Posted by: graemebird | December 21, 2006

realclimate.org / (ie fuckthedata.com )/ Greenhouse: Summary So Far

Adapted from “Thoughts On Freedom”:

Prologue. At realclimate.org this collection of, I assume, highly expert specialists,…… well they have a set of excuses for CO2-demonology and they call this set of excuses “HIGHLIGHTS”

I shit you not.

And one of those extended excuses that realclimate.org fuck the data dot com dot au likes to think of as a HIGHLIGHT (sometimes these people just make you laugh)…… one of these excuses is called:

“What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?”

Well the initial riposte to that is to say IT TELLS US THAT:

GLOBAL….WARMING…… JUST-AINT,
GOTTA DAMN..THING..taDOO
WITH GAIA-FOOD; CO2!

That would be the normal scientific response right off the bat. Without going into things any deeper.

But you know. I try and be more nuanced.

Check out the Excuse-thread here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

And here is the post (heavily edited and with additions) at Thoughts on Freedom. And it can serve as a bit of a summary for the thought experiments I’ve led you through so far.

>>>>>>>

“Yes well Andrew you are on to it. And I know exactly where you got that incredible rationalisation. Its the set of excuses found on realclimate.com

Now here it must be admitted that they could be right. It could be that the CO2 is having an amplifying effect. But a number of things must be understood.

1. That amplification effect must either be tiny or very slow-acting. And you might expect it to be slow-acting since focusing on the atmosphere alone is a bit foolish since its really the atmosphere-and-oceans together that comprise the totality of greenhouse substances.

And this flimsy alleged amplification effect would have to warm up the oceans as well before it would have a substantial effect on the atmospheric temperatures..

2. Though its POSSIBLE that there is this amplification effect as described by realclimate.org dot fuckthedata.com……………… its either so slow or so small that they cannot prove it exists.

3. They have to make this rationalisation since they can barely find a time in history, pre-history or geological history where they have CO2 being the PRIMARY MOVER for such a warming.

If there is one time ONE TIME in history where these greenhouse gasses were the PRIME MOVER it would have to be in the time where the world reached a heat maximum about 55 million years ago. And that most likely involved just enourmous quantities of Methane as well.

But that occasion had its starting point with a phenomenally warm planet already???!!!????

So much so that you could swim in the water at either pole. So everything favoured warming in those days. Because you had water vapour everywhere and unobstructed currents flowing to (or at least close to) the Poles.

Now this is what I was trying to explain to David the other night and my mind went totally blank.

Unobstructed current flow will be condusive to warming because of the Stefans-Boltzmans law. Since the energy will circulate to or near the poles it will even out world temperatures.

Stefans Boltzmanns law has the radiative effect of a body in space increasing TO THE FOURTH POWER as the bodies temperature increases above Kelvin.

So when the current flow to and from the Poles, near the surface, is impeded by land, you cannot get that evening out of the temperatures. And a marginal analysis will then have a greater amount of energy being radiated out into space.

But once you have that unimpeded flow you can get a situation where:

the oceans…..

and then the deep oceans….

start warming up.

They don’t stop warming up until the heat differentials between the Poles, the equator, and the deep oceans are almost wiped out…. Or at least severely EVENED-OUT in comparison with today. And these temperatures even out towards the initial temperature of the equator yet never really go above that.

Now I say that from straight A PRORI THINKING. But yet with some knowledge in the back-ground of how the experts reckon the world was those many millions of years ago.

So it might be that all this extra methane and CO2 wound up taking us from a very warm planet to an even warmer planet 55 million years ago. And I think thats what DID happen.

Cold air doesn’t hold water vapour. But our starting point before that great heating was a planet where water vapour was a feature, pretty much at all points in the lower atmosphere, across the entire globe, the year round.

So we see how you would already have that water-vapour-ENVELOPE, all that built-up heat already…..

…. and then when the extra methane comes in……. then its not hard to see…….. how the blocking of those extra bands of Infra-red could work FOR ONCE like the alarmists’ one-step inductive thinking suggests that it might.

But it would be pushing shit uphill to try and get this to happen TODAY…. with Antarctica where it is.

4. If CO2’s effect is either negligible or slow-acting, like the data tells us, then we don’t have a damn thing to worry about with industrial CO2 anyway.

Since industrial-CO2 is projected to peak by 2100. And even if realclimate.org dot fuckthedata.coms’ speculation about that 5000 year amplification was correct (which to be fair it could be) we would have to be able to keep the CO2 levels elevated for many thousands of years before we might get substantial ATMOSPHERIC warming.

In summary they don’t have the data. And global warming could never be a problem while the Antarctic is where it is.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: