AGW and Model Failures- An Engineers Point of View....

[RKMBrown]

Why the hell is it that every goober that comes on here thinking they know more than scientists immediatly seize on the fact that water vapor is the primary GHG? Do they really think that the scientists don't know this? And do you know why water vapor is not considered the primary problem? It has an average lifespan in the atmosphere of less than 10 days. Then it comes out as rain. If you completely dried out the atmosphere, it would immediatly take up water from the ocean. If you created an atmosphere with 100% humidity, in less than 10 days, it would be back to normal humidity.

The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will be with us for hundreds, in not thousands, of years. And the warming of the atmosphere from CO2 will evaporate more water, creating more water vapor in the atmosphere, and creating a feedback making the atmosphere much warmer than the CO2 would do by itself.

What a moron. Yeah that's right in TEN DAYS WE'RE GONNA RUN OUT OF WATER! ROFL You just can't make up the stupid shit you global warming freaks come up with.

 

[RKMBrown]

The engineers writing on climate sicence are almost always crippled by tunnel-vision. They assume that their own specialty must apply to every single thing in the universe. That guy tried to apply his own knowledge of electronic feedback loops to climate systems, and came up with something like StarTrek technobabble. It was a word salad that meant nothing sensible, being he didn't understand the basic concepts. And then it got worse. Read to the end, and he goes off into full-scale conspiracy ranting.

Good climate scientists have to be generalists, and they have to know statistics inside and out. Engineers rarely have either skill. The craziest deniers tend to have the words "retired engineer" by their name.

ROFL what a fucking moron you are.

Silly asshole, have you nothing at all to say, other than 'moron'? Probably not, that would require a bit of thought.

We've had this EFFING SAME CONVERSATION 5000 TIMES YA MORON. Has your view on this topic changed? Or did you forget the other 4999 times we discussed it?

And for the 5001st time, I will state that you are an ignoramous with zero knowledge of the science, and a willing liar for the energy companies.

ROFL

 

[Billy_Bob]

Current modeling only includes POSITIVE FEEDBACKS. This is why they fail every time. There must be negative feedback for any oscillation to be stable. Since these idiots dont believe in negative feedbacks their models runaway...

That is complete and utter nonsense. Let's see some evidence supporting that claim Billy Bob. Prove for us that NO GCM takes albedo from cloud cover, mineral dust, sulfate and nitrate aerosols or land use changes into account. Prove for us that NO GCM includes terms for Le Chatelier shifts in the carbon cycle, for weathering effects, for increase agricultural productivity, for negative lapse rate feedback or increased blackbody radiation.

Dr. Norman Page:
"They do know about it – but simply ignore it when making their models – See section 1.3.2 and Fig 2 of my post at

Climatesense-norpag Climate Forecasting Methods and Cooling Forecasts - 4 Year Update.

“1.3.2
The IPCC climate models are further incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First, that CO2 is the main climate driver. Second, that in calculating climate sensitivity, the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a positive feed back effect. Third, that the GHE of water vapour is always positive. As to the last point, the feedbacks cannot be always positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. For example, an important negative feed back related to Tropical Cyclones has recently been investigated by Trenberth, see:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt "

 

[RKMBrown]

We're all gonna die! Now pay me to make everything better! ROFL hacks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the thickening is "Anomalous" lol

 

[Billy_Bob]

the thickening is "Anomalous" lol

NO.. Its called a Cooling trend..

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/r....1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's a list of all the lab experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 2-7 degrees and turn sea water to gastric juice:

End of list

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here's a list of all the lab experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature 2-7 degrees and turn sea water to gastric juice:

End of list

 

[jc456]

The engineers writing on climate sicence are almost always crippled by tunnel-vision. They assume that their own specialty must apply to every single thing in the universe. That guy tried to apply his own knowledge of electronic feedback loops to climate systems, and came up with something like StarTrek technobabble. It was a word salad that meant nothing sensible, being he didn't understand the basic concepts. And then it got worse. Read to the end, and he goes off into full-scale conspiracy ranting.

Good climate scientists have to be generalists, and they have to know statistics inside and out. Engineers rarely have either skill. The craziest deniers tend to have the words "retired engineer" by their name.

ROFL what a fucking moron you are.

Silly asshole, have you nothing at all to say, other than 'moron'? Probably not, that would require a bit of thought.

We've had this EFFING SAME CONVERSATION 5000 TIMES YA MORON. Has your view on this topic changed? Or did you forget the other 4999 times we discussed it?

And for the 5001st time, I will state that you are an ignoramous with zero knowledge of the science, and a willing liar for the energy companies.

and yet, you can't desprove Herr Koch's experiment from 1901. dude, provide your lab work first before you go off half cocked with your normal insulting behavior. See, you still haven't produced it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not a scientist but I can understand gravity and Relativity. What's so mysterious about the Fake non-science of "manmade global warming" that only someone getting paid to spew it is supposedly able to understand it?

 

[mamooth]

The preceding squealing tantrums are why I keep suggesting testosterone supplements as a cure for denialism.

 

[IanC]

I'm not a scientist but I can understand gravity and Relativity. What's so mysterious about the Fake non-science of "manmade global warming" that only someone getting paid to spew it is supposedly able to understand it?

Yup. What I don't understand is why so many of the townfolk still think the Emperor's new clothes look so fine. They club the boy for speaking the obvious and demand more gold be given to the charlatans.

 

[Old Rocks]

The engineers writing on climate sicence are almost always crippled by tunnel-vision. They assume that their own specialty must apply to every single thing in the universe. That guy tried to apply his own knowledge of electronic feedback loops to climate systems, and came up with something like StarTrek technobabble. It was a word salad that meant nothing sensible, being he didn't understand the basic concepts. And then it got worse. Read to the end, and he goes off into full-scale conspiracy ranting.

Good climate scientists have to be generalists, and they have to know statistics inside and out. Engineers rarely have either skill. The craziest deniers tend to have the words "retired engineer" by their name.

ROFL what a fucking moron you are.

Silly asshole, have you nothing at all to say, other than 'moron'? Probably not, that would require a bit of thought.

We've had this EFFING SAME CONVERSATION 5000 TIMES YA MORON. Has your view on this topic changed? Or did you forget the other 4999 times we discussed it?

And for the 5001st time, I will state that you are an ignoramous with zero knowledge of the science, and a willing liar for the energy companies.

and yet, you can't desprove Herr Koch's experiment from 1901. dude, provide your lab work first before you go off half cocked with your normal insulting behavior. See, you still haven't produced it.

Herr Kochs experiment has been shown to be invalid many times.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little (7*)

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)

Interesting that none of the people that were so vocal in critisizeing Arrhenius are much remembered, with the exception of Angstrom, while you cannot study chemistry without repeatedly seeing Arrhenius's name.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm not a scientist but I can understand gravity and Relativity. What's so mysterious about the Fake non-science of "manmade global warming" that only someone getting paid to spew it is supposedly able to understand it?

Yup. What I don't understand is why so many of the townfolk still think the Emperor's new clothes look so fine. They club the boy for speaking the obvious and demand more gold be given to the charlatans.

Well, it seems you have chosen your peer group, Ian. Good luck with that.

 

[jc456]

The preceding squealing tantrums are why I keep suggesting testosterone supplements as a cure for denialism.

classic!!!!

 

[jc456]

ROFL what a fucking moron you are.

Silly asshole, have you nothing at all to say, other than 'moron'? Probably not, that would require a bit of thought.

We've had this EFFING SAME CONVERSATION 5000 TIMES YA MORON. Has your view on this topic changed? Or did you forget the other 4999 times we discussed it?

And for the 5001st time, I will state that you are an ignoramous with zero knowledge of the science, and a willing liar for the energy companies.

and yet, you can't desprove Herr Koch's experiment from 1901. dude, provide your lab work first before you go off half cocked with your normal insulting behavior. See, you still haven't produced it.

Herr Kochs experiment has been shown to be invalid many times.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little (7*)

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)

Interesting that none of the people that were so vocal in critisizeing Arrhenius are much remembered, with the exception of Angstrom, while you cannot study chemistry without repeatedly seeing Arrhenius's name.

Still doesn't make his statement correct without some proof. So old stocking why not present that lab work that indeed falsifies the findings you highlighted. I'm still waiting.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, JC, why the continued lying? Many experiments done, the first in 1858 by Tyndall that show that CO2 is a potent GHG. But, really, it is not about the fact that we are screwing up the atmosphere, creating a problem for ourselves with a rapid warming that is totally outside our experiance. The problem is that the very rich bastards may have to lose a few dollars because they can no longer ruin the land and pollute the air, land, and water, gaining their riches.

You poor crackers haven't a pot to piss in, but you are going to lie and do whatever you can to protect their riches, to the detriment of your own childrens future.

 

[IanC]

Just out of curiosity- Old Rocks did you read either of Engineer in Langley's two articles on CO2 and the climate system?

 

[Old Rocks]

Just out of curiosity- Old Rocks did you read either of Engineer in Langley's two articles on CO2 and the climate system?

Published where, Ian? In WUWT, in that case, no, and will not. Don't have time for National Enquirer level science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ROFL what a fucking moron you are.

Silly asshole, have you nothing at all to say, other than 'moron'? Probably not, that would require a bit of thought.

We've had this EFFING SAME CONVERSATION 5000 TIMES YA MORON. Has your view on this topic changed? Or did you forget the other 4999 times we discussed it?

And for the 5001st time, I will state that you are an ignoramous with zero knowledge of the science, and a willing liar for the energy companies.

and yet, you can't desprove Herr Koch's experiment from 1901. dude, provide your lab work first before you go off half cocked with your normal insulting behavior. See, you still haven't produced it.

Herr Kochs experiment has been shown to be invalid many times.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little (7*)

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

The subtle difference was scarcely noticed for many decades, if only because hardly anyone thought the greenhouse effect was worth their attention. After Ångström published his conclusions in 1900, the small group of scientists who had taken an interest in the matter concluded that Arrhenius's hypothesis had been proven wrong and turned to other problems. Arrhenius responded with a long paper, criticizing Koch's measurement in scathing terms. He also developed complicated arguments to explain that absorption of radiation in the upper layers was important, water vapor was not important in those very dry layers, and anyway the bands of the spectrum where water vapor was absorbed did not entirely overlap the CO2 absorption bands. Other scientists seem not to have noticed or understood the paper. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(10*)

Interesting that none of the people that were so vocal in critisizeing Arrhenius are much remembered, with the exception of Angstrom, while you cannot study chemistry without repeatedly seeing Arrhenius's name.

The Early Warmers "Published a scathing paper" but they offered none of their own experiments in response

They still haven't