There is still no Global Warming science.

climate scientist wrote:
I noticed that you only commented on certain sections of my post – this is called 'cherry picking' and is a common known tactic of climate change deniers, such as yourself. Nice to know that you are conforming to a stereotype, eh?

Your question is in fact rather easy.

A greenhouse gas is a gas that can absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared spectrum. For example, water vapour, CO2, and CH4 are all greenhouse gases, because they have this property. Most of the Earth's atmosphere consists of gases that are not greenhouse gases, because they do not emit and absorb radiation in the thermal infrared spectrum. Examples include O2, N2, and Ar.

The greenhouse effect is caused by the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Incoming short-wave radiation from the sun enters the Earth's atmosphere. About 1/3 of this incoming shortwave radiation is reflected back out to space by the top of the Earth's atmosphere. About ½ is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The remainder (about 1/6) is reflected by the Earth's surface back into space.

The short-wave energy that is absorbed by the Earth's surface is converted into heat energy, which is then radiated from the Earth's surface as long-wave (infrared) radiation. Some of this infrared outgoing radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and is then re-emitted in all directions (both upwards and downwards). The upwards emitted radiation leaves the planet's atmosphere and enters space. The downwards emitted radiation warms the surface of the Earth and the lower atmosphere. Without the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the surface temperature on Earth would be about 30 degrees C lower than it is today.

I'm sure that you are now going to post some smart-arsed nonsense response, telling me how 'scientifically illiterate' I am, however, in my opinion, this is a rather cowardly approach. Your responses would be much more effective, if instead of simply telling people that they are wrong, you are able to explain to them exactly why they are wrong, e.g. which law of physics they are violating, and why? But perhaps this is beyond you, Einstein?

And now, I have a question for you. It is a VERY EASY question, especially for someone of your superior scientific knowledge.

Can you please explain (in your own words) what you think the term 'science' means, and why you think climate science research (as presented in white literature) does not qualify as science.

Of course, you do not have to answer at all, if you wish to EVADE, but I will take it as a sign that you are giving up.

climate scientist wrote:
Wow, you get really worked up about this stuff, don't you Einstein!

Although I'm not sure I can really call you that any more. I mean, your scientific knowledge is severely lacking. We're not really debating climate science any more, just basic physics and chemistry. I'm guessing you didn't listen much in high school.

Your scientific knowledge is flawed on several accounts:

Greenhouse gases *do not* slow the rate of thermal radiation into space. They do what I explained in my previous post. If you do not believe me, find a physics text book and read it.

O2, N2 and Ar are not greenhouse gases because they do not absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared part of the EM spectrum. This is because they are composed of either two identical molecules (in the case of O2 and N2) or one monotomic molecule (in the case of Ar). When these molecules vibrate, they have no net change in their dipole moment, and therefore do not absorb and emit infrared radiation. Other gases that are not greenhouse gases include hydrogen, helium, neon, krypton, Xenon, and so on. If you don't believe me, find a physics text book and read it.

Your comment about the composition of the atmosphere having no relevance to the temperature of the planet is wrong. Venus is twice as far from the sun as Mercury, and only receives about 25% of the incoming solar radiation that Mercury receives. Mercury's temperature range is from about -170 degrees C to + 430 degrees C. The temperature on Venus is about +460 degrees C, and is the hottest planet in the solar system. It's atmosphere is comprised of 96% CO2. Venus is a planet that has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. If you don't believe me, find a physics text book and read it.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on the 1st Law of thermodynamics being violated. It is not being violated. If you do not believe me, find a book on atmospheric thermodynamics and read it.

And chill out, Einstein, there's no need to get yourself in a flap about all this.

climate scientist wrote:
Hi KeiranK

I agree that there is a lot of fear and false information around, particularly in the media. If you are interested in knowing the facts, I would really recommend reading the IPCC report (physical science basis). It is a pretty long report, but there is a 'summary for policy makers' version, which is much shorter, and has been written in as user friendly way as possible to the non-scientist, see here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.

Although not peer reviewed itself, almost all of the information in the IPCC reports is based on peer reviewed literature from the scientific community (a lot of which is not available to the public for free, unfortunately, although many journals are changing to be open access nowadays). In addition, the IPCC reports are endorsed by almost every scientific institution in the world, including the WMO, the Royal Society, CSIRO, NOAA, NASA, JMA, etc.

I don't think that people are trying to 'fix the problem with the science'. I think that the science is informing us about what the problems really are, which are the ones that we really need to do something about, and which are the lower priority ones. As for how to solve these problems, a lot of that is out of my domain - I am a climate scientist who makes greenhouse gas measurements in the atmosphere, not an economist, social scientist, or politician. What I do is make the measurements, interpret them, and present the science, which is then used to inform the policy makers about what the current scientific status is.

Perhaps there is someone here with economics/social science/political professional expertise who can enlighten us on what the solutions might be??

climate scientist wrote:
"...and what you said in your post is that they violate the 1st LoT"

I never said that. That was what you said in your comment on my post.

"As I predicted, you cannot define the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics. You're dancing around the issue and trying to change the subject.

I don't know why you insist on putting the cart before the horse. First define the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics and then I'll let you explain how the defining properties of "greenhouse gases" lead to the "greenhouse effect" that you defined."

Um, I think you must be confused. It is not possible to explain the greenhouse effect without first explaining what a greenhouse gas is, because greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect. This is a bit like trying to explain to somehow how lose weight, without first explaining what a calorie is.

I think that you actually couldn't find much of a flaw in my explanation of a greenhouse gas, and you tried to deflect this by complaining about my explanation of the greenhouse effect. So are you finally willing to admit that there is such as thing as a greenhouse gas???

"That says a lot about atmospheric pressure, doesn't it. What is Mercury's atmospheric pressure? What is Venus'?"

You are not capable of looking this up yourself?? Mercury's atmospheric pressure is negligible. Venus's atmospheric pressure is 92 bar. Earth's atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. There is no correlation between a planet's atmospheric pressure and it's distance from the sun...

"Now, answer me this: Why is Death Valley so much warmer than the top of Mt. Whitney when Death Valley is technically farther from the sun?"

Haha... Death Valley is only technically further from the sun in the daytime! At night, Death Valley is technically closer to the sun than the top of Mount Whitney!

As you climb Mount Whitney, atmospheric temperature decreases, because your height within the troposphere increases. Above the tropopause, atmospheric temperatures increase again to near surface values, and then decreases again in the stratosphere. Death Valley is warm because it is at a low altitude, and heat from the Earth's surface is trapped by the valley walls, which prevents the hot air from rising out of the valley. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the atmospheric temperature on Venus has been greatly increased by the fact that 96% of its atmosphere is comprised of CO2.

trafn wrote:
Hi Climate Scientist,

In the original post to this thread, IBdaMann stated "In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion." I would respond to this with two points:

1. We have never witnessed this kind of event before, yet science can, and has proceeded without working models. AIDS is a perfect example of this. HIV, and retroviruses in general, were recent discoveries at the time, and there wasn't any working model when medical research on AIDS began. Yet, given it's impact on society, few people other than extreme religious homophobes declared AIDS to be a religious issue instead of a scientific one.

