Final Statement On Ghg's And Gw, Irrefutable.

John Gribbin, a professional science writer, provides a very accessable complete coverage of the issues here: (Emphasis added)

Living with the greenhouse effect

"A great deal of what you read and hear about the so-called "greenhouse effect" is either exaggerated, or misrepresented, or both. But the basis for concern about uncomfortably rapid global warming occurring within our own lifetimes and those of our children rests on just three facts, and a reasonable inference.

The first fact is that there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, which keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. The simplest way to get an idea of how important this is is to compare temperatures at the surface of the Earth with those on the airless Moon. There is no significant difference between the distance of the Moon from the Sun and the distance of the Earth from the Sun, so both receive the same amount of heat on each square metre of the surface that faces the Sun, and, other things being equal (which they are not) should reach the same equilbrium temperature. The average temperature at the surface of the Moon (averaging over the whole surface, including day and night sides) is actually -18 degC, while the average temperature on the surface of the Earth is 15 degC. The blanket of our atmosphere keeps the surface of the planet a full 33 degC warmer than it would otherwise be, and crucially (as far as life forms like us are concerned) raises the temperature above the freezing point of water. "

LG - Note that this analysis eliminates any possible argument from anti's that solar variation is the only factor.

"There is no mystery about how it does this. Some gases in the air (chiefly carbon dioxide and water vapour) absorb infrared radiation (the same kind of heat radiation you can feel if you hold your hand near a warm radiator). Sunlight passes through the atmosphere essentially unaffected, and warms the surface of the Earth. The warm surface radiates infrared, not light (because it is cooler than the surface of the Sun), and some of this outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere and re- radiated in all directions. Some of the re-radiated infrared radiation goes back down and increases the temperature at the surface. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect -- and nothing to do, incidentally, with the way a greenhouse keeps warm, which is by letting sunlight in and stopping convection, trapping hot air that tries to rise under a roof of glass.

There are complications. Any increase in surface temperature increases the amount of evaporation from the oceans, which puts more water vapour in the air and increases the greenhouse effect, in a feedback process. As a result, adding a relatively <b>small amount of carbon dioxide can produce a disproportionate warming, once the feedback is allowed for. "

At this point, Gribbin goes into a discussion of diminishing returns of CO2 levels in atmosphere, which is in error. Replace it with this more scientific analysis of the issue.

Basic Radiation Calculations - Spencer Weart

In part, Weart's paper includes the following, which clearly scientifically demolishes the anti's common argument that "adding more CO2 cannot trap more heat above a certain limit."

[B]Neither Kaplan nor anyone else of the time was thinking clearly enough about the greenhouse effect to point out that it will operate regardless of the details of the absorption. The trick, again, was to follow how the radiation passed up layer by layer. Consider a layer of the atmosphere so high and thin that heat radiation from lower down would slip through. Add more gas, and the layer would absorb some of the rays. Therefore the place from which heat energy finally left the Earth would shift to a higher layer. That would be a colder layer, unable to radiate heat so efficiently. The imbalance would cause all the lower levels to get warmer, until the high levels became hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet received. (For additional explanation of the "greenhouse effect," follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models.) Adding carbon dioxide will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.

(And actually, there is no saturation. With the primitive infrared measuring techniques of his day, Ångström’s assistant had gotten a midleading result. He could only measure the heat transferred across . Measurements from the 1940s on have shown that there is not nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block most of the infrared radiation in the bands of the spectrum where the gas absorbs it. That’s even the case for water vapor in deserts where the air is extremely dry.)



Back to Gribbin

" All of these complications (and others) are taken account of in computer models of the greenhouse effect. These models accurately describe the differences in temperature between the airless Moon and the Earth, and the pattern of temperatures seen on Mars."

