Green house theory will have to be debated one day.

http://climaterealists.com/?id=9255

I am seeing more push for debate. There seem to be many theories of this non-peer reviewed (must be pseudo science for sure then) theory.

A good theory recently
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330043618

What a load of nonsense. I posted a paper on another thread that covered all aspects of the greenhouse effect and climate change. That's just one, and it was certainly peer reviewed.



Quote:

A good theory recently http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330043618

That is regarded as nonsense not only by mainstream climate scientists, but even by creationist nutjobs like John Christy and Ron Spencer from UAH. I doubt if even Lindzen would sink that low.

I notice that it all comes from John O Sullivan, who is a British journalist now living in Alabama, who likes to deny basic science. It's quite amusing that he's going after all the denialists.

Again, here is that link. It covers all the basics and brings all the basic science together in one chapter.... and of course it's peer reviewed. The study was led by Stefan Ramstorf from the University of Potsdam.

Many denialists have come up with this particular gem that the basic science is not peer reviewed. Well the Rahmstorf paper has the advantage that it covers all the essentials. Apart from that, there are hundreds of climatology textbooks, which are all peer reviewed.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

I don't know where O Sullivan is going. His attacks seem to be mainly on denialists, which is quite amusing in itself, but as he has no scientific knowledge and his theories are totally crazy, nobody in the scientific community is taking him seriously.

If you really want me to take a few points from his diatribe and prove them wrong, I can do. It should be easy.

OK, the very first line is wrong. Tim Ball is not a Climatologist:

His only publication vaguely about the climate was: Climate Change in Central Canada, but the subheading gives it a bit of context: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850. . That was published in 1972, and it's not related to global climate in any way shape or form.

Since then, his papers have been mainly about mineral processing, and he has written articles for the popular press on climate denialism.

Any discussion on Tim Ball as being a climatologist starts as a strawman in itself.

Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame Of Physics

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

A paper on actual greenhouse effect. Not on assuming a greenhouse effect.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame Of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf A paper on actual greenhouse effect. Not on assuming a greenhouse effect.

That paper has been thoroughly debunked. Here is an article that summarises the papers that debunk it:

http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/early-in-2009-unusual-paper-appeared-in.html

muso wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10th, 2012 at 11:14am: Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame Of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf A paper on actual greenhouse effect. Not on assuming a greenhouse effect. That paper has been thoroughly debunked. Here is an article that summarises the papers that debunk it: http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/early-in-2009-unusual-paper-appeared-in.html

Dubunked how?

I particully like this statement from the original author

Quote:

They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend.

To debunk, they would at the very least, show peer-reviewed content and some of their own scientific peer-reviewed content on the 'green house gas effect' of the atmosphere.

abstract from original author reply to comment

Quote:

It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

Another progressives/longweekend epic fail.


;D

How many failures will it take for you to move out of the AGW space ?

I've got a theory, ... can I get it peer reviewed please?
It goes, ALL LIBERAL VOTERS SPEND THEIR LIFE TRYING TO PUT THEIR HAND DOWN THEIR SLAVES PANTS!

:D

;D ;D :) :) >:(

SAD but true. :(

What annoys me is people who try to put a political stance on science. Atmospheric science has nothing to do with politics. You can understand it (or not as the case may be) and be from anywhere in the political spectrum.


Quote:

They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend.

It just clicked why he includes denialists. He's  including them as climate scientists. If you read the article, you'll see that he even argues about Monckton's views. I can understand why - he's a soft target.

Well if you include that bunch then it would be a fair observation that they can't define the Greenhouse effect. I very much doubt if Monckton could.

So the strawman is very clever. He cites the diversity of climate science and makes the assertion that they can't even agree with the basics. Well there is no way that you can include these beanos in the  cadre of climate professionals.

[quote author=70686E721D0 link=1331284230/9#9 date=1331547854]What annoys me is people who try to put a political stance on science. Atmospheric science has nothing to do with politics. You can understand it (or not as the case may be) and be from anywhere in the political spectrum.

[quote]

Quite so Muso... politics . like religion, should stay out off science.... the agenda's contained therein do nothing to forward the cause of science.  They do the opposite.    And usually from a basepoint which is not consistent with known scientific fact.

Despite what others may say, I think 'media' obviously has an enormous role in vox populi ..
and like they say ' never let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

:)

muso wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

What annoys me is people who try to put a political stance on science. Atmospheric science has nothing to do with politics. You can understand it (or not as the case may be) and be from anywhere in the political spectrum. Quote: They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. It just clicked why he includes denialists. He's  including them as climate scientists. If you read the article, you'll see that he even argues about Monckton's views. I can understand why - he's a soft target. Well if you include that bunch then it would be a fair observation that they can't define the Greenhouse effect. I very much doubt if Monckton could. So the strawman is very clever. He cites the diversity of climate science and makes the assertion that they can't even agree with the basics. Well there is no way that you can include these beanos in the  cadre of climate professionals.