2. There is a working model for one aspect of global warming: will a life form living with finite resources destroy itself? The valid, non-false model for this is found in how we manufacture drinking alcohol. One way to do this is to place a solution of carbohydrate (sugar, corn, starch, potatoes, etc.) and yeast in a closed container for a period of time during which the yeast will convert the carbohydrate to alcohol which we can then distill and drink. However, the important thing here isn't the alcohol, but what happens to the yeast. Alcohol, which we like to drink, is actually a waste product the yeast produces as it metabolizes the carbohydrate (i.e. - it's yeast shit). Now, the yeast needs to consume the carbohydrate in order to survive, but as it does so over time, it creates more and more alcohol (shit) inside the container. At a certain point, the amount of alcohol in the container becomes so toxic that it actually kills off all the yeast. That is why traditional methods of making alcohol cannot achieve more than about 10-15% alcohol concentration: the yeast die swimming in their own shit. Now, we live in a closed container called Earth. As a species, we like to consume petrochemicals (not orally, but via combustion engines) and give off (excrete waste) CO2 into the atmosphere. Over time, this cycle of petrochemical consumption leading to CO2 excretion will, through man-made climate change (which includes global warming), make our planet too toxic for us to live on and we will all die. So, yes, in answer to IBdaMann's original post, there already is a working model for one aspect of global warming.

Now, one last thought, Climate Scientist. When it comes to climate change doubters, I have found them to be much like the people who claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. Yes, there are always exceptions to any rule, but the overwhelming data we have today does back the existence of man-made climate change. However, rather than take the big picture into account, climate change doubters will latch onto and question every minute detail like the child who always responds with "why?" no matter what answer you give to them. Don't get me wrong, doubt and skepticism are healthy components of any scientific inquiry. But doubt for the sake of saying "you are wrong," solely so one can say "I am right" and end the discussion, is not the foundation of healthy debate. In the end, this latter type of doubting is what leads to a self-justifying, self-centered Ptolemaic model of discourse that, no matter which way you spin it, cannot encompass the whole truth. Therefore, though I often doubt and am skeptical about many things, when it comes to debate entrenched in redundant self-serving doubt, I like to leave those kind of discourses, like irksome children, where they belong: in the corner.

trafn wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

1. "It" refers to the current event of climate change which began in the mid-1800's which cannot be satisfactorily explained by any relevant historical data sets derived before this time period from naturally occurring factors (non-man-made), yet can be satisfactorily explained by man-made intervention during this time period.

2. You adhere quite strictly and stringently to Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models as being the only useful method for demarcating science from non-science. While Popperism is a recent and useful philosophy from which to approach both scientific investigation and data, it is by no means the only avenue by which to do so. Yes, there are many advantages to Popperistic concepts, especially as applied to the sciences, but even Popper correctly stated that his ideas were merely ideals and not the end all for determining reality. Unfortunately, many Popperites forget this facet of Karl's work, perhaps being confused by the influence of logical positivism which gained favor around the same time as his concepts surrounding falsifiable models.

3. As to the remainder of the bulk of you prior post, nothing in science has ever been proven to be 100% true (which ever Karl Popper admitted) as it only takes one contrary instance to prove something false, the inherent problem being that we can never fully observe and completely measure all applicable instances of any hypothesis or theorem. So we agree to degrees of certainty which can be established by various criteria, including but no limited to falsifiable models. Keep in mind that historically the Chinese were responsible for making some of the most fascinating (and true) discoveries about nature by using the philosophy if the inclusive middle. This is the idea that in seemingly opposing points of view, both might have some degree of truth, with some of it being the same shared truth, that shared truth being the inclusive middle. Today, in western philosophy, including our sciences, we tend to impose the principle of the excluded middle where only one of two seemingly opposing points of view can be correct, and there can be no commonly shared middle ground of truth. From reading many of your past posts, I get the distinct impression that you come from the excluded middle camp. Might I suggest that you review your writings and those of others from the included middle perspective?

4. As to wanting to get rid of all "deniers," that would be about as useful an application of my time and energy as, had I been there, trying to convert all Protestants on the Titanic into practicing Catholics after the ship had already hit the iceberg. As for me, I believe we passed the tipping point of no return for man-made climate change back in 1901 with Spindletop and that, due to our behavior, this planet will be devoid of all life well before the end of this century. My only interest here is to enjoy the discourse and to learn about others' points of view on this matter (not to eliminate them).

climate scientist wrote:
Hi arthur18

Apologies for the long delay in posting about Harry Dale Huffman. Here is my view on his work.

