archive

Thursday, April 6, 2006

Chicken Little for Vice-President!!!

Just enjoyed a very competent gutting of former- clinton’s- vice- president- and- failed- Democrat- presidential- candidate- who- contested- the- election- he- lost- and- threw- the- country- into- a- turmoil- that- continues- to- cause- great- harm- and- is- a- comfort- to- our- enemies Al Gore and a crony, named, somehow, Blood - *ahem* ... Blood and Gore - who were attempting to fake their way through another Eco-political Manifesto about the evils of capitalism when compared to, to, um, well, to everything else. If only, they lament, if only we had Aladdin’s Wonderful Lamp, only without the oil. We want ... we want the genie. We want a magical world where we can fly on our private magic carpets – like our private jets, now – and where those nasty busyness men work for the greatest good for the greatest number, just like our hero Karl Marx ordained. Well, I made up that last part – I think I did – but you get the idea. Point being, Nick Tredenick provides a clear example of clear thinking, and it’s refreshing to see logic and competent critical thinking applied to the rantings I mean writings of public fools I mean figures.

Here’s my two cents worth. As I’ve intimated here and there, I’ve done theoretical research into what we of a certain persuasion are pleased to call catastrophism. Reading Tredenick recalled to my mind an odd fact that I must have used once. Water absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide. The greater the surface area of the planet – THE PLANET!!! – covered by water, the more carbon is absorbed into the oceans. Upshot is, if glaciers and ice-caps start to melt, and sea level starts to rise, then of course more of THE PLANET!!! is covered with water – the surface area of the oceans is greater. Which means more carbon dioxide – that evil greenhouse gas - would be removed from the atmosphere. Which means less heat would be held in the atmosphere. Which means THE PLANET!!! would cool. Which means GLOBAL WARMING!!! would give way to global cooling … just like in the ’70s, remember?

Again, and about which I have written extensively, if THE PLANET!!! were to grow warmer, then the oceans would grow warmer, at least at the surface. Warmer water evaporates at a higher rate. This puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. This causes more cloud cover. This cloud cover reflects solar radiation away from THE PLANET!!! This cools the surface of THE PLANET!!! and the oceans. This reverses GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Obviously, the requisite flooding of low-lying coastal areas – from higher oceans and more rain – would be a problem for locals. Obviously there are questions: would enough CO2 be absorbed to undo the foul work of Detroit and its minion of SUV drivers? – would enough cloud cover be generated to foil the evil scheme of the capitalist land speculators who are buying up icy mountaintops and frozen tundra in a cynical bid to develop retirement condos in those soon-to-be balmy climes? But the lesson here, from these two data points, is that THE PLANET!!! is a complex homeostatic system. Somehow, the bazillions of tons of ash that various volcanoes spout into the atmosphere, get scrubbed out, and the rains continue to fall and the crops to grow.

I have no problem with conservationism. Big problem with the religion of environmentalism, but conservationism is what some folks call stewardship. It is a powerful conservative principle, and an act of common decency. I’ve got a huge problem with shoddy thinking and junk science. It’s like junk politics – grand theories about how things ought to be, so let’s pretend it really is that way even though it flies in the face of universal actual human experience. Is mankind basically good or basically evil? It’s not a statistical question – we can’t average together the huge data base of indifferent moments, which are basically good, with those relatively rare instances of evil. It’s a question that has meaning only at the moment of temptation. Framed thus, you have only to examine yourself, to answer the question. The old Mae West line is, I can resist anything except temptation. Self-delusion is a huge temptation.

Does all that seem like a digression? Well, yes, I suppose it would. It has to do with clarity of thought, of analysis. It has to do with the intellectual courage to examine all the data, and approach a question with some integrity. Al Gore and his congregation need to question their religion.

Just wanted to share some ideas. Did you enjoy them?


J

18 comments:

Jack H said...

oh; yes!!!! jAcjk h!!! i did to injoy them. !! and u r so smrat!! to!!!

sined annonnommouse!!!!!

