Zogger's at it again

isdnip

Mon Aug 20 19:21:23 -0700 2007

manage

Next on technocrat:  Evolution is a fraud?

Why does Zogger have to dig up every nut case who shills for the coal industry and treat them like the second coming of Einstein?

search and analyze

zogger

Mon Aug 20 20:12:52 -0700 2007

manage

here ya go

http://www.google.com/search?q=global+climate+change+site%3Atechnocrat.net

run that search, post your analysis and stats, if I put up more climate change "denial" articles than not, I'll gladly resign my position.

Put up or shutup, getting tired of false accusations here. I thought this particular article was interesting because it was from physicists, and I thought some knowledgeable folks here who can understand their paper might want to look at it and see what they were about. And that's it, nothing more than that, and I was more than careful to point that out. I gave you the url for the search, hundreds of articles, most of them I put up, you can refine it further if you wish.. I've already stated my position numerous times here, perhaps you haven't read them yet, but I think it is an all of the above situation, both human caused and a combination of natural events. All of them, not just all man made, nor all natural cyclic. I am a proponent of cleaner decentralized energy as well, which would lead to a cleaner environment and perhaps more climate stability, but I guess that isn't enough for ya'all.

Either way, I offer you a scientific challenge to prove your point, prove it, or be an adult and apologize. You prove it, you get rid of me, I'll resign and never post or reply here again.

search and analyze

isdnip

Mon Aug 20 22:09:43 -0700 2007

manage

I disagree with your "fair and balanced" treatment of "the controversy":

Gravity is just a theory  Therefore there must be two sides given equal weight.  Either it's real, or it's just a lie by people who don't want us to simply understand what up and down mean.

An article by "physicists" is meaningless; you can find someone with any desired title to write anything for a buck.

search and analyze

Richard Young

Mon Aug 20 22:28:38 -0700 2007

manage

What you need to understand is that without the broad range of articles that Zogger spends a considerable amount of time digging up, Technocrat would mostly consist of HowTo articles and the odd juicy tip bit from Bruce.  No one puts as much effort into this site as Zogger.  I personally appreciate his hard work.

Pull your head in mate.

search and analyze

Thornton

Tue Aug 21 05:29:47 -0700 2007

manage

Here, here. Don't shoot the messenger. Give Zogger a break.

search and analyze

Uncle Entity

Mon Aug 20 23:48:30 -0700 2007

manage

I disagree with your "fair and balanced" treatment of "the controversy":

So, what, only post articles that pull the party line?

I would think someone who really cares about a certain subject would like to hear all sides of the argument if only to see what kind of BS the 'opposition' is spewing.

It's apparently a lot easier to attack the messenger instead of crafting a well thought out counter argument.

search and analyze

Charles E Hill

Tue Aug 21 05:59:32 -0700 2007

manage

Just to pick on a pet peeve of mine...

Gravity is a theory, therefore there must be two sides given equal weight.

First, the existence of gravity is not a theory, only the method of operation.  There is a big difference.  Gravity itself can be demonstrated, classified and scientifically tested.  The method of its operation, however, is inferred from observation.  We might be wrong, but our descriptions based on observation are testably accurate to several decimal places, so we aren't wrong by much.

Second, the number of possible explanations for any given question isn't limited to two.  Just like "evolution" or "creation" aren't the only two possible explanations for the progression of life.  There could be an unlimited number of possibilities.

Third, all explanations do NOT have to be given equal weights in an argument.  The probability and plausibility of many explanations can be quantified and those arguments that fall short can be discarded quite easily.  The most common test is known as Occam's Razor.

Or are you going to tell me (honestly) that "sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure" deserves equal weight with "created in seven days by God" and "the Big Bang" as a viable explanation for the existence of the Universe?

End rant.

search and analyze

isdnip

Tue Aug 21 06:53:23 -0700 2007

manage

Ever hear of sarcasm?

I was making a point:  Creationists like to teach that "evolution is only a theory".  So I'm showing the folly of that (they are using the wrong meaning of "theory") by applying it to gravity.

And I'm also noting that the corporate press has been easily snowed by lies, because they often assume that a controversial story has Two Sides that must both be given great respect.  Even if one is a flat-out lie and they do or should know it.

gravity

rubycodez

Tue Aug 21 07:26:20 -0700 2007

manage

oh, you know what causes gravity?  Science does not.  And all those equations with the inverse square of the distance in them you see in textbooks, the shapes and motions of the stars in galaxies don't conform to those equations, one of the biggest mysteries in the universe (hence one of the reasons for the search for dark energy and dark matter).  So our theories about gravity may well be complete bunk, or need modification.

gravity

disco

Tue Aug 21 07:37:21 -0700 2007

manage

> So our theories about gravity may well be complete bunk, or need modification.

You could say that about anything, not just gravity. It's unlikely that the theory of gravity "is complete bunk", but modification is a possibility. Sort of like what the theory of relativity did to Newton's laws of motion.

gravity

Charles E Hill

Tue Aug 21 08:28:35 -0700 2007

manage

It is a little hard to visually follow the threading here, so if this isn't a reply to my comment then just ignore it.

I thought I was clear that the method of how gravity works was uncertain and still under investigation.  I didn't make a claim otherwise.  The force of gravity itself, however, isn't in doubt.

As far as the motions of stars, etc. not conforming to the inverse-square relationship, that doesn't necessarily throw any doubt at all on gravity and its operation.  It implies an external force, in addition to gravity, is in the mix.  That force seems to be undetectable at the human-scale (apple falling on someone's head), and only detectable at the super-sized level (star motion, etc.).  I=S/(4pi r^2) simply refers to gravity as an ideal, point source.  You're talking about I=S/(4 pi r^2) + X, with X being "dark matter" for lack of a better term.

Gravity can be measured to an obscenely small degree.  This (448 Kb pdf) is a fascinating read on the subject.  The abstract and citation is here.

gravity

rubycodez

Tue Aug 21 12:23:08 -0700 2007

manage

Hi Charles, that post wasn't a reply to yours.

Super accurate gradiometers are in the works, better than the current crop of a part in thousands, who knows what they'll find, gravitational theory could well get a kick in the pants by atom fountain or laser meters.