Overall, I would say that his calculation is very over-simplified. For example, if one looks at the temperature vs pressure profiles for Venus and Earth, they are not nearly as similar as Huffman makes out (see plot 3 here: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm)

Clearly, there is a lot more going on than a simple temperature-pressure relationship in the atmospheres on both planets. For example, Earth's temperature increases in the stratosphere, while pressure continues to decrease.

Nevertheless, if we follow along with Huffman's simplification, then it is useful to have some more information.

Table 1.1 from John Houghton's book "The physics of atmospheres" (3rd Edition) has some useful data on Venus and Earth surface temperatures.

By equating the solar radiation that a planet receives with the infrared radiation that it emits, one can estimate the effective temperature of a planet's surface (assuming no atmosphere exists on either planet). For Venus and Earth respectively, the effective temperatures are about 230 K and 250 K. The actual measured mean surface temperatures for Venus and Earth respectively are 750 K and 280 K.

For Venus, the effective temperature and measured mean temperature are very different, owing to the dense atmosphere and thick cloud cover, which absorb almost all of the radiation with wavelengths of less than 1 mm. These clouds are causing a greenhouse effect on Venus, by preventing radiation emitted from the lower atmosphere from escaping into space, while still letting some solar radiation through. The process is the same on Earth, only much less severe.

Huffman makes the statement that "since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres".

I think that he makes this statement, because his calculation for the radiating temperature of a planetary body assumes no atmosphere, and therefore no greenhouse effect. But his crucial error, is to use Earth's measured surface temperature as his starting point, and not Earth's effective temperature, because Earth's measured temperature does include the greenhouse effect, and Earth's effective temperature does not.

So, when I apply Huffman's 1.176 factor to Earth's effective temperature of 250 K, I get an effective temperature on Venus of 294 K, which is higher than the figure in Houghton's book (and also remember that this is the temperature at 50 km height and not at the surface). This is probably due to the dubious 1.176 conversion value that Huffman has used. 294 K is, however, also much lower than the measured temperature on Venus at 50 km height, which is about 340 K. This is because of the greenhouse effect. So essentially, Huffman's calculation is flawed because he has included the greenhouse effect in his measurement of Earth's surface temperature, and has then used this value (along with a somewhat dubious relationship between Earth and Venus temperature/pressure profiles) to infer what the temperature on Venus should be without the greenhouse effect, which simply doesn't make any logical sense.

We know that the greenhouse effect exists on Earth, because we measure outgoing IR radiation from Earth using satellites. The data show that the outgoing IR is reduced for wavelengths associated with the main greenhouse gases, e.g. H2O, CO2, etc. See the two figures in section 'Greenhouse effect' here: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html

This is a slight aside, but a good analogy for the greenhouse effect is this: If your house has an ambient temperature of 15 deg C, and then you decide to insulate the roof, the ambient temperature inside your house will increase, even though you have not turned the heating up. This is because the insulation is reducing the loss of heat from your house. I.e. you have created a radiation imbalance, and the temperature of your house will increase to a new equilibrium point, whereby the heat generated by your heating system to warm your house will equal the heat loss from your house.

sealover posted already existing posts:[existing posts deleted]

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover posted already existing posts:[existing posts deleted]

Did you have a point? I know you often don't, preferring instead to post useless trivia. In this case, however, you simply reposted other posts that already existed, in their entirety, out of their original context, without any new commentary from you.

Is there a reason for this? What did you accomplish?

Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann claims that before starting it here, he had created this same thread in five different forums.

Im a BM wrote: climate-debate.com is the only website where he can't get banned, no matter how inexcusable his behavior.

Im a BM wrote: I am reposting the best from the past

Im a BM wrote:I was not the first competent and credible scientist with genuine credentials who attempted to share information on this website.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover posted already existing posts:[existing posts deleted]

Did you have a point? I know you often don't, preferring instead to post useless trivia. In this case, however, you simply reposted other posts that already existed, in their entirety, out of their original context, without any new commentary from you.