Anonymous said...

an me to!!!! i allso injoieyed ur exsellant artacall abowt how bad gor is an stuff!! u r rilly smart dewd!!!!!!! an good!!

sind anonnomous but not the othr gi and not Jack h ethar!!!!

AnOnnonous but difrant!!! said...

o gack h!!!!! u r da bom!!!%! haha!!! i luv how u r so goud 2!!!!! haha!! an gor an them is so dum tooo!!!

sined anmonomuss

Anonymous said...

Jack,

I feel sorry for you.

Again, and about which I have written extensively, if THE PLANET!!! were to grow warmer, then the oceans would grow warmer, at least at the surface. Warmer water evaporates at a higher rate. This puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. This causes more cloud cover. This cloud cover reflects solar radiation away from THE PLANET!!! This cools the surface of THE PLANET!!! and the oceans. This reverses GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Wrong for so many reasons, not the least of which belies that you've never taken a chemistry or thermodynamics course. See, when a liquid evaporates, it actually LOWERS the temperature of the remaining liquid. Duh.

And the only reason that I even bothered to tell you that, is I was working on your implied (and asinine) assumption that because the temperature of the oceans might rise 1 degree, we'd have more water evaporating from the ocean. Nevermind the fact that water still evaporates at the same temperature regardless, and raising the baseline by a degree would not affect the rate at which the water takes on heat from the sun, thus meaning that amount of water evaporating would not change significantly.

Good God, there's more, but I don't think this blog is worth the time it took you to drop your turd of a post spewing lies about Gore on Salon's Daou report.

Anonymous said...

"I’ve got a huge problem with shoddy thinking and junk science."

Yet you write tripe based on shoddy thinking and junk science. Nicely done. U-r sew ginius doood.

Jack H said...

Anonymous the First -

There were so many ways I could have addressed your two points. But I'll just address them. You're presenting yourself as someone with some knowledge in the field, so I won't condescend - despite the implied and actual disrespect. There are two, shall we say, misunderstandings here.

"See, when a liquid evaporates, it actually LOWERS the temperature of the remaining liquid. Duh." By this you are attempting to prove ... what? That evaporation is a homeostatic mechanism? This, good sir or madame, was my point. If the ambient temp rises, the ocean temperature rises. Not, as you seem to imagine I seem to imagine, infinitely. Yes, we agree that by transferring vapor into the atmosphere, the oceans will self-regulate. Um. Duh.

"...assumption that because the temperature of the oceans might rise 1 degree, we'd have more water evaporating from the ocean. Never mind the fact that water still evaporates at the same temperature regardless, and raising the baseline by a degree would not affect the rate at which the water takes on heat from the sun, thus meaning that amount of water evaporating would not change significantly."

Um,. there's this thing called "humidity," which is a sort of measure of sort of "liquid" (we call it "vapor") in the "air" (what we breathe). This "humidity" can rise - that is, there can be more "vapor" in the air. So the "atmosphere" can and does hold more or less "water" at various times, depending on conditions. Heated air holds more of this "water" - the "molecules" are more "excited." Now, water "evaporates" more rapidly, when more heat is added. This is proved, say, when your mother heats up your chocolate milk at bedtime. If she turns up the heat on the stove, the milk will boil, and boil away more rapidly. The milk in this case, and water in some other case, does not exceed its "boiling point" - instead, the heat is transferred away through evaporation. Your confusing seems to hinge on a feeble grasp on the difference between evaporation rate and boiling temperature.

Oh, dang. I got sarcastic. Honestly, Anonymous, I'm sorry.

----

A2:

Say hello to your little friend.




J

Anonymous said...

Wow, J. I'm surprised you actually respond to posters who disagree with you. I'm touched, really - all your pathetic attempts at humor aside - I appreciate the reply.

The milk in this case, and water in some other case, does not exceed its "boiling point" - instead, the heat is transferred away through evaporation. Your confusing seems to hinge on a feeble grasp on the difference between evaporation rate and boiling temperature.

Oh, dang. I got sarcastic. Honestly, Anonymous, I'm sorry.



My confusing [sic] with your logic hinges on the fact that your statement in the main entry said nothing about air temperature. You simply said that the water in the ocean would evaporate faster if the "planet gets warmer". Then you go on to say (in your reply) that the heat (of evaporation) is "transferred away". Wow, how neat, J. To where does it "transfer away" I wonder. The rest of the water, thus cooling(an endothermic reaction) the ocean and yes, self regulating - if you will. So what then happens to your faster rate of evaporation?

You ever walked into a greenhouse without the air conditioner on during the summer? It's hotter (and more humid)than outside. Care to guess why that is? Maybe because heat is TRAPPED. You seem to be forwarding some kind of perverted nuclear winter theory about cloud cover reflecting sunlight, when in fact ambient temperatures would actually go UP in pretty much any cloud cover situation other than total cloud cover - because heat absorbed would be trapped. Unless, of course you ARE arguing some kind of complete cloud cover-nuclear winter type scenario. But you're a man of science, right Jack?

I bet you have something to say about "intelligent design" too, right?

Oh, wait. I'm using logic. You have faith. Sorry. Enjoy your warm chocolate milk, and I promise - I won't rub it in that I'm pretty much the only visitor your "blog" has ever had.

Jack H said...

Ann -

"confusing (sic)" Present imperfect, my child. Like life. Rather a metaphor, isn't it, for your existential dissatisfaction with reality. A common liberal malady.



"You simply said that the water in the ocean would evaporate faster if the "planet gets warmer"." Well, I'll take your word for it. It's too much trouble for me to lift my eyes to some supposed higher paragraph. I did assume (always a danger when communicating with a stranger) that you'd look for meaning, rather than parse syntax in the most awkward way possible. By "planet gets warmer" I didn’t dream that someone could think I meant “the core of THE PLANET is getting hotter!!!!!!!” One of your bugaboos is greenhouse gases which act upon the atmosphere. This, actually, would be the relevant part of THE PLANET to which I referred. And this would have an effect on the, uh, “surface” of the planet (yes, it bored me, too, after a while). Understand? I can, if you really need it, supply a chart of what I mean. I could diagram the sentence, if necessary.

“To where does it "transfer away" I wonder.” (‘To where’ – you mean ‘whither.’) Whither does it transfer? Again, one should have hoped you’d look to understand. So, I’ll explain: The earth is a planet. It revolves around the sun. It receives solar radiation, which is “transformed” (a word rather like “transferred” – but I want you to try hard to understand my meaning) into heat in the atmosphere and when it reaches the planets surface. Now you might think (and seem to) that being “hit” with all this “heat,” the planet would get hotter and hotter and hotter – like the bath your mother pours for you. Because, after all, the planet is getting so much “heat.” But even though it’s getting so very much heat, it remains “the same” temperature. For, you see, the planet “loses” heat, on “average,” (you’ll get that next year in school) at the same rate at which it gains it. Into *space!*

“an endothermic reaction”
http://bloatedmonster.blogspot.com/2006/04/exciting-adventure-of-mysterious.html

“So what then happens to your faster rate of evaporation?” Your first comment, with it’s reference to academe, led me to imagine that you had a hard science background – perhaps you were a junior majoring in some related field, I imagined. It is in the nature of homeostatic systems to adapt. “What happens?” As long as the atmosphere acts as a heat engine, the oceans evaporate at a higher rate. When the atmosphere cools, evaporation slows. You needed this explained?

Re your greenhouse example, I guess that’s why they call them there things “greenhouse gasses.” Thanks for pointing that out. Here’s the problem with that theory. At the level of the atmosphere were such gasses accumulate, measurements reveal no rise in temperature. This is a falsification of the predictions of that particular theory. If the phenomenon of global warming is not an artifact of mishandled data, it is not due, apparently, to greenhouse gases. It may be a real phenomenon, A (you could do me the courtesy of using an actual name), but its cause would seem not to be anthropogenic.

“in fact ambient temperatures would actually go UP in pretty much any cloud cover situation other than total cloud cover - because heat absorbed would be trapped.” Refer to a previous paragraph … who could bother with counting … that would be like measuring or something, and it’s too much hassle, dude. I’ll just get a reporter to repeat himself until you just *believe* you know which paragraph. Oh, what was I saying? If there is no (appreciable) atmospheric heating due to greenhouse gases, then your premise false and your conclusion faulty. But you’re not too proud to beg questions, are you.

