Vacation Spots | Money | Hotel Las Vegas | Bleach 147 . Bleach 148 | Car Loan
"Saturated greenhouse effect" wrecks climate models [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : "Saturated greenhouse effect" wrecks climate models


sunsettommy
06-22-2008, 12:11 PM
So many good articles to post.Here is a great one:

Keplunk

Friday, 20 June 2008

"Saturated greenhouse effect" wrecks climate models (http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/saturated-greenhouse-effect-wrecks.html)

EXCERPT:

Ken Gregory from Friends of Science summarises the work done by Ferenc Miskolczi demonstrating that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is controlled by water vapour content and that the system maintains equilibrium via this mechanism.

It's an important step to understanding why the predictions of the IPCC's computer models cannot possibly be correct.

The paper, Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres by Ferenc M. Miskolczi (http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf) shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in this paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content.

Considering that we are told "the science is settled", one would think that the strength of the greenhouse effect (GHE) on Earth could be determined by atmospheric physics. That is, the computer models of the atmosphere would incorporate the physics of how the greenhouse effect works, input some measured physical properties the atmospheric gases, and the models will determine the strength of the greenhouse effect and the surface temperatures. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

There is no physics, no equations in the models that determines the strength of the GHE. Parameters are just set to obtain the observed temperature.

The GHE is dominated by water vapour, so how it changes with increasing CO2 is critical.
All the General Circulation Models (GCM) or more commonly called Global Climate Models just set:

Relative humidity = constant (or various parameters to achieve the same effect.)

There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

The assumption, that relative humidity is constant when CO2 concentrations increase, is completely absurd. This violates fundamental energy conservation laws. There are not separate energy balance equations for different greenhouse gases. There is not one set for water vapor, and a different set for CO2; there is one set of energy balance equations for the total atmosphere including all greenhouse gases. So it makes no sense to assign an arbitrary rule for one of the greenhouse gases.

There is a near infinite supply of greenhouse gases available to the atmosphere in the form of water vapor from the ocean to provide the greenhouse effect, but the relative humidity in the atmosphere is much less than one. Therefore, there must be some greenhouse equilibrium mechanism to control, the strength of the greenhouse effect and the relative humidity. Otherwise, climate would be very unstable.

MORE HERE (http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/saturated-greenhouse-effect-wrecks.html)

PaulRevere
06-22-2008, 12:16 PM
The assumption, that relative humidity is constant when CO2 concentrations increase, is completely absurd. This violates fundamental energy conservation laws.
Arrest those assumers!

sunsettommy
06-22-2008, 12:22 PM
They are already dead Paul.

The origional assumptions were made over 75 years ago.

Passed down to this day as fact.When it is actually nothing more than an assumption.

sunsettommy
06-22-2008, 12:25 PM
I like this one:


There is a near infinite supply of greenhouse gases available to the atmosphere in the form of water vapor from the ocean to provide the greenhouse effect, but the relative humidity in the atmosphere is much less than one. Therefore, there must be some greenhouse equilibrium mechanism to control, the strength of the greenhouse effect and the relative humidity. Otherwise, climate would be very unstable.

Naturalized-Texan
06-22-2008, 12:35 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer writes about this extensively in easy-to-understand layman's terms in his book, Climate Confusion.

sunsettommy
06-22-2008, 12:58 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer writes about this extensively in easy-to-understand layman's terms in his book, Climate Confusion.

I need to get that book.

DesertFox
06-23-2008, 07:08 PM
IBD Editorials

In another example of junk science run amok, NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory. Is this where society is headed?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/issues02062408.jpg

Picture of a sick man. Notice the mole on his upper left forehead, where hair should be. Note the Carter-shaped skull and mouth, sure signs of totalitarian certainty. Fix on the vacant, black-hole eyes and the jugular vein running up the left front of his skull, for cryin' out loud. Stay away from this sicko lest you catch his disease.

If so, we are headed for a dangerous place. Only in totalitarian systems is dissent a criminal offense.

Hansen, who 20 years ago Monday cranked up the global warming scare with his congressional testimony, is a clever promoter. By fusing his pseudo science with the wild-eyed efforts of eco-activists, media dupes and pandering politicians, he's been able to convince the public that his flawed theory is actually holy writ.

More on this sick puppy here (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299112954905500)

RogerFGay
06-28-2008, 04:36 AM
NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory. Is this where society is headed?

I think the alarmists should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. There is a huge pile of precidents for con-artists that cause harm to be put on trial. This particular con-job is global in scope and intended to cause immeasurable economic harm, already shown to result in poverty and starvation.

PaulRevere
06-28-2008, 06:30 AM
Last time I saw something as ugly as James Hansen it had a hook in its mouth.

Grouper, I think they're called.

DesertFox
07-06-2008, 10:31 PM
"Saturated greenhouse effect" wrecks climate models Climate models, without exceptions, done been wrecks since the very first and the very last one.

DeclinetoState
07-07-2008, 01:10 AM
Last time I saw something as ugly as James Hansen it had a hook in its mouth.

Grouper, I think they're called.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/issues02062408.jpg http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/2528.jpg

Separated at birth? James Hansen and Web Hubbell

Rhino
07-07-2008, 07:28 AM
There is no physics in support of this assumptionSince when has that ever stopped them?