Is there a reason for this? What did you accomplish?

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover posted already existing posts:[existing posts deleted]

Did you have a point? I know you often don't, preferring instead to post useless trivia. In this case, however, you simply reposted other posts that already existed, in their entirety, out of their original context, without any new commentary from you.

Is there a reason for this? What did you accomplish?

sealover, the resurrectionist... Was a little disappointed when his vast army of minion failed to materialize. The few that did, left soon after. Think the sock-puppet, and Swan are the only remaining.

sealover wrote:
I cannot fault Climate Scientist for giving up after so many attempts to have a rational discussion about climate science.

If Climate Scientist comes back now, there would be more than one trained scientist in the discussion.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover posted already existing posts:[existing posts deleted]

Did you have a point? I know you often don't, preferring instead to post useless trivia. In this case, however, you simply reposted other posts that already existed, in their entirety, out of their original context, without any new commentary from you.

Is there a reason for this? What did you accomplish?

IBdaMann claims that before starting it here, he had created this same thread in five different forums.

climate-debate.com is the only website where he can't get banned, no matter how inexcusable his behavior.

No sense of decency, and no understanding of science.

I am reposting the best from the past where scientifically literate members made valid points related to climate change or some other aspect of environmental science.

Just getting started.

I was not the first competent and credible scientist with genuine credentials who attempted to share information on this website.

Maybe if all the best posts are compiled at the end of the better threads, it can be a source of new discussion, and a resource for new viewers.

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Wow, you get really worked up about this stuff, don't you Einstein!

Although I'm not sure I can really call you that any more. I mean, your scientific knowledge is severely lacking. We're not really debating climate science any more, just basic physics and chemistry. I'm guessing you didn't listen much in high school.

Your scientific knowledge is flawed on several accounts:

Greenhouse gases *do not* slow the rate of thermal radiation into space. They do what I explained in my previous post. If you do not believe me, find a physics text book and read it.

O2, N2 and Ar are not greenhouse gases because they do not absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared part of the EM spectrum. This is because they are composed of either two identical molecules (in the case of O2 and N2) or one monotomic molecule (in the case of Ar). When these molecules vibrate, they have no net change in their dipole moment, and therefore do not absorb and emit infrared radiation. Other gases that are not greenhouse gases include hydrogen, helium, neon, krypton, Xenon, and so on. If you don't believe me, find a physics text book and read it.

Your comment about the composition of the atmosphere having no relevance to the temperature of the planet is wrong. Venus is twice as far from the sun as Mercury, and only receives about 25% of the incoming solar radiation that Mercury receives. Mercury's temperature range is from about -170 degrees C to + 430 degrees C. The temperature on Venus is about +460 degrees C, and is the hottest planet in the solar system. It's atmosphere is comprised of 96% CO2. Venus is a planet that has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. If you don't believe me, find a physics text book and read it.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on the 1st Law of thermodynamics being violated. It is not being violated. If you do not believe me, find a book on atmospheric thermodynamics and read it.

And chill out, Einstein, there's no need to get yourself in a flap about all this.

Im a BM wrote:Climate Scientist is a real scientist in the real world who actually knows the meaning of the term "thermodynamics".

Im a BM wrote:Many excellent points were made on this thread

Im a BM wrote:

Many excellent points were made on this thread before Climate Scientist decided it was a waste of time to try to have a rational discussion with scientifically illiterate trolls on this website.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Rather than stay off topic in the "Unprecedented wildfires TODAY..." thread,
there are a bunch of excellent posts on THIS thread about thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate Scientist is a real scientist in the real world who actually knows the meaning of the term "thermodynamics".

Im a BM wrote:
Many excellent points were made on this thread before Climate Scientist decided it was a waste of time to try to have a rational discussion with scientifically illiterate trolls on this website.