“But you're a man of science, right Jack?” No, I’m a total fool, without any education whatsoever. I do not hold an advanced degree in any scientific field. I read, if at all, on only a very narrow range of topics, and those must agree with my ignorantly-and-previously-formed-on-no-evidence biases. Or maybe not.

“I bet you have something to say about "intelligent design" too, right?” Yes I do.

“Oh, wait. I'm using logic. You have faith.” Sarcasm? How low. I’d *never* do something as low as that.

“I won't rub it in that I'm pretty much the only visitor your "blog" has ever had.” That’s just hurtful. Why would you attack me like that? It’s cruel, that’s all. And mean-spirited. I work so hard on my poor little blog. So very very hard. And to be shown up like this for the hollow poseur that I am. But you're right. I'm pathetic. How bitter. Bitter! Damn you, A – damn you to hell!!!!

Love,

Jack

Anonymous said...

Mr. MeOff,

Your whole theory hinges on your lack of faith in something we amoral, godless progressive secularists base our entire belief system on, well discounting the right to as many easy abortions as one would like and the right for all gay people to suck each other off in the streets - the greenhouse gasses.

Re your greenhouse example, I guess that’s why they call them there things “greenhouse gasses.” Thanks for pointing that out. Here’s the problem with that theory. At the level of the atmosphere were such gasses accumulate, measurements reveal no rise in temperature. This is a falsification of the predictions of that particular theory. If the phenomenon of global warming is not an artifact of mishandled data, it is not due, apparently, to greenhouse gases. It may be a real phenomenon, A (you could do me the courtesy of using an actual name), but its cause would seem not to be anthropogenic.

First, I am not a "blogger" with an account, so unfortunately I am unable to use my real name when posting. Pity. I hope you'll understand.

At the level of the atmosphere were such gasses accumulate, measurements reveal no rise in temperature.

Wow, just wow, Jack. Thanks for displaying your stunning ignorance so early in your post.

I guess I'm supposed to believe that you hold some kind of advanced degree in "science" now, right? And all the mommy metaphors leads me to believe that you've got some unresolved issues.
And thanks for that link to your little story about red riding hood and endothermic reactions. Keep it up, you obviously have a lot of visitors addicted to your witty and incisive "reality based" humor!

Jack H said...

My dere so called “”a” ….. How cum you call me meoff???? What for you say that for????? Is Jack “”H”””!!!!!!! not “”meeof::!!!!!! an u r so dum 2!!! Lol!! an ugly an gay 2. haha. i pety u sow mutsh an u r puthetack!!!!!

Thanks for helpfully providing that extended excerpt. I should have thought, however, that rebutting some point other than your anonymity would have been the driving motive.

There is an option for non-blogger commenters to provide a name other than anonymous. FYI.

“Thanks for displaying your stunning ignorance so early in your post.” Indeed. Denial is not disproof, sir or madam. If you would provide a link or citation, I would be edified. I have not done so, because I am working from memory. If you make a serious request, I will do that work, and hunt down my sources.

“I guess I'm supposed to believe that you hold some kind of advanced degree in "science" now, right?” Yes. i m a siunce dude like with a advanst dugree in that sighince stuf!!! i m a docter of siintific wether n climbutallogi frum the Sorebone!!!!!!

No. The relevant degree is not in an earth science. In this, I only have a couple of decades as an autodidact. You don’t think less of me, do you? But an understanding of proper methodology, of experiment design, of prediction and falsifiability – sort of seems relevant. Perhaps you’ll disagree? In which case you’ll make fun of my name.

“you've got some unresolved issues.” Could you help me with these? For they trouble me deeply, and despite some harshness in your tone I sense you are a caring person. Beneath that mask of bitterness, I know there’s a kind and generous soul, and I’m so very sad, so very lonely. Maybe we could correspond privately? My email address is in my profile. I’ll be looking forward to hearing from you. Deal?

Drop by any time, A. But next time bring your brain. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!


J

PS – it was Goldilocks.

