The Earth Is NOT A Greenhouse

originally posted by: PacificBlue
It seems like what is said publicly is based on politics and not on actual experiments or science. Science is difficult to put in a five second sound bite, but that is what most people pay attention to. I am sure that some things we are doing are having an effect on the earth, but natural cycles will continue, just like they always have.

Another valuable bookmark, Thanks!

Your observation of politics vs science echoes my discomfort with talk of climate engineering. If they can't accurately predict a hurricane season in spite of all the recorded data and computer models, I am very concerned that something may be attempted that winds up doing irreparable damage regardless of good intentions.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
The only thing I will add is:

As far as Climate Change, Humans and Earth are concerned: we have a LOT to learn. Anyone that says that they have it all figured out one way or another with this very complex and chaotic system is kidding themselves.

This is undeniably true.

Taking a stance and saying that it MUST be THIS (whatever "this" is), is foolish, premature, and is not helping in trying to understand complex engines like climate.

It's not like that. After many decades of research it certainly is possible to take a stance on some aspects of physical properties which are extremely well verified and make predictions from there, even though there remain significant uncertainties in the details of the possible future outcomes. It is, and has been for about 20 years, sufficiently secure and the problem sufficiently substantial that policy changes were necessary.

It's not any different from medicine---and in fact easier because physics is more predictable than biology. There's plenty of difficult and unknown molecular biology left to discover, but physicians do have a pretty good handle on some important parts of physiology, like breathing carbon monoxide is a bad idea, and there's specific chemical reasons, backed by extensive experiment, to explain why. Denialists would be using uncertainty in cancer biology to make it seem as if professional scientists knew nothing, which is NOT true.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
At this point, I guess a valid question would be, does anyone still really believe in man-made global warming through CO2 emissions or greenhouse gas?

I'm getting hints that some people still believe it but want to ask directly....

~Namaste

I'm by no means a scientist. What know is virtually all self-taught, even my former position with the little computer VAR came about when my professor saw what I'd picked up on my own. (My degree became impossible once I resigned his company....)

That said, I try to stay open-minded but my gut feeling is that it's more politics and money than science.

Good post, good thread!

I would like to point out a few facts:

The modeling used to issue predictions does not rise to the level of theory. Failed hypotheses is a better descriptor. In order to qualify as theory, the models used would be verified by obervable phenomena. In the case of climate models used today, they fail and are constantly being re-evaluated, constantly being updated and still fall far short of describing the observable phenomena.

AGW is ... an incredible hypothesis. The greenhouse effect is comprised of 95% water vapor...the remaining 5% being all the other greenhouse gases combined. Of that 5% the lion's share is co2.

Natural sources of co2 produce an estimated 770 million tons a year. It has been estimated that man's contribution is in the area of 37-40 million tons, annually.

Ergo, man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is roughly 5%x5%. I have seen 0.28% used by several sources. Which means that we are blaming man for the rise in co2 levels and temperature since the advent of industrialization when the truth is natural sources/causes are to blame.

Regarding that: Consider that an ice began with levels of 4800ppm, vs our current 400ppm. Astronomic cycles trump co2 levels every time. In fact, one could argue the point quite successfully that co2 levels play no part in the cycle of glaciation. We see global warming until global cooling kicks in. Co2 levels lag behind temperature changes rather consistently. Global cooling kicks in with co2 levels at virtually maximum levels (for the interglacial period in question) and global warming kicks in (at the end of glacial growth) with co2 levels at historic lows (for the period in question).

The ability to accurately quantify the greenhouse effect is called into question. Calculate the temperature (using Boyle's laws) as a global average at sea level...you will be amazed at how close to actual global averages that number is. Seems that Boyle's law accounts for more of the temperature at sea level than does the greenhouse effect!

Also funny, but when one examines our neighbors (other planets in our solar system) once again one discovers that Boyle's law rules the day....not the fact that most of the gases that comprise these planet's atmospheres are heavy duty greenhouse gases (for instance: methane). How can that be, given what we are force fed regarding the greenhouse effect from TPTB?

I don't know how many times I have asked this, CO2 is 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, which is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere, just how does so little heat so much?
Judith Curry, a climatologists say's that she thinks the present standstill in mean global temperature could last a decade.
Why are they expecting snow in Israel? why are we having such colder than normal winters up here in the north?
Two years ago, snow for the first time in 75 years in New Zealand, same place they had that ghastly earthquake.
Snow in the Namibia desert, snow on the Sphinx, sea ice at its greatest extent since 1988, just what is going on?

a reply to: pikestaff

In a nutshell, IMO it cannot based on historical data. It seems to me that virtually every cycle known to affect climate overrides any effect the greenhouse gas effect can produce.

Another thing...geologically speaking, we are about due for global cooling to kick in and maybe we are seeing the pendulum beginning to swing towards global cooling. In all honesty, we may just be seeing a common anomally before global warming kicks in again. After all, we have not yet reached the temperature maximums experienced by 4 of the last 5 interglacial periods. We have a couple or 3 more degrees celsius to go before we reach those ranges.

We could be talking about global cooling about to kick in now...or it could be a couple hundred years or more. We have reached a point where the pendulum could begin to swing the other direction at any time now.

Personally, I do not understand the hysteria about co2 levels....