So they dont define the green house effect because they can't. Very strange way to win an argument about the green house effect. Matter of fact, it is the way you lose the argument and debunk nothing.

I should think anyone with an interest could define the greenhouse effect.  Perhaps not in scientific terms, with attendant brouhaha, but in general terms, which is what is required to convince the deniers. :) ;).

Emma wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 10:18pm:

I should think anyone with an interest could define the greenhouse effect.  Perhaps not in scientific terms, with attendant brouhaha, but in general terms, which is what is required to convince the deniers. :) ;).

You would think anyone wishing to debunk someones idea of green house effect, would supply scientific evidence aka peer-reviewed material in support of what they say is 'the' greenhouse effect on the atmosphere.

OK ......

Proglol !! :-?  How much 'definition' do you want.?.

Keep it basic...
because OBVIOUSLY,   any article/report/survey/scientific assessment/ study/?-(of which there is now a surfeit)  ....that takes a position and   (peer-reviewed or not) says...' global warming, resulting from , primarily, the greenhouse effect, ...'      is attacked as 'fantasy'..
Sadly the nay-sayers may yet live to regret their position. But they cannot win the argument.!

It is undeniable in my view. ......I am not a scientist - I am a human being who lives close to nature. ( i am not an animal!!)
Your peer-reviewed papers mean very little in the whole.

And  no doubt the view of many others reflect my own,..people who are witnessing in their lifetimes,  major climactic change. ! 

Just lucky I guess.
 
::) :-? ::) :-? :) :) :) :)

Emma wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 12:10am:

OK ...... Proglol !! :-?  How much 'definition' do you want.?. Keep it basic... because OBVIOUSLY,   any article/report/survey/scientific assessment/ study/?-(of which there is now a surfeit)  ....that takes a position and   (peer-reviewed or not) says...' global warming, resulting from , primarily, the greenhouse effect, ...'      is attacked as 'fantasy'.. Sadly the nay-sayers may yet live to regret their position. But they cannot win the argument.! It is undeniable in my view. ......I am not a scientist - I am a human being who lives close to nature. ( i am not an animal!!) Your peer-reviewed papers mean very little in the whole. And  no doubt the view of many others reflect my own,..people who are witnessing in their lifetimes,  major climactic change. !  Just lucky I guess.   ::) :-? ::) :-? :) :) :) :)

What is the question or was it you just trying to tell us that because you are one with nature, you know it has changed. You dont have to be one with nature to know it has changed and you would have to be kind of special .... not to know that earth has climate cycles (up and downs).

So instead of peer-review, we should take your word for it, because you are one with nature and you are special.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 10:03pm:

[quote author=677F79650A0 link=1331284230/9#9 date=1331547854] So they dont define the green house effect because they can't. Very strange way to win an argument about the green house effect. Matter of fact, it is the way you lose the argument and debunk nothing.

The greenhouse effect is there. It's observable, and if it didn't exist, the Earth would be much cooler than it is.  I had never seen that article by Gerhardt Gerlich before, but on first scan, there is a disconnect between observable processes and the mathematics.  The models are internally consistent, but not with this universe. I think the guy has an agenda.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 12th, 2012 at 10:18pm: I should think anyone with an interest could define the greenhouse effect.  Perhaps not in scientific terms, with attendant brouhaha, but in general terms, which is what is required to convince the deniers. :) ;). You would think anyone wishing to debunk someones idea of green house effect, would supply scientific evidence aka peer-reviewed material in support of what they say is 'the' greenhouse effect on the atmosphere.

Didn't I just do that in my second reply?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 5:34am:

[quote 8]OK ...... It is undeniable in my view. ......I am not a scientist - I am a human being who lives close to nature. ( i am not an animal!!) Your peer-reviewed papers mean very little in the whole. And  no doubt the view of many others reflect my own,..people who are witnessing in their lifetimes,  major climactic change. !  Just lucky I guess.   ::) :-? ::) :-? :) :) :) :)

What is the question or was it you just trying to tell us that because you are one with nature, you know it has changed. You dont have to be one with nature to know it has changed and you would have to be kind of special .... not to know that earth has climate cycles (up and downs).

So instead of peer-review, we should take your word for it, because you are one with nature and you are special.[/quote]


You could do a lot worse...- ( ahum... you do do a lot worse.!!) :)