An external force is implied?  maybe, that's a currently popular model (dark matter), but maybe gravity has higher order term distance contributions than 1/r^2, for tests of actual inverse square variation on small scale there's experiments like     this   (see, nothing is assumed or taken for granted in physics), but the accuracy of such experiments is nothing of the order of say the static electric field, where the square term had been verified to better than one part in 10^15 back when I was in grad school. 

search and analyze to see what is fair and balanced

zogger

Thu Aug 23 20:22:54 -0700 2007

manage

I have over 400 (something like that, tagged global climate change or close to that) environmental articles up on this site. Check em out, see what the ratio is. I think you'll only find a small handful of what you might term "global warming denial" type articles. And I repeat, if this is a lie, and anyone has the stats to prove it, I'll resign immediately. Right then and there, buh bye! You really want to accuse me of something, back it up! It's that easy. Prove your point in black and white with scientific analysis and numbers, and you win! Frankly, I know you can't, because I know what I've put up. But-it's an open challenge to the flamers, to you or anyone, if you think my coverage of environmental issues is somehow all one sided towards the 'denial' side, all the articles are there to review. have at it, layon!

As to someone's academic cred, no idea, I don't run a background check on every name on every article here, nor am I ever going to do that. You can if you want to, go for it. If someone has a title and gets published in at least a semi well known place, I am assuming they actually have that degree and title. That doesn't mean they are genius or moron, just have a title so are recognized as such. I just link to articles and write short summaries and pose a little opinion or ask a question, etc, conversation starters in other words, as that is my job gig requirement., if you are looking for something else, I hope you find it, or perhaps use some of that energy and write your own stuff and post it,in your area of expertise.

search and analyze

AB3A

Tue Aug 21 04:10:04 -0700 2007

manage

Zog, I once saw an interesting statistical essay suggesting that in any given population, there was a certain percentage of people that were going to be stupid.  These were not always the same people.  They could be from all walks of life, and all measures of intelligence.

What we're talking about here is a statistical probability that people will say stupid things.  We've all done it. You've just observed it with isdnip.  I suspect that on other occasions, he or she is a decent person. 

As for the global warming debate, we do need to evaluate what both sides are saying.  If we listened only to filtered sources, we'd hear a party line.  I prefer to listen to a broader audience.  If the theory or evidence is BS then we owe the public our expertise to debunk it. 

Keep up the good work!

post and abandon

zogger

Thu Aug 23 19:59:25 -0700 2007

manage

Thanks. I really don't have any hidden agenda here, nor do I seem to be cashing any seekrit oil company checks. I just thought it had the potential to be an interesting article and some folks might like to check it out. I am not in a position to evaluate any advanced physics stuff, so I just chunked it out "as is", but alas, alack and alorn, it's never enough..sigh.. I will admit *totally* to having the opinion that gore was and is a supreme hypocrite, "do as he says, not as he does". That was really my big sin here, to dis gore. Oh well, too bad, I have dissed a ton of neocons and other assorted no goodniks as well. I know a lot of just regular joe working class families who afforded and went to solar, despite NOT being multi millionaires. He got shamed into it mostly. I still think that was funny as heck when he got busted for being such an energy hog, then tried to pull that "but..I gotz me carbon credits!' rich guy scam nonsense.. That doesn't make me a rush limbaugh/exxon supporter, it just means I think it was funny.

This article up here I posted..just because I saw it! Saw it was at Arxive, looked to be a legit article, no clue beyond that. If I had known it was going to be a panty wad buncher most likely I would have skipped it, lately I skip a ton of them like that, although some still get through. It's a struggle for me because..well, it is mostly my nature, but then again I'd rather not sometimes. I like a good mix of articles and try to keep it from being all "me" centered, but when it is something I honestly don't understand, I cannot judge if the article is really good or not! Catch 22 like this time I guess.

I really want the readers here, a lot of them not just a small handful of regulars, to post good articles with better commentary from their various areas of expertise (with bog simple code I don't have to fix, no h1 header crapola or advanced colors or anything like that-no inclination, no time, preview is a good thing). That would set this site apart from the others in a good way methinks.

search and analyze

cowardly dragon

Tue Aug 21 10:28:45 -0700 2007

manage

Global Warming == Dark Matter

I don't see daily/weekly articles disputing the existence of Dark Matter: an invisible, only vaguely detectable force/essence that we see from far far away.

Dark Matter is an assumed truth on this site. Something that we don't know the composition, physics, or form of, and can only detect via approximate measurements of objects trillions of miles away.

Does dark matter have a high likelihood of threatening the existence of man on this planet? Not anytime soon.

Yet global warming, which has ominous and frightening potential outcomes, is routinely questioned on this site despite its fairly direct threat to us.

Why? A couple dollars?

The estimated cost of making us carbon neutral was supposed to be 500 billion to a trillion  dollars.

UNACCEPTABLE! DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT! BOOOOO!

How much is the Iraq war going to cost, ZOGGER? There's an idea for an article I haven't seen here. Use your amazing powers to look up that little item.

Oh yeah, that would interfere with your precious ?libertarian? ?objectivist? ?conservative? world viewpoint.

We know you're a conservative at least. Why do you hate humanity?

search and analyze

Charles E Hill

Tue Aug 21 11:04:48 -0700 2007

manage

Dark Matter is an assumed truth on this site.

Incorrect premise, or an incorrect understanding of phrasing.

"Dark Matter" is a general term for something whose effects we can detect, but don't know what it is.  It is a scientific euphemism and not necessarily a descriptive term.  The effects on large body gravitational forces can be observed by their motions, and the inferred interfering material is called "dark" because we can't directly detect it.

"Global Warming" is a phrase latched onto by the general press and should more accurately be called "Global Climate Change".  Specifically, "Anthropological Global Climate Change", meaning it is man-made.  That isn't a euphemism, but a specific descriptive phrase.

Dark Matter is "there is something there, we don't know what, we're gathering more data". 

Anthropological Global Warming is being sold as certainty. 

search and analyze

cowardly dragon

Tue Aug 21 12:36:56 -0700 2007

manage

Oh gee, thanks for explaining to me the body of phenomena and observed behavior that make up the colloquial term "Dark Matter". That cleared up a whole lot.

Incorrect premise?  Because I use a colloquial reference to "Dark Matter"? You clearly suffer from hyper literalist over deconstructive thinking.

While commonplace, crude, and partially incorrect,  language colloquialisms such as "Global Warming", "Dark Matter", and "Democracy" may not completely describe all nuances and changing gradations of understanding and research that underly them, they are effective tools of practical language COMMUNICATION.