"The second fact is that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the past hundred years or so. Since the early 19th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased from below 280 parts per million to above 350 parts per million. The absolute quantities are small, which only goes to show just how powerful the greenhouse effect is -- that 280 ppm plays a considerable part in keeping us 33 degrees warmer than the Moon. But the proportional increase is more than 25 per cent, clearly a dramatic change in any natural system. There is no doubt that this increase comes mainly from burning fossil fuel -- coal, oil and gas. First, not only the increase itself but the rate of increase matches the rate at which such fuel has been burnt, including "blips" caused by two World Wars and the Arab oil crisis. Secondly, analysis of air bubbles trapped in the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica show that the natural concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has been below 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Other greenhouse gases, including methane (which occurs naturally and is a byproduct of agricultural activities) and CFCs (which are entirely synthetic, and are also implicated in the destruction of the ozone layer) are also building up in the air."

"The third fact is that the Earth has got warmer over the past century, by about half a degree, Celsius. The evidence comes from meteorological stations scattered about the surface of the planet, and chiefly located on land masses. But the accuracy of the measurements was dramatically confirmed by satellite observations in the 1980s and 1990s."

Note that the third fact is much more strongly confirmed since Gribbin wrote his article in the 1990's

The reasonable inference is that the global warming (which is real) is related to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which is real), but that the computer models may slightly overestimate the strength of the additional greenhouse effect.

No responses without authoritative science-based references please.

No reference needed to the point that increasing the temperatures in the upper atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to expand slightly ergo: slightly increasing the surface area for the radiant heat to escape or exchange energies with the now greater surface area interactive Spacial Cold.

Was that effect figured in?

OK. For reference try the latest annual report by The National Academy of Science, or the NASA Global Climate survey, or data recovered from both poles since the 1958 international geophysical year, or the reports since 1914 from the north sea ice patrol, handled for us by the US Coast Guard, started to monitor ice bergs after the Titanic went down. By the way it's unscientific and quite impossible to prove a negative. You cant. But you can prove something with positive evidence from the sources above, and others. From the data I think evidence is very strong the Earth is getting warmer. Look at a time laps satellite photos over decades showing shrinkage of the Greenland , North and South pole ice caps. Then there's the documented loss of ice/snow in the Alps and Himalaya mountain regions. All this said, I don't know how much can be attributed to human actions, vrs. natural cycles. But concerning the fact global warming is happening, the evidence is over whelming.

Mr: Parson: If you've read the reference to Spencer Weart's document, you'd not be asking. What's your reference for the percentage increase in atmospheric height (eg. expansion due to heating) being of any significance?

None - my apologies - {(I)'ve not the computer time} Bye

i reference pretty thourougly...

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/new...pic3094107.shtm

From: bellfree campanile ® 31/07/2007 10:25:06 AM

Subject: greybody vs. blackbody post id: 3094107

The global warming farce\fraud {How else could it be a farce?} has come down to "order of magnitude"?

< Skip>

"[Spencer]Weart writes in such a way that the text is well-readable and looks insightful to superficial readers. If you read it carefully, however, you can see that Weart has no idea what he is talking about at the technical level. First of all, the text is completely non-quantitative. All assertions are binary and dogmatic, Yes/No, and no quantitative laws or functional dependences are ever given, not even sketched. His text makes it impossible to decide whether one effect or another effect is important or not, or whether it has already been included or not.

You may also see that methods such as differential equations or dimensional analysis - and order-of-magnitude estimates - go well beyond Weart's abilities..." L.Motl




http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/new...pic2959680.shtm
From: Byteman ® 17/05/2007 9:08:13 PM

Subject: Climate Momentum Shifting post id: 2959680

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...n_id=&Issue_id=





http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/new...pic3094100.shtm
From: bellfree campanile ® 31/07/2007 10:22:24 AM

Subject: The warming frog that jumped post id: 3094100

For my first two entries on the Web with this paper
See
www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3079/post3079771.shtm


Even when viewed from space at such a distance that the Earth appears as a point source, the radiation from it deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one temperature [6]. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single temperature.

Mr Belfry:

What is your reason for / significance of that ?quote? or statement? Are you a believer that the earth does not re-radiate the energy it receives, or what? Is incoming energy from the sun magically stored in earth's core? The statement simply indicates that there is an unstated range of temperatures over which earth re-radiates. So what? Explain how the net outcome is any different as a result?

