The AGW Smoking Gun

[Sunsettommy]

American Thinker

2-17-2010

EXCERPT:

A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals.

Politicians and scientists still cling to the same hypothesis: Increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival. The reality of our global temperatures, the failure of these catastrophic predictions to materialize, and the IPCC scandals all continue to cast serious doubt on that hypothesis.

The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science (i.e., unscrupulous behavior by a few don't negate the rock-solid science), so it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science. Climate science is very complex, and AGW proponents dismiss the scientific arguments unless the data are contained in journal papers that are "peer-reviewed."

LINK
================================================
Hmm.....

[Derek]

Thank you SST, at last AGW is proven to be false,
AND it was deliberately covered up in the peer reviewed papers..

Yet another "gate" though, this time seemingly in the peer reviewed literature..
It is pseudo-science, deliberately, intensionally, and falsely made to look like empirical science (it is fraud - there is no other word for it).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t...g_gun.html

Three papers linked to
1) CHANGES IN THE EARTH’S RESOLVED OUTGOING LONGWAVE RADIATION FIELD AS SEEN FROM THE IRIS AND IMG INSTRUMENTS
H.E. Brindley*, P.J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges and J.E. Harries.
Imperial College, London, UK

2) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges.
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK

3) Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
Claudine Chen, John Harries, Helen Brindley, Mark Ringer.
Department of Physics, Imperial College London
Hadley Centre, UK Met Office

Excerpt,
" All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to
removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs.
The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...)
based on the climate models and not through actual measurements,
and surprise, surprise
-- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2.

Computer-simulated results based on climate models are never a replacement for actual measured data, and
they should never be used to draw conclusions when actual measured data contradicts those models.

So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years,
there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven. "

The same names time and again, the same methods (tricks) time and again.....

[Sunsettommy]

Two comments from the link I posted:

Quote:Posted by: John in Oregon
Feb 17, 09:42 PM
We can test this idea greenhouse idea using the Second law of thermodynamics. Note the second law is called a law because it is a basic tenant of science. Again from Wikipedia, the second law states:

"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value or we can say " in an isolated system, the entropy never decreases".

In English: "Heat CANNOT spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter area - WORK is required to achieve this."

Thus we have disproof.

The second law states Heat cannot flow from a colder location to a warmer location, while greenhouse effect REQUIRES heat to flow from the colder air to the warmer surface in violation of the second law.

I want to be very clear here. This is not a question of a computer or other model. For the greenhouse effect to work the warmed CO2 MUST return heat energy to the warmer surface, otherwise the warmer CO2 can only radiate absorbed energy to space. It is this transfer to the surface that the second law will not allow.

Dr. Dave correctly mentioned the bell jar. The CO2 in a bell jar exposed to an IR source will warm. This absorption has never been in dispute.

What the bell jar does not and can not do is demonstrate heat transfer from the cooler CO2 to the warmer surface upon which the bell jar is placed.

Quote:Posted by: Dr. Dave
Feb 17, 10:07 PM
bubbagyro. Hey, great to hear from you! Yes, the onus of proof lies completely on the warmists. We do not have to PROVE that AGW does not exist. The warmists have to PROVE that their theory holds water. The latter is a tougher order. As it stands, AGW cannot be falsified, nor can it be proved true. I guess that's the beauty of it.

John in Oregon. Yup...almost anybody can prove a bell jar will warm, but bell jars are not the open atmosphere. Those pesky laws of thermodynamics also get in the way. Truthfully, I'm stunned that more people don't see the obvious.

[Sunsettommy]

Here is another one:

Quote:Posted by: John in Oregon
Feb 18, 12:15 AM
In response to the comment that the greenhouse effect REQUIRES heat to flow from the colder air to the warmer surface Ed IV wrote

"It only requires that heat be prevented from radiating into outer space."

This changes the frame of reference for greenhouse gases. For clarity I have no problem with pursuing this line of thinking.

Another way to say this is to view CO2 (GHGs) as retarding or resisting the flow of heat energy to space. In colloquial English CO2 would act as an insulator.

Assuming that CO2 were indeed an insulator then the CO2 would warm until the rise in temperature was sufficient to overcome thermal resistance, at which time heat energy would again flow to space establishing equilibrium at a higher temperature. Thus heating the upper atmosphere.

Note however this will not heat the surface until the upper atmosphere becomes warmer than the surface.

All explanations I have seen of GHGs has centered on the absorption of IR radiation. Coupled with the absorption is the assumption of radiation of energy to the warmer surface. Otherwise the surface does not warm.

As an aside. Over the years I have often observed groups of people accepting that a particular idea is proven. That’s particularly true of disciplines such as politics. (I know, I know, politics and discipline are mutually exclusive.)

However on pulling back the layers it's often found that what was considered proven is actually no more than a long held assumption. If so its best to discover that sooner rather than later.

In this case the idea is very old and I am aware of no actual experimental or test proof.

BTW Ed this kind of discussion is what clears the cobwebs.

[Derek]

(02-19-2010 12:22 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Here is another one:

Quote:Posted by: John in Oregon
Feb 18, 12:15 AM

Another way to say this is to view CO2 (GHGs) as retarding or resisting the flow of heat energy to space. In colloquial English CO2 would act as an insulator.

This is the "motivating" idea behind the experiment/s I have been suggesting.
To show / test / prove CO2 aids the dissipation of heat (an atmospheric entropy catalyst if you like),
in colloquial English, CO2 speeds up heat flows, because of it's low specific heat content,
not retains or retards heat flow as IR, G/house, AGW rely on.

Hence the experiment, CO2 has to do one or the other...
I suggest this approach does actually prove or disprove AGW, and G/house.

[ricksfolly]

Climate science is very complex, and AGW proponents dismiss the scientific arguments unless the data are contained in journal papers that are "peer-reviewed." >>

If there is credible scientific proof or arguments, I sure haven't seen it. All I've ever seen is vague pontification and wise looks, nothing substantual. I'm still waiting to hear what the so-called average world-wide base line temp is, or the scientific process they used to obtain it...

ricksfolly

[Derek]

(02-19-2010 01:27 PM)ricksfolly Wrote:  All I've ever seen is vague pontification and wise looks, nothing substantual.
ricksfolly

Hello ricksfolly, I have not said welcome to you yet, so, welcome, and well put.
It is a lesson in "how to lie" we have all learnt or seen.
When lying make the explanation sooo complex / baffling the person being told the lie gives in.
Literally, baffle them with b**lshit.

The "physics" of AGW being the best example of
the "baffle them with b**lshit" approach for a liar I can think of.