Greenhouse effect is a myth, scientists say

[sunsettommy]

Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?

It is continuing to go up, look at the black trendline: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

They have been shown to be unreliable.

Surface temperature data has been shown to be compromised.

The Satellite data is far more reliable and they show only a tiny warming trend since 1998.The warming trend that is falling far behind the CO2 increase.

I have already posted twice in this thread about the weather stations:

#77 and # 86.

The climatologists have not paid attention to the quality and the care of the many thousands weather stations we have.

Maybe you gain a little more depth on the issue and come back here and try to con me that they have that figured out.

( They do not )

[B. Max]

Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?

It is continuing to go up, look at the black trendline: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Those are not considered reliable and here's why.

http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htm

[sunsettommy]

Here is the part that I have never seen explained in the reverse.

From B.Max's link,

On the other hand, even if it were true that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels discernibly increased global temperatures, temperatures wouldn’t likely increase by very much.

Based on the physics of the greenhouse effect, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from the pre-industrial period (supposedly around 280 parts per million) to 560 parts per million (about 48 percent higher than present levels), might lead to an increase in average global temperature on the order of less than 1 degree centigrade — and we’ve already experienced about 60 percent of that increase.

A further doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1,120 parts per million would result in even less of an increase in temperature because of the energy absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Essentially, the Earth only radiates so much energy back into the atmosphere that is available to be absorbed by carbon dioxide. Once all that energy is absorbed, superfluous carbon dioxide will not add to the greenhouse effect.

It is called the logarithmic trend.This is known physics.

This was long ago aknowledged by the IPCC.

So why continue the farce?

The part above which I have bolded is incorrect. The doubling of co2 from 560ppm to 1120ppm would result in the same increase in temperature as the doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm. That there is the logarithmic relationship - a constant temperature increase for each doubling of co2.

Also their <1C value for the constant is taken from the plain direct forcing from increasing co2 alone and doesn't take into account any feedbacks, which is why it differs from the mainstream range.

Still in denial are ya.

Try this:

Cold Facts on Global Warming

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

[sunsettommy]

AEBanner writes in another forum.This is an excerpt.

Greenhouse Gas Effect and Carbon Dioxide

This is a revised and extended version of my initial post.

When in energy balance, the Earth radiates from the top of the atmosphere at 235 Watts per square meter (1).

Radiation from the greenhouse gases goes in all directions, and so, effectively, half is radiated out into space, and half is returned to the Earth’s surface and so helps to increase the surface temperature up to a value for which the radiated emission is twice that from the greenhouse gases to outer space, having made allowance for the energy which escapes directly through the ghg layers to space. Thus, the Earth’s surface radiates at 390 W.m^-2

Carbon dioxide has an important absorption peak for infrared photons of almost 15 micrometres, but very little of significance at other wavelengths.

In order to ensure 100% absorption of photons of this wavelength, the surface must be “covered” by sufficient molecules of CO2. Now, the absorption cross section of a CO2 molecule for a 15 micron photon is about 5×10^-22 m^2 per molecule (2), and so the number of molecules required to cover an area of 1 m^2 is 1.0 / (5×10^-22), ie. 2×10^21 molecules per square metre.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7157&st=30

[shoggoth]

They have been shown to be unreliable.

Surface temperature data has been shown to be compromised.

No it hasn't. This issue has been looked at thoroughly by scientists and they have not found any statistical basis for any significant bias in the surface temperature.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

The Satellite data is far more reliable and they show only a tiny warming trend since 1998.The warming trend that is falling far behind the CO2 increase.

Satellite data is no more reliable. Depending on the methodology used to combine different satellite records, correcting for drift and callibration problems you can get very different results. UAH shows warming of about 0.14C per decade and RSS shows warming in the satellite record of over 0.18C per decade.

Even using the lower UAH record, the satellite trend shows warming of about 0.13C since 1998, which isn't far behind the co2 increase in that time of about 4.5%. It is however far behind the sunspot trends (which are really not going up - unlike temperature), and solar irradiance.

The climatologists have not paid attention to the quality and the care of the many thousands weather stations we have.

It's not possible to pay them all attention, there will always be errors in the data, but not necessarily enough to bias the whole record significantly. If it did bias the record significantly this should be picked up statistically, yet statistical tests show there is no significant bias (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf)

Coming up with a theory that paint has significantly biased the record is a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's not sufficient to just assume it has done so.

[shoggoth]

Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?