Brent said...

It's moved beyond sad to pathetic. Jesus said, "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." I've penciled in "truth" and now by this fine demonstration I can say "Foolishness is vindicated by all her children." What causes someone to move to personal, childish attacks?

KC said...

Aha - you were right! I can post my name. Never thought to check the other radio buttons down there!

I guess I'm just a sloppy thinker like that, huh? And yes I do have an advanced degree in "hard sciences" if you can call Electrical Engineering a "hard science".

So yeah - I took some advanced classes which were somewhat applicable to the principles you cite in your purported refutation of the current consensus in climate science - most notably several chemistry classes - including organic, several physics courses - including two semesters of quantum mechanics, and several graduate courses in optoelectronic devices - which incuded (though I'm not sure if this is proper) solar cells - specifically their use in satellites and how they are affected by albedo sunlight. But that was some years ago, and I no longer hold the details in memory as I don't really practice it much anymore. Just thought I'd give you a little idea about my background.

And you, now that I've become used to your style of writing, it doesn't offend me as much - so I will attempt to be less offensive myself. However, your tacit suggestions that I was somehow intellectually inferior to you because I didn't care to humor what I believe is false science - funded by the most profitable big oil interest in the world, is just wrong, Jack.

So let me briefly address your point. I think your theory about the amount of heat absorbed by the earth being regulated by cloud cover, created when the ambient temperature of the earth's atmosphere causes more evaporation than normal and thus more cloud cover - reflecting more sunlight, is hogwash. It's a simplistic model you're proposing. Perhaps I was not rigorous enough in my earlier posts while attempting to discredit your theory based on simple principles. I don't have time to do very much research right now, but let see if I can tell you why I don't think your theory holds any water - and solicit the opinion of someone who purports to have some advanced knowledge on the subject:

1. The earth does not just aborb energy from the sun in the form of visible light. Energy of other wavelengths gets through, and heats the planet. Besides - does more humidity (more water in the air) always translate to more cloud cover? Oh, then there's the fact that the greenhouse gasses absorb heat in the form of infrared light. Does cloud cover effectively block this? I don't know.
2. Assuming the scenario you propose actually does happen, what happens to all the energy absorbed by the extra cloud cover? Also, what about the light that is reflected? Does it simply exit the earth's atmosphere? Is there nothing to absorb it on it's way back out? Do you know?
3. I'll admit ignorance to the study you cited re: no temperature increases at the levels where such gasses accumulate. Please provide a link.

And I apologize for not really reading through what looked like a Lewis Carroll dialogue type experiment in writing on the page on endothermic reactions, but as someone with a science background - I like to discuss things in a more technical and linear manner.

Jack H said...

Greetings KC. I won’t address the relevance of your degree to this specific. It’s comparable to my own. Mine is more a research degree, yours, as I recall, more a technology degree, but call it equal. So we'll drop the silliness? You’re not an idiot. Neither am I. One of us is wrong, but the evidence is not as unambiguous as some would have it. If you’ve ever done research (and this is not a slight), you know this. I’ve done some original research in the field of my MS, and a very great deal of research in the field of my BA. It has to do with paradigms - not just theories, tools of interprating data, but systems of undestanding the world. Perhaps you know Thomas Kuhn's seminal work in this matter.

I’m please you get my style now. Agreed, it takes some getting used to. I don’t in the slightest mind offending people, when the offense is in their minds rather then in my intention. Tee hee. My philosophy is, get over it.

It has never been my intention to attack anyone’s intelligence. I’ve been sincere (however offensively) in my attempt to address issues, rather than personalities. What, are we teenagers? When I do deal with personalities, I’ve viewed my response as so over-the-top as to be impossible to miss the satire. But tone is tough to convey, eh? It’s a heuristic enterprise - I hold up a distorting mirror, and hope for recognition.

Re the three substantive points you make, the first is a given. If I said “light,” of course I meant ‘radiation.” I was deliberately vague re IR radiation, because the details of the mechanics whereby the specific solar radiation is transformed into heat, and I’d rather be vague than inaccurate.

“does more humidity (more water in the air) always translate to more cloud cover?” No. As of a few years ago – as recent as my attention in the matter extends – the mechanism was poorly understood.


”greenhouse gasses absorb heat in the form of infrared light. Does cloud cover effectively block this?” GH gasses accumulate above the troposphere (the layer in which “weather” occurs), as I recall. This is where the atmosphere would exhibit the effect of the GH theory, and real-world observations do not bear it out – in other words, falsify it. That’s the point of my earlier comment. So cloud cover occurs below any predicted gh heating. Radiation is transformed into heat by contacting, being absorbed by, matter. If “light” is reflected away before it is so transformed, there would be the homeostatic effect I’ve mentioned. Put the pieces together, and you have less surface heat than expected because of cloud cover – the radiation never becomes heat.

“what happens to all the energy absorbed by the extra cloud cover?” I’m not talking about a universal cloud cover (I’ve done a very great deal of writing on this specific issue, as a part of a theory dealing with the Ice Age - capitalized for a reason). Some percentage of expected radiation never becomes the heat is should. Clouds would absorb some heat, and reflect some (as light) away. You know this from your work re albido. From space, the planet would be a much whiter object, even given only some percentage of increased cloud cover.

“Also, what about the light that is reflected? Does it simply exit the earth's atmosphere? Is there nothing to absorb it on it's way back out? Do you know?’ I used to. It’ll take me a while to look it up. Some would be absorbed in the upper atmosphere, some would be lost into space. Net effect is less overall heat for the planet. It’s the same deal with surface light – most radiation that hits the ground is absorbed, but of course we know that a very great deal must still escape, or the planet would be a hard-baked bun in a very few weeks.

“study you cited re: no temperature increases at the levels where such gasses accumulate. Please provide a link.” Will do. Take a few days, though.

“not really reading through what looked like a Lewis Carroll dialogue” - :-) I am an acquired taste.


Best,

J

KC said...

Some would be absorbed in the upper atmosphere, some would be lost into space. Net effect is less overall heat for the planet. It’s the same deal with surface light – most radiation that hits the ground is absorbed, but of course we know that a very great deal must still escape, or the planet would be a hard-baked bun in a very few weeks.

Just checking in to let you know that I haven't dropped the topic. I've been pretty busy and haven't had time to do the requisite research. But I still disagree with the above statement because it doesn't pass the "smell test".
I posited the question with the assumption that there was indeed more cloud cover which would reflect more of the visible light. First, as I stated before - total, or a lot of cloud cover over a long period of time would undoubtedly lead to a cooler planet. However, and I may stray off on a tangent here before making my "point", let's just assume for a second that IR light (and other non visible frequencies) are heating the "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere, and that this leads to the creation of faster oceanic (and other less significant) evaporation. AND let's assume that this water vapor (which, by the way is the most prevalent "greenhouse gas") manifests itself as cloud cover.
I won't get into the laws of thermodynamics, because it would require me to refresh too much knowledge, and is further complicated by the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. So I'll just confine this little thought experiment to what you proposed in your original post.
While the cloud cover would obviously reflect more visible (i thought it was spelled "albedo") sunlight, it stands to reason that just as much IR and other solar energy would make it through. Additionally, since water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, it along with the man made carbon dioxide would collect the heat, creating further temperature rises and thus more evaporation. So as the heat increases, more water evaporates, and more of the planet becomes tropical. Of course this is all played out on a very long timeline over the course of many decades or even centuries. Since the planet is warmer, the polar ice caps melt, and water levels go up even more. I *assumed* that most of the greenhouse gasses exist at altitudes or atmospheric levels at or below the highest altitude at which clouds can form. Again, I confess my ignorance - and it is probably obvious from my use of the term "altitude" - I feel stupid, regarding the different levels of our atmosphere.

Please point out any logical or factual fallacies you see. And I'll do some research of my own to avoid embarrasing myself in the future.

KC

KC said...

P.S. - Do you have a link to the book you authored on Evolution?

Jack H said...

Last thing first: re my logothetic tome, it is long out of print. Encyclopedic in scope, closely reasoned and overly detailed - but as I've just recently said in a post, it is in the details that a case is proven. People have been suggesting I make it available in, say, a PDF format. Perhaps. "Idols of the Cave" - part of series of works I once upon a time thought I needed to write, including a rigorous reconstruction of ancient history chronology (a very elegant theory, I have, although obviously crackpot), and that infamous ID stuff.

As I intimated, I'll be using some free time over the next few days or longer to put together a precis of GW. May take longer, ‘cause I do get obsessive about research when I get into it, and run along all sorts of fascinating but irrelevant rabbit trails. I generally give myself about 45 minutes a day on my little blog, revisions and all, so I’ll have to steal time for this.

As with you, I’ll need to get up to speed again – it’s been a decade since I’ve dealt with the specifics of climate change. I’ve got a good part of another book that deals with that very topic, via the Ice Age. Really neat stuff. But of course *I’d* think so. It’s this research that has encouraged me to have so little regard for the current GW fad. Of course I could be wrong, but we go with the best evidence as we see it through our paradigms, eh? If we consider the history of paradigm shifts, those scientific revolutions in outlook (rather than data) that Kuhn wrote about, we learn to be a bit calmer about these things. Politics is about passion. Science, not. (Don’t mean to be sententious. I just have the habit of stating my precepts, and it’s been known to come off as dogmatic.)

Just briefly re the substance of your comment, in the model I propose, cloud cover would increase because atmospheric moisture would increase, but the limit of course is 100% humidity, which is a not uncommon thing in any case. So the overall effect would not be universal 100% humidity, but an over all increase. Point is, of course cloud cover would not be total, as it is not necessary even where humidity is 100% (again, the mechanism of the visibility phase change is still mysterious). A second factor to keep in mind is rainfall, which in terms of planetary dynamics acts of course as a regulatory process. Given sufficient vapor and the presence of atmospheric particulate matter – nucleogens (I remembered!) – that form the core of raindrops, we’ll generally have rain. So we might have a more active heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere, regulated by cloudcover and rainfall, rather than not regulated and bringing significantly higher global temps.

Again, this is almost off the top of my head – I’ll formalize it later, perhaps, although my focus will be on the actual evidence for GW, rather than proposing a solution for what may not be a problem. Atmospheric CO2, it is granted, has risen on a steepening arc over the past century. The rise in temp has not matched it. (This is a paradox, due perhaps to confounding factors, but also perhaps to an invalid theory, a non-correlatory relationship between temp and gas. We must judge the validity of a theory on its predictive power, after all.) As most people know, world temp fell sharply from 1940 to 1970, and has risen from 1970 to now. Is this cycle part of GW? It is troublesome. In the USA, where measurements have without doubt been most accurate, there has been no mean rise in temp. As I recall – and I’ll check and document it – the temp has actually fallen.

Issues I’ll deal with will be urban heat island effect on measurement and local environment, glaciation, sea level changes, and perhaps some other ideas.

But I’m rambling.

“the Earth is not a closed system” This is pivotal. It is a powerfully self-regulating system. Whether by accident, Gaia, or Providence, it has lasted quite some time, and always in a manner most salubrious to life.

It is “albedo”. Don’t take your spelling cues from me.




J

Jack H said...

I'm just now doing very preliminary internet "research" (ha) into GW. I will review and summarize relevant links when I get to it, but here is a very comprehensive index of links:

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

I'm sure it's possible some of the links will not be as thoroughly rigorous as one might wish.

Again, this is FYI - I will put something organized together.

Alas, my time is limited and this is time-intensive, so the time-frame is expanding.


J

Jack H said...