No significance whatever to the Weart discussion.

And BTW, one of the wierder effects of the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-GW crowd is that I no longer read or am interested in assasination attacks on the creds of any climatologist. Period. Disgusting. Make your case yourself with proper science / references, don't attack character.

This post has been edited by lengould on Nov 7 2007, 01:54 PM

Except see:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=270568

(and following list of LONG DURATION rural stations which show the SAME basic cyclic trend which does NOT correlate with CO2


So this:

Is VERY SIMPLISTIC, since the REASONABLE inference is that there have been OTHER warming periods equal or greater to this latest round of global warming which began BEFORE any significant build up in CO2 and that while CO2 does provide some amount of warming potential, its impact appears to be OVERWHELMED by other effects.

Note, I've YET to see any MODEL which accurately models the DECLINING temps in the middle of the last century.

Note, I've YET to see any MODEL which predicts DECLINING temps under ANY cirmcumstances.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Nov 7 2007, 02:58 PM

...and blah blah

I gave balanced reporting... Read the threads(Yes, they are devasting to your position, if you have one, although I suppose the title *of this thread* says it all {{{Science, should never have something like "final statement".}}}, even though you are few months behind.)!


The first link i gave goes to layers of the atmosphere thing.
{I have been in a hurry, I have pictures somewhere to expand(hehe) on this argument, if you want.}
The second link goes towards a *top ten blog list* I may some day develop on this farce\fraud of global warming. All potential contributions are welcome, even yours. For instance, I am in the middle of reading this one:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/04/...ction%E2%80%9D/

I think the extra methane paper of last year by Frank Keppler is a bit dated and the "extra" methane mystery has been solved (Not sure!). Then appears an "extra" Amazon moisture mechanism I don't recall ever hearing about.

The third link I gave above goes towards the fraud{statistical} of averaging temperatures{Gribbin somewhere mentions the "greenhouse effect hypothesis" in relation to pink noise, I would emphasize the hypothesis part for John to save face}. Of course, the term global warming is now to be replaced with climate change with equal farce\fraud potential which is here

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13562&st=855

somewhere near the bottom. If climatologists as a group need to be called scientific imbeciles, so be it.

So, there be two parts(at least) to your opening post and I did not follow the same order, sorry. Truth is, I did not read it, I scanned it and "knew" I had all ready posted on the topics. Now that I have scanned it better, I am all the more sure.
MrB.

Wrong Arthur. "(and following list of LONG DURATION rural stations which show the SAME basic cyclic trend which does NOT correlate with CO2" is highly subject to i) analysts definition of Rural, ii) local effects, e.g. North America. iii) inaccuracy of method. I prefer now to go with the satelitte data, which does indicate some relevant warming.

Your opinion that "CO2 effects are minimal" is only just that, your opinion. See Fact 1 above and the Weart reference.

The bottom line is, there is NO refuting the three facts stated, and the inference IS reasonable.

This post has been edited by lengould on Nov 7 2007, 06:27 PM

So we should credit one amateur non-climatologist (you) over all science? I think NOT.

Please publish links to Satellite data from 1900 to 1980, I can't seem to find them anywhere.

The Goddard Institute of Space Sciences Database is my reference.

You have a better one?

Oh, and about the Satellite data, NASA to this day STILL publishes TWO different temperature interpretations of these REMOTE attempts using microwaves to measure atmospheric temperature. They do so because THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE (if either) IS RIGHT, (RSS or UAH) but what they do know is that they don't agree with each other.

The FACT is, the GISS LONG TERM RURAL STATIONS (100+ year continuous record of DIRECT measurement) are KNOWN for being some of the BEST sources of CLIMATE data.

The list I published covers the GLOBE and is not just US or NH data.

That long list of station data I posted presents a very consistant view of the 20th century.

One of a STONG warming trend prior to any major buildup of GHGs, followed by a four+ decade long global cooling trend that is CONTRARY to a correlation with a CO2 induced warming since temps clearly declined significantly as CO2 levels continued to rise.

