment for you, if you had balance, or scale, and added some gaseous material on both sided so that it was in perfect balance.

 

On one side we have earth, man and co2, and plane air the closed system analogy. on the other side we insert the same material and call that nature the open system analogy.

On the open side i suggest energizing the material with laser light, blue, red, green spectrum. If the balance remains the same on both sides then the experiment is a failure.

if the energy introduced tips the scale it would suggest nature is the most powerful factor. cheers.

 

It would take thousand, and thousands of dollars worth of precision equipment. I think it could work in theory, but you always have the drawing board to fall back on.

If all fails you will still end up with a big pile of o3 so you can get your money back.

 

cheers.

Edited November 20, 2011 by superball