But it gives me an opportunity to beat the dead horse to a pulp:

The body of phenomena that are represented by the term/phrase Dark Matter has never been disputed in its existence in any thread here. Ever.

No one has EVER said anything like "Dark Matter is just a statistical anomaly". "Dark Matter is being sold by a bunch of astronomers that just want to keep looking at the sky for no reason at all" on this site, yet Global Warming is routinely derided with those descriptions.
Global Warming is being sold as a certainty as the only way to combat a litany of industry-funded critics who will jump on any and all weakness/doubt expressed and exploit to maximum chaos, disruption of debate, and curtailing of effective policy.

As for Anthropogenic (you know, since we're being literalist asshats here) Global Climate Change, thank you for preferring a technical term that will confuse 90% of stupid Americans. Anthro-what? Climate? Isn't that  something living in a jungle?

Nice to see you've done half the job of the deniers for us. Good work!

Because Global Warming is such a bad term. Why? Sounds like it Gasp! Describes what is going on in a simple term! Oh no! Better change that term to something academic and trite.

Fuck the data, you idiots. Look at:

Glaciers
Disappearing Islands
Rapid Warming of Tundra and Permafrost
The North Pole, what's left of it.

You think Russia is making a land grab for the arctic on the basis of a fictitious conspiracy by a bunch of lazy pinko socialist scientists?

search and analyze

Charles E Hill

Tue Aug 21 13:25:06 -0700 2007

manage

Seriously, lighten up.

No one has ever derided Dark Matter theories here because I don't think the topic has ever been brought up for serious discussion.  If it was, it would need an absolutist statement before you start seeing what you're talking about.  Someone would have to come out and say "Dark Matter is real, there is no other explanation for what we're seeing." THEN you'd probably see some issues.  (NOTE: I found two articles on Technocrat about Dark Matter.  Neither had extensive discussion, though neither had any absolutist statements in them.  Both were riddled with phrases like "presence is inferred" and "great enigma of science" and "unknown".  Hardly the stuff of controversy.)

This site isn't the general public, so I was being specific.  If you want to dumb down the conversation, Slashdot is over that way.

Global Warming is routinely derided not as occurring, or not but whether or not it is a man-made phenomenon or natural.  Large shifts in climate -- warming and cooling -- have occurred many times in the past, long before the Industrial Era or even before man walked the Earth.  More data is necessary.

Conservation, alternative energy and fuels and globalism are popular topics here.  Trying to use FUD to drive people to clean up and respect the environment is a dangerous game.  Hell, the global warming crowd had to fight for a long time against the "but in the 1970s people said it was a New Ice Age, now it is warming?" group.  Think what will happen if, based on scare tactics, that happens again.  Things cool down for a trend and Global Warming shifts yet again.  Kiss your credibility goodbye for a generation.

If you want to spoon feed "90% of stupid Americans" FUD because you're incapable of educating and informing them, you'll get no help from me.

search and analyze

Uncle Entity

Tue Aug 21 14:49:20 -0700 2007

manage

Global Warming is being sold as a certainty as the only way to combat a litany of industry-funded critics who will jump on any and all weakness/doubt expressed and exploit to maximum chaos, disruption of debate, and curtailing of effective policy.

And therein lies the problem...You can't 'sell' something as a certainty to a person who questions the workings of the world. I don't even think the Laws of Physics are considered as a certainty because they tend to find things that behave in unexpected ways as they advance their body of knowledge.

As for Anthropogenic (you know, since we're being literalist asshats here) Global Climate Change, thank you for preferring a technical term that will confuse 90% of stupid Americans. Anthro-what? Climate? Isn't that something living in a jungle?

There is very little doubt the planet has been warming for the last 18k years or so. Global Warming is as big a truth as Gravity. I don't even think people debate this fact. What is the issue is the cause of warming in the last 100 years or so and the extreme environmentalist lobby is trying to associate the sum total of Global Warming with the literal asshat definition you so eloquently put forth into the discussion.

Nice to see you've done half the job of the deniers for us. Good work!

I would think the people wishing to change society in non trivial ways and basically shut down all industry so we can all (well those who survive the Purge) live in yurts and eat nuts and berries would have to do all the hard work. If y'all hippie kids can't put down the bong long enough to string together a 'valid' argument then you may as well just give up the cause.

Fuck the data, you idiots. Look at:

Glaciers
Disappearing Islands
Rapid Warming of Tundra and Permafrost
The North Pole, what's left of it.

Which case should we look at, the many pre-historic occurrences or what is happening today? Perhaps that's why you suggest we should 'fuck the data', if you look into the historic record and see that all this has *naturally* occurred before it isn't such a big deal. I'm sure the people who were around at the end of the last ice age were also running around like Chicken Little when the oceans were rising because of Global Warming too.

It is also unfortunate the climate modelers don't 'fuck the data' and base their science on direct observations of nature. Then maybe we wouldn't have all these people yelling 'the sky is falling' every time a creek overflows it's bank.

I would have to say that people like you do much, much more damage to your cause that all the 'deniers' put together. If you learned how to communicate your message effectively and refrained from profanity when you get flustered you could possibly make a 'difference' but I think that's way too much to ask from a victim of Public Education.

search and analyze

Rob

Tue Aug 21 16:10:08 -0700 2007

manage

I think your entire worldview is summed up in this simple quote from your post:

"Fuck the data, you idiots."

There is the scientific basis of Global Warming caused by Primates in a nutshell.

search and analyze

cowardly dragon

Wed Aug 22 09:56:15 -0700 2007

manage

I would like to extend a cordial, heartfelt thanks to the repliers of my message for proving my point:

Technocrat.net  ==  Petrolpubican.com

Now we know where we stand.

search and analyze

Uncle Entity

Wed Aug 22 16:51:28 -0700 2007

manage

What's that mean, you're surprised that everyone doesn't take an extremist view of the world and so started calling names?

As was pointed out elsewhere in this discussion the climatologists were running around telling everyone the next Ice Age was upon us not that long ago. Now they are telling us the Earth is warming up. Both conclusions were based on an incomplete study of the facts. It doesn't seem reasonable to maybe, just maybe put in a little more research before we start enacting long reaching harmful policies that may or may not be necessary to rectify the situation?