Okay. Below are quotes from several sites. The first supports my claim that the GW theory is falsified by real world observations: if predictions are not accurate, the theory is not accurate. Subsequent refinings of the theory have so far provided no greater accuracy. Shades of the Crystaline Spheres shattered by the retrograde motion of Mars. The second supports my view that higher atmosphere temps raise humidity. Superficially, these quotes argue against my idea, but the article does not take into account increased cloud cover, so is irreleivant to that issue: I provide it as support of the homeostatic premise. The third site is quite interesting, but I don’t mine it as deeply is I might.


http://crew.iges.org/people/houser_files/Bengtsson1999.pdf

Why is the global warming proceeding much slower than expected? L. Bengtsson, E. Roeckner, and M. Stendel; Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany

From the Abstract: “Upper air observations from radiosondes and microwave satellite instruments does [sic] not indicate any global warming during the last 19 years, contrary to surface measurements, where a warming trend is supposedly being found. This result is somewhat difficult to reconcile, since climate model experiments do indicate a reverse trend, namely, that upper tropospheric air should warm faster than the surface.”


----------


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_04090_satellite_finds_warming.html

March 15, 2004, RELEASE: N04-090: Satellite Finds Warming 'Relative' To Humidity

“A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.”

“In response to human emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, the Earth warms [so the theory would have it], more water evaporates from the ocean, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this leads to a further increase in the surface temperature. This effect is known as "positive water vapor feedback." Its existence and size have been contentiously argued for several years.”

“Using the UARS data to actually quantify both specific humidity and relative humidity, the researchers found, while water vapor does increase with temperature in the upper troposphere, the feedback effect is not as strong as models have predicted.”

_____


http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=78

A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change - Comments on

“…calculating the response of the climate to causes is extremely difficult because the climate is a nonlinear, coupled, dynamical system. It is essential to remember the distinction between calculating the input of energy to the climate system (through, e.g., an increase in greenhouse gases) and the much harder task of calculating its climatic response. The difficulty in calculating the climate response is reflected by the fact that current climate simulations fail to meet the criterion of validation.”

A United Nations IPCC report [IPCC 1995, Section 3.5.4, p. 173.] “states, ‘Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability has increased in a global sense, through the 20th century...’ This lack of increasing climate variability occurred during the period when greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are estimated to have increased by an amount equivalent to a 50% increase in carbon dioxide alone.”

Predictions of catastrophic changed derive almost entirely from computer models.

“Scientists affiliated with IPCC 1995 and others agree that the computer simulations are insufficient for the tasks of explaining current climate or projecting future climate. Some examples from the literature are:

“Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long-term natural variability ... [PCC 1995, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5.]

[The model results] “cannot be considered as compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the earth surface temperature. [IPCC 1995, Summary for Chapter 8, p. 411.]

“We are far from anything resembling a ‘theory’ of climate, and cannot therefore expect a theoretical (necessarily computational) approach, in isolation, to yield a totally convincing prediction of climate sensitivity in the near future. This becomes especially clear when attention is focused on the interactions between the large-scale flow and the various small-scale, moist-convective, cloud-determining processes … [I.M. Held, 1993, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 74, 228-241.]

... [We] “conclude that ... the GCM [General Circulation Model] considered cannot be used for any physical experiment devoted to studying real climate change, such as greenhouse warming, paleoclimate reconstructions, or El Niño prediction. [I. Polyak and G. North, 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 1921-1929.]

... [It] “is clear that using the GCM for investigation of the real climate variability ... has no scientific justification. [I. Polyak and G. North, 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 6799-6812.]

… “[I]t [is] hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.” [T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley, and K.R. Briffa, 1996, Holocene 6, 255-263.]

“The temperature of the U.S., which has a relatively good surface record taken from many stations, has shown no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (see enclosed chart of annual surface temperatures, 1895-1996, from NOAA/National Climatic Data Center).”

“The globally averaged surface temperature record from IPCC 1995 shows an increase of about 0.5°C between 1910 and 1940, before most of the greenhouse gases from human activities entered the atmosphere. Therefore, most of the warming of the last 100 years has natural causes as its explanation.” Indeed, in the presence of an even sharper rise in such gases from 1940 to 1975, global temperatures fell. This is beyond confounding: it is falsifying.

Since 1979, “the precise satellite data for the lower troposphere show no significant warming trend. The last two decades are important because the models project that in the lower troposphere, the region of the atmosphere measured by the satellites, an accelerating global warming trend should be occurring and readily detectable.(12) The fact that the global warming trend has not appeared in the satellite data is additional evidence that the climate simulations give exaggerated temperature projections.”

And so on.



J