The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Sunsettommy · 2012-05-21T06:28:37.893891+00:00

From the beginning of John Kehr's piece:

The Theory of Global Warming can be stated in the simplest form as:

An increase in the Earth’s temperature which is caused by an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

and then a little later:

So according to the science, a warmer Earth (and it’s atmosphere) should lose energy to space at a greater rate when the Earth warms up. This would be a problem to prove if the Earth was at a constant temperature.

and later:

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

Am I reading him right?

Is he seperating the effect of CO2 on surface temperature (like at the ground or sea, the bottom of the atmosphere) with the temperature of the earth as viewed from deep space?

Because as I understand atmospheric physics, increased CO2 is supposed to affect surface temperatures, but not directly affect the temperature as seen from deep space. More GHG is supposed to raise the effective emission altitude (the image seen by the hypothetical Martian's thermometer gun) to further up in troposphere. While this altitude would rise, it's temperature (and the watts flowing through it) would remain constant. There would be a longer vertical distance down to the surface from there. Over that distance, the physics we know as the lapse rate would make the surface temperature higher.

Or maybe I'm missing something in what he's saying.

scpg02 · 2012-05-21T03:34:31.027933+00:00

I think that eventually this climate alarmism will be viewed as something very close to a "hoax" ... and I'm no fan of this article.

Aside from the painfully obvious over-reaching ("U.S. Government’s premier extreme weather expert" and "the world’s leading science blog") I'm pretty sure the author is missing some detail in the technical criticism.

The "treating Earth as a flat disk rather than as a 3-Dimensional rotating sphere" thing is something I looked at pretty closely a few months ago, and I'm pretty sure the issue can be reconciled. That in itself is not the "fraud".

Also, near the end of this article there's an explanation which ends in "... there is no scientific basis for attributing any global warming to carbon dioxide." I simply do not buy this. The relevant question is not one of whether CO2 warms, but to degree.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2012-05-20T16:18:51.990648+00:00

This article would be impossible to parody.

Note: it was written before this CA comment.

publius_lxxii · 2 days

Doink Doink!

Detectives Watts and Mosher are on the case of the mysterious comment.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2 days

Grant is an ass.

You just insulted the donkeys.

imrscience · 2 days

:) I don't think that a comment qualifies as a submission.

Doh!

For some reason I was thinking you were the OP.

Have a nice day.

You too.

publius_lxxii · 3 days

I found this link in a comment under the recent article at ClimateAudit - Schmidt’s “Conspiracy Theory”.

To put this submission in context, one should refer to the comments under that article. The discussion which has unfolded there in the last couple days is very good - arguably more illuminating than the article itself.

arrecb · 3 days

Good catch. You've read the sidebar and you noticed the apparent contradiction.

Obviously, the appropriate response by the moderators would be to remove both my comment and this submission.

Alternately, the sidebar could be amended to reflect how this subreddit is actually moderated.

kokey · 3 days

This is a long article. It's worth reading.

The connection Durkin suggests in the headline is far more solid at the end than what I suspected from the first few paragraphs.

DesertView · 3 days

My mistake. I had thought you were the poster of the above submission when I made that comment. I'll amend it accordingly.

arrecb · 3 days

Please ensure that your submission to r/science is :

a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment. Summaries of summaries are not allowed.

---------------------->

gchcho · 3 days

Please ensure that your submission to r/science is :

not blogspam, an image, video or an infographic.

---------------------->

imrscience · 3 days

If you read the sidebar carefully, you'll note that both ~~your~~ the above submission and my comment violate the rules as announced 9 days ago.

~~Your~~ This submission does not contain "a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations"
My comment contains a "meme".

To be consistent, the moderators should remove both my comment and ~~your~~ this submission. Otherwise, they should redo the sidebar to reflect how this subreddit is actually moderated.

DesertView · 3 days

If you read the sidebar carefully, you'll note that both ~~your~~ the above submission and my comment violate the rules as announced 9 days ago.

~~Your~~ This submission does not contain "a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations"
My comment contains a "meme".

To be consistent, the moderators should remove both my comment and ~~your~~ this submission. Otherwise, they should redo the sidebar to reflect how this subreddit is actually moderated.

God_Wills_It · 3 days

---------------------->

Please ensure that your submission to r/science is:

a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment. Summaries of summaries are not allowed.

based on recent scientific research. The research linked to should be within the past 6 months (or so).

not editorialized, sensationalized, or biased. This includes both the submission and its title.

a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment. Summaries of summaries are not allowed.

DesertView · 3 days

a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment. Summaries of summaries are not allowed.

---------------------->

imrscience · 3 days

Please ensure that your submission to r/science is :

a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment. Summaries of summaries are not allowed.

---------------------->

victoriaalex · 3 days

Note:

------------------->

wslack · 3 days

Note:

------------------->

publius_lxxii · 3 days

I stumbled across this link in a comment from the author at another blog.

These phrases stood out:

You can’t trust climate scientists, at least the post 1990 vintage, that, as I understand it, were required to agree with the leftist fear-mongers to gain acceptance to the Chicken Little Brigade. ...

...

They are not an objective unbiased source; incredible as it sounds, but it’s true: climate scientists cannot be considered credible on… climate.

At first I the comment struck me as a bit extreme, somewhat over-reaching, far-fetched. But then I thought about it.

We've all seen the laughable sophistry from RC.org and the like. Those examples seem to be an unfair standard on which to judge a major fraction of a profession.

So I tried to think of more reasonable examples (James Annan comes to mind). However, I realized while I don't presume that they are trying to shade the facts, I don't really trust them to be objective either. It's somewhat akin to asking a philosophical or existential question to a member of the clergy; you just know they're going to approach the issue from a viewpoint based on their social standing within a particular community, or at least the mores and values of that community.

Any talented individual who finds his views to differ from that community, especially given the issues of power and money at stake, is going to find it much easier to simply focus his talents on another subject he or she finds interesting.

fungussa · 3 days

In fact, the preemtive accusation of 'denial' sets off alarm bells, and provokes the questioning that it is intended to stifle.

^Pssst! ^They ^hadn't ^figured ^that ^out ^yet.

publius_lxxii

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login