It is continuing to go up, look at the black trendline: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Those are not considered reliable and here's why.

http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htm

It's very easy to just assume that like mr john daly has done, by cherrypicking certain stations and making claims that are not backed up while omitting relevant studies that have found no statistical basis for urban heat island explaining the changes. But the science says otherwise http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

Also nice diversion trick. The argument put forward was "Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?" which is false. Now you're both doing a 180 and saying "ah it hasn't warmed much since 1998". No appealing to the satellite records doesn't help because those too show warming since 1998 (another thing: dont trust satellite graphs on skeptics sites like john-daly.com - go and look up the actual UAH data from their own website)

BTW the ridiculous article in the Telegraph by Bob Carter that started off all this "temperature hasn't risen since 1998" nonsense (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...4/09/do0907.xml) used the CRU surface record as the example! I wonder why he used that if it is so obviously inaccurate and unreliable? Contrarians have a habit of picking and choosing what data to use to exclude as "unreliable" if it doesn't support their argument.

[B. Max]

name='shoggoth' date='Jun 4 2007, 04:33 AM' post='224947']

It's very easy to just assume that like mr john daly has done, by cherrypicking certain stations and making claims that are not backed up while omitting relevant studies that have found no statistical basis for urban heat island explaining the changes. But the science says otherwise http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

Did you even read it. There is no cherry picking. That is real science. When you say there is no heat island effect and then use Hansen to back that up. I know you've strayed into the realm of science fiction and falsification.

Also nice diversion trick. The argument put forward was "Then why has the worlds temperature level been near zero up or down since 1998?" which is false. Now you're both doing a 180 and saying "ah it hasn't warmed much since 1998". No appealing to the satellite records doesn't help because those too show warming since 1998 (another thing: dont trust satellite graphs on skeptics sites like john-daly.com - go and look up the actual UAH data from their own website)

Actually I went to Steven Milloy's site. His site has the data from UAH and all others. I did the math from the data sets of the lower troposphere global, and the average temperature from the year 1998, compared with the average temperature from the year 2006 is - .23725 lower in 2006.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

BTW the ridiculous article in the Telegraph by Bob Carter that started off all this "temperature hasn't risen since 1998" nonsense (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...4/09/do0907.xml) used the CRU surface record as the example! I wonder why he used that if it is so obviously inaccurate and unreliable? Contrarians have a habit of picking and choosing what data to use to exclude as "unreliable" if it doesn't support their argument.

If you are referring to that graph in the article. I asked him about that. He indicated it was not what he used, by saying it looked like something Hansen had produced. The man who changed the known US historical temperature records. I assume in order to match is phony computer models which don't work. Under the assumption there is no heat island effect. Which those records had been adjusted for. Fortunately the original graph still appears on Daly's site and used to be on the US government site until Hansen changed it. Making that site unreliable.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

[shoggoth]

Did you even read it. There is no cherry picking. That is real science.

I read it. I think it's cherrypicking problem issues in the real science and are exagerating them and omitting the possibility that the problem could be minor, or that it's been resolved. It's automatically considered to be such a huge problem to nullify the theory before they even begin.

When you say there is no heat island effect and then use Hansen to back that up. I know you've strayed into the realm of science fiction and falsification.

There is an urban heat island effect, it's a real phenomenon which these skeptic sites exagerate and sensationalize. In the case of the urban heat island effect, statistical analysis of the surface record has not found it has caused significant bias in the global surface record. I don't find anything to make me think otherwise. Just because there is a problem doesn't mean noone can figure out how much of a problem it is, or that it is so large as to blow the theory up.

In all scientific areas there are problems, and it's very easy for sites who wants to imply the science is false to go along cherrypicking these various problems and overexagerating and sensationalize them - effectively turning what is actually a trivial problem requiring some study to overcome into a "theory killer". Lots of creationists sites emply the same tactic against mainstream geology when they cherrypick various problems with radiodating techniques, exagerating them from slight issues that can be overcome into fully blown falsifications of modern geology (eg here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...radiodating.asp). All the time implying that these problems are being ignored by fraudulent scientists.

Actually I went to Steven Milloy's site. His site has the data from UAH and all others.

I did the math from the data sets of the lower troposphere global, and the average temperature from the year 1998, compared with the average temperature from the year 2006 is - .23725 lower in 2006.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

1998 was a very warm year due to a strong el nino and resulted in an extreme warm a blip, so that's why he starts off in 1998. Technically it's not lying to say temperature has gone down since 1998, but it is incorrect to claim global warming has stopped since 1998. Global warming is a long term upward decadal trend, and such an upward trend exists in the records (surface and satellite) through and since 1998.

If you are referring to that graph in the article. I asked him about that. He indicated it was not what he used, by saying it looked like something Hansen had produced.

Can't tell who you refer to here, but Bob Carter says what he used:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase

This is the record he's talking about:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif