Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Jul 12, 2019.

  1. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m an CAGW-skeptic and I think you’re wrong here. The 2nd law of thermodynamics stipulating that heat cannot flow spontaneously from a colder body to a warmer one applies only to a thermodynamically closed-system, whereas Earth is a thermodynamically open-system. You can increase the temperature of a body and reduce its radiative heat-loss by increasing the surrounding temperature. The atmosphere is the surrounding temperature and if it warms then the radiative heat-loss from Earth is reduced. So, CO2 is technically not heating the surface. The increased warming of the colder atmosphere is simply causing a smaller increase in the temperature of the warmer surface through the increased radiation from the atmosphere. If the atmosphere cannot warm the surface, then how do you explain the difference in temperatures of the Sahara desert and the tropics. The major difference between these environments is water vapour. Without the high concentration of water vapor the night-time temperature in the tropics would decrease similar to that of the Sahara Desert, which is extremely cold. This is an example of greenhouse gases (in this case water vapour) reducing the radiative heat-loss from the surface.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feel free to make it oh so much better with your pertinent comments on the OP itself instead of criticizing others and their debates
     
  3. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,620
    Likes Received:
    8,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are a legend in your own mind. You have an agenda to prove and that is not science.
     
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been an AGW skeptic from the time I heard of it, probably a decade ago. Your comment suggests you don't understand the theory you're criticizing, the core of which, AFAIK, does not imply any flow of heat from cold to hot. A "space blanket" with an average temperature of 32F obviously doesn't lose heat to the 98.6F person who's wrapped in it, but that person will nevertheless be warmer with the blanket than without it thanks to the reflection back to the person of his own radiant heat; and similarly, the GHE says, if I'm not mistaken, that Earth is warmer thanks to atmospheric CO2 not because it's a heat source, but because it absorbs and reradiates back to Earth certain IR wavelengths at night.
     
  5. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm allowed to criticize the debates here, especially when it's just a back-and-fourth "You're wrong" sort of debate without them explaining why the other person is wrong.
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go to the conclusions at the end.
     
  9. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed you are allowed to ignore the subject of the OP and instead criticize the debates in the thread. I was merely pointing out that you were doing so and adding nothing to the conversation.
     
  10. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    But I haven't ignored the OP. I commented "How did the researchers determine that CO2 only contributed 0.1C over the last 100 years?" and you responded by saying "There's a PDF link in the article to the actual study". From reading the study, it isn't immediately obvious to me how they have attributed 0.1C to the total CO2 increase over the last 100 or so years and how did they arrive at the sensitivity of ∆T2CO2 = 0.24C? Also how did they attribute the warming to cloud-cover? Was it just through correlation between temperature and cloud-cover? I actually think cloud-cover can explain the warming, but they seem to have assumed causality through a correlation. They also say, without explanation, that "The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry's law". This is strange to me, as I was under the impression that Henry's law implied a relationship of about 15ppmv to 20ppmv for every 1C of warming of the ocean. I think perhaps a more realistic explanation would be changes in biological activity in the ocean.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great and you are back on subject instead of mocking others. Thank you
     
  12. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think saying that a debate is pointless quite constitutes as "mocking others".
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  13. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113

    In case you are interested
    This line of thought has been around for a while
    It is called the
    Svensmark effect
    Since this has been proposed, as a result it has, in fact been considered, examined, and researched. Here is a link to an article reviewing the evidence around this hypothesis

    https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

    Your linked article claims this is new research..... it is not
    Truthfully, i have tried to find the paper, and or the researcher involved
    I found neither.... which is always a bad sign.

    You will note from my linked article that the cosmic ray impact varies according to known cycles. And these cycles do not correspond to observed changes in climate
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The line of thought yes but the study is the first in depth one I'm aware of and is linked to in the OP article and I gave the link again in a subsequent post so I don't know why you can't find it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  15. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok....
    In case you want to learn the opposing views

    https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

    I will not dwell on everything that is wrong about this paper, and how it is being presented
    Except for this... the paper makes the ludicrous claim that increased at atmospheric co2 is primarily from the ocean. Which ignores the massive amounts of human co2 emissions.... and defies the Simple and well known fact that the ocean is acidifying.... which is happening BECAUSE the ocean is net absorbing co2, not the reverse.

    I repeat that this paper does not produce any new data, nor any new analysis that has not been previously considered. Fundamentally it is an op-ed piece which starts out with a point of view, then selects and arranges data to support that point of view.... without considering any counter arguments from other scientists
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  16. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113

    This is quoted from their paper

    If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6
    The footnote 6 they refer to is their own as yet unpublished research

    That said, i am sure that you will be prepared to defend why this is anywhere near scientifically valid assertion

    Why it is that the co2 started coming from the ocean just at the time that human emissions started accelerating,

    you will doubtless explain where our co2 emissions go... since apparently they do not go into the atmosphere.

    You will explain why the ocean is increasing in acidification since that is not happening because of increased co2 ... because after all the paper assures us that the ocean is the source of increased co2 in the atmosphere, and therefore could not be a net absorption medium for co2

    Good luck
     
    Bowerbird and tecoyah like this.
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will explain nothing because I'm not here to defend this hypothesis and am not emotionally invested in it as others are with the AGW hypothesis. I presented it as another in a long line of alternative views on the causes of earths climate.
    I read it and it makes a lot of sense to me and in my laymen opinion the main arguments against it would be the assertion that it is the primary driver of climate change which incidentally is the main argument against the AGW hypothesis. It does seem unarguable that the basic premise of the hypothesis is sound and inarguable and that AGW proponents have failed to factor this into their formulaic assertions and predictions.
    I do find it interesting that the cult is reacting so vehemently to this new study though and that fact makes me think they see something in it that rattles them to the core. For now I'll take a wait and see attitude but it is interesting new information that needs to become part of the debate.
     
  18. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you like,
    The fact is that neither of us is do expert to say much about his theory. But, i think it does not take a lot of sophistication to evaluate what i quoted about co2 in the atmosphere not coming from human activity and instead coming from the ocean. When a person makes such a stupid statement, i am disinclined to give his other claims the benefit of the doubt unless and until some other scientists review and agree with those claims. At the very least, i think he as raised an issue, but certainly has not proved anything at this point

    As far as emotional investment.... I am looking To see if the claims made were proven. I have told you why i think they are not. I am only asking that you provide a credible explanation for a very simple matter that we can both comprehend

    As far as alternative views... there are alternative views on everything..., including whether the earth is flat. What is required is evaluating evidence. And i do not trust a guy who thinks he has proven that our burning of fossil fuel is not increasing co2
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  19. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I don't think he exactly said that but if that's your interpretation so be it.
     
  20. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lets let them speak for themselves

    only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, (edit) The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans (supported by reference to their own unpublished research)

    Which i characterized as

    thinks he has proven that our burning of fossil fuel is not increasing co2
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your characterization was obviously an exaggeration and the long standing dispute with the AGW hypothesis has always been mans influence on natural C02 levels is minimal so as far as s that aspect of this new study goes I have no problem with it. My only real question and hesitation is when this new hypothesis claims clouds are the primary cause of our climate warming and I fall back on one of my main gripes with AGW. There are far too many causes of climate change both known and unknown to say any one of them is the primary agent.
     
  22. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree with them and propose that mans impact in co2 levels is minimal?

    Where do you think the co2 that we generate goes?

    Why do you think co2 had suddenly naturally risen after being stable for thousands if years?


     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  23. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    upload_2019-7-20_21-10-15.gif
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And in that 10,000 years which is the interglacial time period known as the Holocene the earth has experienced 9 previous warming periods half of which show a rate of temperature rise with time greater than we are experiencing in the current warm period. The maximum temperature of half of these 9 warming periods was greater than we are experiencing now. And all of these 9 warming (and subsequent cooling) periods occurred at ~ constant CO2 concentration.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  25. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Gee it would be nice to see what cornflakes packet you got that twaddle from

    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
     

Share This Page