I KNOW you want to AVOID talking about how COLD it got during the late 60s into the 70s, but a theory of a CO2 driven climate system has to account for BOTH the warming and the COOLING.

Arthur

"As a result, adding a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide can produce a disproportionate warming, once the feedback is allowed for. "

“Can produce”?

Try this...
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
Or, a more simple explanation...
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/14/...by-roy-spencer/

Thanks

This is FALSE.

In fact, life on earth can only exist because it is FALSE.

The ice cores show us that rising CO2 levels LAG behind rising temperatures.

But if rising CO2 levels cause a POSITIVE FEEDBACK to cause even more warming it would result in a RUNAWAY HEATING scenario.

What is CLEAR, to anyone who cares to look at the earth's temp record, is that a warming earth causes a NEGATIVE feedback, thus PREVENTING this runaway warming.

Arthur

Hi adoucette, everyone!

Whenever attempting to 'measure' CO2 and contemporary temps/effects during particular periods it should be borne in mind that over the period of the 1800-1900s, early COAL/WOOD-DRIVEN industrial revolution, produced great quantities of airborne particulate matter which, when combined with that being produced from volcanoes, may have caused TEMPORARY global and localised COOLING.

When LATER the processes were 'cleaned up' and the volcanism-particulates subsided, the WARMING resumed.

Note that I haven't mentioned the actual CO2 addition to the atmosphere.

Anyhow, when the 'cooling particulates' phase died down the CO2 THEN became more prominent in effects that were NO LONGER counteracted by the aforementioned 'cooling' causes.

So as the planet/locations warmed UP the land and sea carbon-life MASS increased, so that the carbon was once again being 'sinked' out of the atmosphere. Hence another 'cooling' or 'pausing' period in the global heat load/distributions.

BUT since THEN, we have been pillaging established forests and fisheries to the point of disturbing/removing EN MASSE the land/ocean carbon-life and capabilities for such 'sinking' of carbon.

Add to that the acidification problems from ever grater chemical/combustive outputs in ever expanding industial capacities in India, China and the already developed counties, and what we have is a potent mix of DECREASING SINKS and INCREASING PRODUCERS of CO2.

Whether the CO2 'readings' 'track' EXACTLY the global temps is neither here nor there....for the reasons given as to TEMPORARY factors.

The important point is that when the warming reaches a critical level AT A PARTICULAR POINT in the 'trending', the MASS RELEASE of VAST QUANTITIES of METHANE from permafrost and deep ocean 'sinks' (clathrates? hydrates?) that have been essentially undisturbed for thousands of years, we will THEN know what 'global warming' is all about!...because THAT is the REAL danger; and CO2 effect is in my opinion merely the TRIGGER to greater catastrophic warming.

Unless we 'replace' the quantity of land/ocean CARBON-LIFE sink capacity that we have removed wjith our mechnised harvesting (clear felling) and factory-ship fishing (blitz-fishing), we WILL have that 'trigger' and no mistake (unless we create NEW carbon-sink techniques/processes/means to COMPENSATE).

OH, before I go and leave you all to it, I'd like to point out (for the benefit of those that maintain there is 'MUCH more CO2 coming from volcanoes than from human activity") that the VOLCANIC sorces of CO2 is from 'calcined' CARBONATE rocks that have been recycled into the lower mantle and stripped of the CO2 which eventually accompanies the MAGMA containing the NOW CO2 'depleted' molten rock. HOWEVER, as 'weathering' and 're-combination' of that SAME CO2 soon goes BACK to forming the original carbonate rock minerals state, the volcanic source of CO2 may be considered CARBON NEUTRAL in its effect over decades/centuries.

So the argument of OUR contribution to CO2 levels being 'puny' in comparison to volcanic CO2 is NOT valid in the main.

FORTUNATELY for us, since volcanoes ARE CO2 neutral over time, their airborne 'particulate' contribution is 'cooling' for the time it remains aloft. So let's hear it for the 'dirty volcanoes'! hehehe.

That's my 'take' on this question, anyhow!

Cheers adoucette, all!

RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Nov 8 2007, 01:32 AM