As I said earlier *you* and people like you are hurting your cause more than any paid shill could possibly hope to dream about. I'm pretty sure that no one is fooled by your latching on to this issue to push a more broad minded environmental agenda.

search and analyze

Rob

Thu Aug 23 16:16:19 -0700 2007

manage

So, just where do we stand?
In just two words and two (?) mathematical operators you have revealed much about yourself.
You are a Democrat.  You have such a bad opinion of Republicans (around 50% of the population in this country) that you use a truncated version of the party affiliation as an insult.  Your mashing together two words to define a new one, "Petrolpublican," indicates that, in your view,  the primary focus of the Republican party has ?something? to do with petroleum.
Do you drive a car, or do you only walk or ride a bicycle?
When you mow your lawn, do you use a power mower?
Do you flip the switch, or do you light your house with candles?  Do you use beeswax candles only?  Do you light the candles by rubbing two sticks together over wood shavings, or do you use a bic lighter filled with butane?
How do you heat your house in the winter?  Do you burn trees?  Or do use use any of the other alternatives that involve, ultimately, either burning petroleum or turning matter into energy?
So who is it I hear screaming every time gas prices go up, the PetrolDemocrats?  (see, it looks better if you capitalize the first letter of the truncation mashup).

search and analyze

zogger

Thu Aug 23 19:43:37 -0700 2007

manage

I used to post a lot of antiwar stuff here, got ranked for it so I quit. Go back to when I first started here, you can find some. For the record, I think the war in Iraq is insane, and was promulgated by folks with dollar signs in their eyes and a side helping of bringing on armageddon, in short, quite nuts. Cost is astronomical of course, the borrowed printed up money could be spent a lot better.

I am pro self and national defense, anti wars for profit or wars based on outright lies. And have had that position for around half a century now. Fairly consistent as it were.

And it's mostly the same guys that supported and propped up saddam a long time ago who then got us into the war, wallstreet in general and the project for a new american century boys and the AIPAC crowd.. They do it all the time, whack some populist leader, stick in a dictator, rape that country, then act surprised when their boy acts like a despot, so we now need to go fix the situation. Lather rinse repeat.. saddam, the shah noriega and etc. I've been for a massive manhatten project styled alternative energy push since the great OPEC embargo wake up call, something that would have lead to total energy independce and then the US being able to completely shun and boycott the entire middle east. Just not seeing one thing there that is in our national interest, nothing, zee-ro. They don't need the cash, the weapons and especially US boys and girls going over there, complete waste of time and an example of what washington warned us about, stupid foreign entanglements.

HTH

Zogger's at it again

angeles13

Mon Aug 20 20:13:54 -0700 2007

manage

I for one, am grateful that Zogger is even able to find such.

I prefer to have as much data on hand before I would agree that something is a definitive cause. Especially the cause of something so magnifying as Global Warming/Greenhouse effect etc.

Something is definitely different in the environment. Whether solely due to man made actions within the local areas or global weather patterns beginning in the Mongol deserts effecting climatic air quality in the Los Angeles basin. Even Solar Flares must be considered and data analyzed in depth. Our current advances in technology correct prior hypothesis and theories to new ones.

The more information I have...
the better judgments and choices can be made.

For if blizzards in the Arctic and typhoons in the Pacific are caused by a small butterfly flittering from flower to flower near Rio de Janeiro; I do wish to know.

sharyn

Zogger's at it again

duhavid

Mon Aug 20 20:20:43 -0700 2007

manage

My read is that he is presenting the articles so that people can make up their own minds.

Zogger's at it again

Bhima

Tue Aug 21 05:04:45 -0700 2007

manage

If you’ve read many of my comments on Technocrat, you’ll know that I am probably more concerned for the environment that the technocrat average.  You may even remember that I too have previously  whined at Zogger before for uncritically posting deliberately deceptive articles penned by paid shills.

 

However, truth be told this whining at Zogger is not helpful. 

 

If you feel that this paper is incorrect then refute it on the basis of its factual failures. If you feel that Zogger posts too many papers penned by sneaky shills paid for by the evil that is “big oil” then get of your ass and submit peer reviewed papers by real climatologists which refute the paper you are offended by. However, I admit in this case it may be difficult as my quick search seems to suggest these fools were rejected out of hand.  In any case the ratio of submissions for or against this controversial topic is as much our inactions as Zogger’s actions. After all we have access to internet as well… and from the occasional description of Zogger’s access I’ve had better internet access in the jungles of Africa and the high Andean plains of Peru.

 

On this paper, I have no idea why this paper was originally written and if the authors are in truth professional deniers. However, in my role as an advisor I see a lot of university student’s thesis papers.  I would not accept this paper as is and strongly recommend that the writers find an editor to remove the unprofessional verbiage and the worst few the pointless mathematic expressions. Also because they are going against accepted scientific thinking they need extraordinary evidence which they plainly don’t have.  On a more humorous level I have not run this paper through the “Crackpot Index” but I noticed enough red flags in it that I suspect it would score quite high J

 

Oh and to Zogger if you are going to submit articles on controversial topics you are going to need to grow a thicker skin. Particularly when those papers contain unscientific and unprofessional snipes at leading proponents of the very topic the paper is denying. But please continue to submit stories and comment on them. I enjoy and appreciate your contributions.

Who are these guys?

Alan

Mon Aug 20 20:39:29 -0700 2007

manage

ESEF

---

"The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) is a defunct organization that existed in the 1990s. It billed itself as "an independent, non-profit-making alliance of scientists whose aim is to ensure that scientific debates are properly aired, and that decisions which are taken, and action that is proposed, are founded on sound scientific principles."

Like other "sound science" front groups, its real mission is to disparage the science upon which environmental safety regulations are based, and it was initially a creation of the tobacco industry, which promoted the idea of "junk science" and overregulation.

.... In its mission statement published in 1994 on its original website , the ESEF described itself as a non-partisan group of scientists and claimed, To maintain its independence and impartiality, the ESEF does not accept outside funding from whatever source, the only income it receives is from the sale of its publications.

Almost immediately, it took on a crusade to fight UK and European regulations against passive smoke and workplace smoking, along with global warming and restricted use of pesticides and herbicides. It fought mainly to discredit the World Health Organisation, while attempting to rebuff the science used by the USA's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

... In 1998 the Academic Members of ESEF included: Bruce N. Ames, Sallie L. Baliunas, Robert C. Balling, Jack Barrett, C.J.F. Böttcher, Peter Dietze , Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Gerhard Gerlich, Sherwood Idso, Helmut Metzner, Patrick J. Michaels, William Mitchell, Harry N.A. Priem, Michel Salomon, S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Wolfgang Thüne, and Gerd-Rainer Weber, while Richard S. Courtney and Michael Gough were Business Members. The list immediately identifies this group as affilliated with Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Heidelberg Appeal group, ICSE (run by SEPP and Michel Salomon).

---

After Falko Timme's "How to walk and chew gum" pieces, these professional global warming deniers are the most irritating posts here.

Who are these guys?

Jay Banerjee

Mon Aug 20 21:15:14 -0700 2007

manage

I really dislike it when people try to shoot the authors rather than look at the work.  For the sake of full disclosure, you should point out that the link provided leads to a site brought to you by the Center for Media and Democracy:

"The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber"

That's from Wikipedia, by the way.  You can see who made that edit and draw further conclusions, I'm sure.

So who do you believe?  The group funded by "Big Oil" or the group funded by "Enviro-Nazis"?

This is one problem with the whole man-made global warming fight.  It has become too much of a popularity contest.

I don't care if the research is carried out by Winnie the Pooh.  If the research stands up to the required cross examination, then it is good research.  If not, then it will and should be dismissed.  As long as there is something new or novel (and correct) in their work, some benefit has been gained.

Attacking the authors does little good.  If anything, it just encourages people from both sides to do the same thing.  And that makes it even harder for real discoveries to be heard and acknolwedged.  And these discoveries can be made on both sides of the debate.  That's how knowledge is gained.

Who are these guys?

Alan

Mon Aug 20 21:27:28 -0700 2007

manage

I really dislike it when people try to shoot the authors rather than look at the work

So you have similarly protested at all the personal attacks on Al Gore and his lifestyle and waistline whenever this comes up?

Zogger simply labelled them as "physicists". That's background, but only part of the story. Someone who has made a career out of denying smoking or insecticides have any health problems has earned my suspicion.

Attacking the authors does little good.

And how did I "attack" anyone? I pointed out their history, which is undeniable and goes to their credibility, and the supposition that their work is the result of disinterested academic enquiry.

Who are these guys?

Jay Banerjee

Mon Aug 20 21:41:50 -0700 2007

manage

So you have similarly protested at all the personal attacks on Al Gore and his lifestyle and waistline whenever this comes up?

No.  That is the propaganda side of the story (Both Gore and the people that attack him). 

And how did I "attack" anyone?

... from previous post by Alan...

After Falko Timme's "How to walk and chew gum" pieces, these professional global warming deniers are the most irritating posts here.

So you consider the above polite conversation? 

I pointed out their history, which is undeniable and goes to their credibility, and the supposition that their work is the result of disinterested academic enquiry.

When it comes to science, I really don't care about their interest or non-interest in a topic.  The process will filter them out if they are wrong.  Further more, a person has to have some interest in a topic to even study it.  Otherwise, they wouldn't study it for little money. 

Who are these guys?

Alan

Mon Aug 20 22:31:59 -0700 2007

manage

So you consider the above polite conversation?

Well, not impolite.

The article I quoted makes a good case that they are "professional deniers". They certainly took money from Big Tobacco in the 90s. Considering the millions tobacco kills every year, this is not really an abstract technical issue. My mother, for instance, died of lung cancer.

Thus in my eyes they do not start from a supposition of Platonic purity in the quest for knowledge. They have an agenda.

However, I made no comment on the truth or otherwise of this paper. I'm not qualified to judge. But that doesn't stop hundreds of bloggers and columnnists at this moment who are gleefully citing it as "scientific proof that global warming is a hoax".

Until it has been digested by the scientific community (not the blogosphere), it remains just their opinion.

Who are these guys?

femto

Mon Aug 20 22:37:06 -0700 2007

manage

I was put on guard by the properties of the paper rather than its authors.  Lack of peer review, length and a provocative title can be properties associated with a brilliant seminal paper.  In that case, given that the paper is six weeks old, scientists everywhere should be talking about it.  Sadly such properties are more commonly associated with a long winded rant.

Who are these guys?

AB3A

Sat Aug 25 08:16:50 -0700 2007

manage

I agree.  That's like trying to deny the quantum mechanics of transistors because Shockly thought highly of Eugenics. 

Who are these guys?

zm

Mon Aug 20 21:25:07 -0700 2007

manage

Wow, thanks for that insightful and in-depth analysis of the paper in subject. Given all the scientific flaws you found and so eloquently presented, I am now sure that the paper has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

As the old saying goes, "As soon as we slapped the label on them, we knew who we were dealing with".

Who are these guys?

Alan

Mon Aug 20 21:36:07 -0700 2007

manage

Wow, thanks for that insightful and in-depth analysis of the paper in subject.

I did not analyse the paper.

My point is that it SHOULD be carefully analysed before being accepted as fact, given the authors' history.

However, Google tells me that it has already been enthusiastically cited in dozens of right-wing blogs and columns as conclusive proof against global warming.

Who are these guys?

zm

Mon Aug 20 21:51:40 -0700 2007

manage

I did not analyse the paper.

That whooshing sound was sarcasm flying over your head.

My point is that it SHOULD be carefully analysed before being accepted as fact, given the authors' history.

Authors history is irrelevant. Do analyze the facts, leave the authors aside.

You can post a review of the paper right here.

Who are these guys?

Alan

Mon Aug 20 22:38:58 -0700 2007

manage

That whooshing sound was sarcasm flying over your head.

Sorry, I should have included a smilie to indicate I understood your "joke".

Authors history is irrelevant.

Don't be absurd. Zogger called them "physicists". They're also people who have taken money from Big Tobacco to deny its health risks. With that in mind I would prefer to wait till more reviews come in before accepting their word.

Authors' History

Morosoph

Tue Aug 21 03:41:01 -0700 2007

manage

Bayesian inferencing is the key, methinks. Experts are exempt, for someone need to be trying out wild ideas, but for those who are not professional physicists, Bayesian inferencing is about the best tool to hand. Over time, peoples' assessments of probabilities should converge, unless they've put in spurious certainties.

Even professional physicists should make use of Bayes where they lack information. Accordingly, funding and the past behaviour of those who are presenting a paper is relevant, so as to give a prior probability; a sensible guesstimate from which one can start the analysis. The contents of the paper can then act on that initial assessment.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

The_Barbarian

Mon Aug 20 21:43:06 -0700 2007

manage

This thing claims there *is no green house effect*, which is a much more fundamental claim than the claim that there is no man made global climate change.

The idea that the atmosphere doesn't keep the the earth warmer than it would be without the atmosphere is really weird, and is not an argument I have seen other climate change deniers try to use. I would think that this is because the idea is too ridiculous even for them.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Jay Banerjee

Mon Aug 20 21:47:01 -0700 2007

manage

Thank you for responding to the argument and not the authors.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Ian Gibson

Mon Aug 20 21:47:54 -0700 2007

manage

Exactly. Send them to Venus and see if they change their minds about greenhouse effects

These guys are all over the road

Bruce Perens

Mon Aug 20 22:11:10 -0700 2007

manage

Between the snarky remarks about energy taxes and the irrelevant discussion of ham radio around page 46, these guys are all over the road with stuff that isn't really related to the physics - their own criticism of others. Their wild discussion of ham radio confuses short-wave RF with short-wave light, which of course is in a different spectral band by far. It looks to me as if they are intending to confuse the reader with some of this material, or someone involved with this paper is just crazy.

These guys are all over the road

Wayne Gramlich

Mon Aug 20 23:35:07 -0700 2007

manage

My reading of the paper is that the authors are claiming
atmospheric heat transfer is not dominated by radiant
heating, but is instead dominated by convection and
conduction.  My ability to follow the math is limited,
so I may have gotten it wrong.

I know that current climate models do take into account
other forms of heat transfer into account other that than
radiation, but to the best of my knowlege they put most
of the emphasis on radiation. If (big if) radiation is not
dominant, then the current climate models are really
suspect.

Since zogger takes so much time and effort tracking down
these papers, I wish more people on Technocrat would
actually read the papers and comment on the paper contents
rather than engage in ad hominum attacks on the authors,
posters, etc.

These guys are all over the road

Simon

Tue Aug 21 15:48:06 -0700 2007

manage

But the paper is a load of shit. It is full of irrelevant details. Makes obviously bizarre claims about what can and can't be solved by modern computers, that one can't define a global mean temperature, and other obviously silly claims.

They take about 30 pages to point out that the "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer because greenhouses warm due to suppression of convection. Whilst how good a model or metaphor this is is debatable in my view, the basic point could be made in one sentence, not 30 sides, and I would expect it to be in a physics paper.

Just skip to the physicist summary, and see how many of the "conclusions" are obviously false.

Anyone who calls water hydrogen dioxide is pulling your leg scientifically.

These guys are all over the road

hal9000_sn3

Mon Aug 20 23:54:44 -0700 2007

manage

My reaction on first skimming the piece was that it seems like a hoax. A lot of the physics ends up with such untenable conclusions that there is reason to suspect that someone is making an indirect point that the field is getting bogged down in papers that have lots of good logic wasted on bad data, and good data wasted in poor analysis.

In my opinion there are a lot of papers being submitted that are not really up to the task of informing public policy.

But, be that as it may, a fraudulent paper is not the way to improve the quality of the discourse.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

isdnip

Mon Aug 20 22:13:38 -0700 2007

manage

And how is it that this topic tonight has, on the bottom, an ad from a fundie church that ends with "evolution is impossible"?  Is that an ad from a server that figured the topic fit, or did somebody plant it here?

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Alan

Mon Aug 20 22:42:33 -0700 2007

manage

Google no doubt triggered on your 1st response.

Its associations can be rather amusing, though I blocked them a while ago when I started getting flash ads.

OT (Adblocking)

Jim Hill

Tue Aug 21 21:55:39 -0700 2007

manage

Instead of blocking them all, block just the image ads like I do:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad*
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/googleadplayer.swf

Adservers don't treat me like prey, I go out of my way not to treat them like prey.

OT (Adblocking)

Alan

Tue Aug 21 22:14:08 -0700 2007

manage

I don't see any point in being so discriminating. Ads are just noise to me, I've never clicked on one, so displaying it on my screen does no one any good.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

hal9000_sn3

Tue Aug 21 00:23:35 -0700 2007

manage

A few of the weirder arguments:

Greenhouses (or glasshouses) don't accumulate heat the same way the atmosphere does, so we should be discussing the atmospheric affect, not the greenhouse affect.

Doubling the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere would have a negligible effect on the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere.

The blackbody radiation calculation cannot be used because within a volume enclosed by a cube the size of the wavelength of infrared there are so many molecules it is a many body problem that is beyond our ability to calculate.

For the .03 percent of the atmosphere that is CO2 to be responsible for 20 percent of the supposed greenhouse effect would require CO2 to be such an anomalously good insulator that it would be a known laboratory curiosity.

... (to be continued)

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Alcibiades

Tue Aug 21 02:45:11 -0700 2007

manage

The paper is an odd one, but there is a serious question about this subject, and it is unrelated to who funds who for what.

It is generally admitted that the current CO2 rise in itself will have little effect on global temperatures. The forecast is that it will however have large and dramatic effects because there are strong positive feedbacks to amplify its rather small effect, and no negative feedbacks to damp them.

Whether this is true or not is an empirical question. There is now evidence that there are negative feedbacks. This was the disputed 'iris' hypothesis of Lindzen, but Spencer has done recent research which demonstrates that it exists.

There is also an issue, well documented by Spencer, which is, whether the methods used to summarize and record the data in trends by averaging will produce the appearance of positive feedbacks where none exist. Now, climate scientists have form on this. We recall Mann and Co in their '98 article, essentially using an algorithm to do Principal Components Analysis which required them to use the series mean, but in fact used some other number. The result was that random noise could be made to look like a hockey stick curve.

So it is not out of the question (i) that there are negative feedback processes which will minimize the effects of any extra CO2 we put into the atmosphere (ii) that the positive feedbacks the current models have are based on evidence which is manufactured by the coding process. It is quite plausible.

For more, go to Pielke's blog at Colorado U.

The paper may or may not be right about the physics. But skepticism about CO2 and climate is not like denying evolution. There are real uncertainties about the data and the conclusions.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Tue Aug 21 14:42:33 -0700 2007

manage

Now that was a post worth of "Slashdot for grownups".

To amplify, without any feedback a doubling of CO2 would raise temperatures by about 0.8 degrees C. One of the biggest but most uncertain feedbacks is increased evaporation. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but clouds can either trap heat or block it. Add in the others and you get the IPCC range of 1.5 to 5.8 degrees, and the long tail of even higher possibilities that there's not yet a consensus on.

To be strictly on topic, though, the physics of CO2's absorption spectrum has been known for 150 years and confirmed by satellite measurements, which show less longwave IR coming off the planet than a blackbody spectrum would predict.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Adam Hazzlebank

Tue Aug 21 03:08:24 -0700 2007

manage

A few people seem to have chided you for posting this. I just wanted to say thanks, it provoked some interesting discussion and I wasn't aware anti-climate people (possibly funded my big oil) produced papers like this, it's an interesting phenomenon in itself.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Matt Fulkerson

Tue Aug 21 05:22:28 -0700 2007

manage

It's a joke, people. I look forward to having time to sift through it and have a good laugh.

models

rubycodez

Tue Aug 21 07:47:09 -0700 2007

manage

we can't make even a simple analytical model of the earth's heat budget that agrees in any way with observed reality (without "cooking the books"), it's beyond the ability of science at this time as there are too many unknown ways for energy to be stored, converted and transferred that are unaccountable.

So the paper is silly, just as climate modeling is silly.  And that may be the authors' point.

Physicists claim ... the Effect is not like a Greenhouse!

mengel

Tue Aug 21 08:53:51 -0700 2007

manage

Actually, they're not claiming there is no warming, they are saying  (in their claim (a)) that the analogy to a greenhouse is flawed.  And on that score, they're right.  CO2 in the atmosphere really acts nothing like a greenhouse.

As to their other claims, for example that "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet", well I have to disagree.  Any such caclulation (short of it being based on temperature sensors scattered evenly and densely accross the planet) will have some margin of error, and you could assert that the margin of error of such a calculation exceeds the claimed increase in temperature (which does not appear to be their assertion), but to say that you cannot calculate one is just silly.

As to the meta discussion of whether such articles should be posted here, I think they should.   These articles are being dug up and used by lobbyists and oil industry groups to discredit the meteorological institutions of the world, to prevent public policy being made based on their advice; and if you want to intelligently deal with those discreditors, you need to know what their claims are going to be. 

And of course, there are probably some valid criticisms of the weather modelling tools being used by the climate modellers out there.   After all, we all know that the models they use diverge measurably from each other and from the real weather in a matter of days.

On the other hand, those models diverge must faster from the real world if you don't include CO2 levels...

Some discussion by someone who's read the paper.

Elrac

Tue Aug 21 10:39:44 -0700 2007

manage

I agree with many others that the criticism of Zogger was unnecessary. It's not in the interest of free dissemination of information (which is what this blog is about) to silence the journalist if he presents a non-mainstream idea.

Instead, all that bile and animosity would be better directed at the assholes who wrote the paper. Someone has already pointed out that at least one of them was previously on a team of science-whores on the payroll of Big Tobacco, and there published obviously fraudulent or at least misleading information. Yep, you're right, that has nothing to do with the merits of this paper. But it does turn on a few warning lights.

Now to the paper. For the benefit of you, gentle readers, I've not spared myself the pain: I've read about 40% of it. That's one of my qualifications for claiming to discuss this knowledgeably. My other is that, while not a professional scientist, I am a very well informed amateur scientist, and it so happens that my specialty while still in school was physics.

I've read scientific papers, and this ain't one. A scientific paper is aimed at other scientists, explaining the work and findings of the authors and presenting them for review and discussion. This paper is a mix of mathematical acrobatics, seemingly for the hell of it, and layman-level explanations aimed at children and managers. It's pure propaganda, it's opinion-mongering mixed with mud-slinging.

A few examples:

• The authors bemoan the fact that molecules zinging around and absorbing and emitting radiation cannot be adequately modeled, because that would fall into the realm of the (computationally "hard") N-body problem. Only a nutcase would try this stunt, though, because an accepted and proven way to deal with energy in gases is by considering a volume of gas as a whole, and applying statistical methods instead.
• They carelessly throw around numbers with apparently arbitrary precision. They're trying to make a simple qualitative statement, like "there ain't no greenhouse effect," yet they provide, where available, numbers with 6 significant digits of precision. Why? To prove they can copy tables?
• They babble endlessly about irrelevancies. More than a full page is devoted to a calculation of how much energy from the Sun is received on Earth. Hell, it's a lot easier to determine this empirically, and it's a well known quantity. Why all the handwaving?
• They completely lost it at "2.2 The Sun as black body radiator." What has obviously escaped these scientists is that the Sun is not just a hot body inertly glowing away its stored heat; rather, energy (at a wide range of wavelengths) is actively being generated there, and and in a constantly moving and highly complex surface of widely varying temperatures. Thus, it makes no sense to treat the Sun as a black body. These folks are just waffling.
• Similarly, treating the Earth as a black body is silly too: The Earth's reflectivity varies widely depending on what the surface is covered with. That's why melting ice caps are such a concern: Under the highly reflective ice sits dull, dark and absorbent ground, which accounts for a positive feedback effect.
• The discussion about cars in the sun and cardboard greenhouses is totally inane. While ostentatively trying to educate the reader, the authors are just throwing up smoke to confuse the issue.
• As someone else pointed out before, the discussion of radio shortwaves in connection with global warming is completely irrelevant and misleading.

I'll admit to being not the greatest authority, but my assessment of this paper is that it's pure bullshit.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

krp

Tue Aug 21 12:18:58 -0700 2007

manage

Ah the beautiful irony of it all.

Once again this paper shows what global warming really is (and has been) -- a hoax.

Or, to put it another way: Global warming is merely environmental wackos spewing forth hot air.

krp

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Rob

Tue Aug 21 13:41:53 -0700 2007

manage

Zogger, please don't be discouraged by all this shouting.
I am pretty new to the Technocrat board.  I was attracted to it because when I read the postings it seemed to me that a lot of intelligent people were discussing both sides of a lot of interesting issues.  You do your research and you post good stuff from both sides of a question, which seems to be the problem some of these guys have with you.  But that is the essence of a scientific discussion, isn't it?  To consider both sides of a question, to explore the possibilities?
Now, you may have perceived from some of my previous posts that I am doubtful about some of the supposed science behind the theory of global warming, particularly as it relates to causal factors.  That does not mean that I will not read, and consider, contrary evidence.
I see a lot of discussion about Big Oil (and Big Tobacco, what, are the ciggys causing global warming?) driving any study that dares to question the media supported theory.  To me, that is a sure sign that poster is attempting to shut down serious discussion of the issue by casting aspersions on the motivation of the scientists involved.  They do not attack the science.   They are not capable of it.
In the spirit of abandoning the scientific method and ascribing all scientific theories to manipulations of industry, let me propose a theory.  In some of my previous posts, I pointed out that there are winners and losers in climate change.  Similarly, there are winners and losers in large hysteria driven social movements, such as Global Warming caused by Primates.  In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal that I used to turn matter into energy for a living.  Now I write procedures instructing newer guys on how to turn matter into energy for a living.  For 25 years, I worked in a dying industry.  Then came Global Warming.  Suddenly, a large number of new nuclear plants are being planned for construction.  Let me pretend that I am one of those guys who substitute corporate guilt for scientific thought for a minute here...My hypothesis is that the theory of Global Warming caused by Primates is a conspiracy initiated by Big Nuclear...and let me tell ya guys, it is working.
Another flag of a poster who disdains the scientific method is the use of the term "denier."  This is a historically loaded term with legal consequences in some countries.  The implication is that the theory that is being denied is undoubtedly true, making denial of the theory stupid, an indication of mental illness, or criminal.  The term has come into vogue in the global warming discussion because the proponents of this theory hope to emulate the European laws against Holocaust denial.  Again, it is not about the science, true science welcomes discussions of both sides of an issue.  This is an attempt to shut down the discussion.  I am not a Global Warming denier.  I am a Global Warming skeptic, a Global Warming thinker, a Global Warming questioner...
But I digress.  Zogger, I like your posts even when I might not agree with the subject matter, I can tell you spend a lot of time and effort looking for these things to provide us with great articles to discuss.  Keep up the good work.

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Rob

Tue Aug 21 15:52:56 -0700 2007

manage

I have been reading the source article (something I would recommend to any poster who uses the terms "Big [enter diabolical corporate entity here]" or "denier") and it is interesting stuff.
Editor: the discussion of ham radio appears to be an attempt to show the fallacy of using illustrations from ham radio manuals to show how global warming works.
I am not unfamiliar to thermodynamic theory, although he does lose me on the more elegant mathematics, and on the whole he seems to be presenting a reasoned argument...which is what you want to see from a scientist.  If you do not agree with what he is saying, posters, perhaps you could read the paper to detect any scientific errors in it, rather than resorting to emotional arguments.

Things from the article that I agree with:

However, in general "scientific consensus" is not related whatsoever to scientifc truth as
countless examples in history have shown. "Consensus" is a political term, not a scientifc
term.

"To derive a climate catastrophe from these computer games and scare mankind to death
is a crime."

Now, this is what science sounds like:
2.5 Experiment by Wood
Although the warming phenomenon in a glass house is due to the suppression of convection,
say air cooling, it remains true that most glasses absorb infrared light at wavelength 1 m
and higher almost completely.
An experimentum crucis therefore is to build a glass house with panes consisting of NaCl
or KCl, which are transparent to visible light as well as infrared light. For rock salt (NaCl)
such an experiment was realized as early as 1909 by Wood [112{115]:
\There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature
produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation,
results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from
the Sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure
and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form
of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse
acting as a radiation trap.
I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part
in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part
played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by
the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold
and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its ecacy. As a
matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent
to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite,
as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar
radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only
the limited amount within the enclosure. In the \open", the ground is continually
brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one
covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness.
The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed
in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When
exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 C, the enclosure covered
with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it
transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In
order to eliminate this action the sunlight was rst passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a dierence of one degree between the temperatures of the
two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 C. From what
we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted
by a body at 55 C, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting
practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the
loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the
loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance
that the radiation is trapped.
Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the
temperature of a planet as aected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate
the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact
and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere,
remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to
me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing
the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.
I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note
merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a
very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar."

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

bi-ker-shi

Thu Aug 23 03:05:32 -0700 2007

manage

Thanks zogger for your efforts finding all this interesting stuff. The challenge and fun in this one is to review their arguments and find any flaws. The paper is beyond the extent of my expertise, but if I were a betting man, I would be betting that peer review will quickly debunk their arguments.

I think there is far too much focus on the fine details on modelling things like the atmosphere. As I have stated previously, you don't really need such modelling to estimate the effect of CO2. From space measure the black body spectrum of a night time spot on the earth. There will be absoption bands with gaps. Plot the peaks and fit to a black body profile then calculate the amount of energy blocked in the absoption bands. H2O is responsible for most of the absoption bands, but some are due to CO2 etc. For these bands calculate the percentage of the radiation blocked.

There is a simple exponential relationship between the amount of radiation blocked and the partial pressure of CO2 in the air. Thus you can calculate the amount of additional energy that must be radiated through the remaining gaps when say the CO2 goes from 400ppm to 500ppm. This requires the temperature of the black body profile to increase.

I have done these calculations myself and get results that are close to those published by the Inter Government Panel. This is good enough for me.  

Physicists claim there is no Greenhouse Effect

Rob

Thu Aug 23 16:30:11 -0700 2007

manage

Did you factor in natural feedback effects like increased temperature leading to increased water vapor in the atmosphere "responsible for most of the absorption bands", or did you look at the effects of CO2 in isolation from the dynamic interplay of the different factors that control the global temperature?
Chaos theory suggests that even if you did, the result may not be accurate.

Did somebody say chaos?

bi-ker-shi

Fri Aug 24 01:39:44 -0700 2007

manage

In the early nineties when chaos theory became popular, there were many of these mathematicians employed on the street, in a search to find way to predict the market. Five years on, as reported by the Economist, these chaos theorists had failed to deliver and were out of favour. The article carried a photo of a particularly nerdy looking chap with ears pricked up: "Did somebody say chaos?", read the caption.

The IGPCC report indicated that human CO2 emmissions contributed about 0.7 of a degree compared to pre-industrial times. Hardly enough to induce chaotic feedback effects surely?

My point is simply this: if you put on an overcoat on a chilly day, you expect to feel warmer, i.e. loose less heat. Likewise CO2 should reduce the amount of heat the Earth looses and this must be compensated by either higher temperatures or absorption by buffers like the sea. The question is however: is the extra CO2 like a thick overcoat or is it like a flynet shirt? My calculations confirm that the IGPCC findings are about where I would expect them to be. I am not really concerned about buffering and feedback effects. I do believe though that the feedback loop is positive and not negative as some have claimed. (more heat = more clouds = less inbound heat).

The IGPCC came up with a very linear model with minor positive feedback and came under criticism from both sides of the debate. I am of course concerned that they underestimated tipping points like the loss of the greenland ice shelf, ot the thawing arctic permafrost dumping methane into the air.