it has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H2O and CO2. What is surprising is the wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO2, the gas held responsible for the modern concept of climate change. Estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C based upon a plethora of scientific papers attempting to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics to determine their results. The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO2, but also CH4 and N2O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations. The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
Ever since the original Budyko and Sellers papers whose very simplified Energy Balance models started this whole Carbon Dioxide is Evil insanity all the more sophisticated models (and they are just hypothetical models) showed CO2 as minor factor. And all realistic all system CO2 balance sheets show non-farming antropogenic sources as basically a rounding error on zero.
The big problem is that the solar energy budget approach makes perfect sense when trying to calculate short term dynamic changes in a fluid on a constant temperature surface, which is what the mesoscale atmospheric modelers do (the weather forecasters). Which is accurate for days to weeks. But to extrapolate this out to very long timelines based on a partial system model and then claim the extrapolated results are "scientific fact" is simply fraudulent.
So that 33K number you quote assumes that the earth's surface has no temperature. For the mesoscale atmospheric modelers ignoring the 80 mW to 120 mW m^2 radiant heat input from the surface is reasonable. When you are dealing with a highly variable input source that ranges from 0 to 230 W M^2 every 24 hours. But to then extrapolate that as the black body temp of the earth is around 257K and the average temperature of the earth surface is around 290K so there must be some mysterious Atmospheric Effect to account for difference of 33K, is little more than pure hokum.
Last time I looked at how you did a solid / gas boundary layer calculation and the solid had an internal heat source and the gas was an insulator the boundary gas temperature was close to the temp of the solid. The real world dynamics, convection etc, of the atmosphere would reduce that but not to make the solid surface temperature effectively 0K.
There is an Atmospheric Effect. Lots of evidence from geological history over the last 800 million years. But a 33K value. I dont think so. I'd guess if you created an accurate multi layer model of the number would be in the 4K to 5K range with current (actual not modeled) atmospherics CO2 levels.
Climate Science is yet another example of the more politicized an area of science the more carefully the papers have to be read. And checked. The reputable textbook in this are all have big disclaimers - these are only models, and rough ones at that. If the textbook does not have this kind of disclaimer then it can be safely ignored as scientific scholarship. Its just politics. Of one form of other. Partisan or careerist.
@jmc And remember that many of the participants are rather quiet about declaring their (financial) interests.
@jmc thanks for the reply. If you try to read the report on climate change which is the basis for all the misinformation. You will see the total reliance on modelling. If you can read it without losing the will to live, I would think that nobody has, it is far too complex and purposely designed for that reason me thinks!
@jmc the report on climate change ...the total reliance on modelling
Since the real planet is too big to experiment on, our only recourse is to use models. Unless you have a spare planet? Or perhaps you'd prefer not to know the likely outcome of pressing on without change.
What an inane comment.
The problem is they rely on very simplistic models which fail even the most basic model validation procedures. Run them backwards they fail to model correctly past events. Run the models forward and they very quickly diverge from observed data. After only a year or two.
So the model makers start "normalizing" the data so it now fits the models. Or rather they massage the data to gives them the results they want. Start running validation data sets through the models and they quickly show behavour that means they are little more than trend linear interpolation models. Just like the Club Of Rome model in 1970 that predicted the last barrel of oil was going to be pumped around 2006.
So when it comes to modelling realistically very complex multi-variable non linear dynamics system the climate models are simplistic junk. If you used the same cavalier approach of the climate science people to model the aerodynamic flow over an aircraft wing the aircraft would fly like a brick.
I dont know about you but when I read terms like parameterization of expressions in establishing papers for a 100% model dependent area of research I immediately get very suspicious of anything but the most general claims for any model described. Its just a fancy term for the old mathematics joke - If you dont know how to solve the equation for a realistic value for a variable you make it a constant. When you actually dissect these climate models they turn out mostly to be a joke. Of one sort or other.
No reason to suggest that denying climate change will decrease the unvaccinated folks' chances of catching covid, even though the subjects seem to be linked in some minds.
There are and will be adverse reactions to climate change.
There are some parallels with pandemics, in that the world has and will continue to sleep-walk into the problem.
It's not that deniers actually influence this effect..... it's more that the masses and governments have the unwavering ability to put the unthinkable to the back of their minds.
@checkthefacts
The only link between the two subjects is that some people are skeptical of those who make sweeping claims which on closer inspection are not supported by the published science which they say their claims are based on.
So when some people claim that an untested vaccine for a virus type for which there has never been any kind of vaccine for in the past using a delivery method that has never gained regulatory approval due to safety issues is both safe and effective only a fool would not start asking some serious questions about the official and corporate claims about the vaccine. Especially as the health risk to those under 55 from the target virus is less than for seasonal flu. And as it is a non-sterilizing vaccine, just like the flu shot, it will have no impact on general population infection level.
So, are you a fool?
And when it comes to "climate change" only a fool would accept without questioning claims made for models that are in essence no different from those used to forecast the weather. Claims that make predictions decades into to future. When weather forecast models start falling apart after a week or two.
To give you an idea of just how unsophisticated the models used by the AGW proponents are. Do you remember the Financial Crisis in 2008? When the financial pricing of things like mortgages blew up and took out companies like Lehman Bros and AIG etc. The price of those derivatives etc were modeled using very sophisticated mathematical models. To give you an idea of just how sophisticated those financial pricing models were if a bog standard pricing model used by a trading desk in 2008 was the equivalent of Maths 101 first year in university the most sophisticated model used by the AGW climate model is about Senior Infants level maths.
And in 2008 all those very sophisticated mathematical models used by the fiance industry failed. Totally. In the real world.
And yet we ares supposed to dismantle modern industrial society because of the predictions of the AGW climate models.
So, are you a fool?
On vaccines, I think 8 billion doses represents quite a large test, so you will eventually have to admit their benefit and the wisdom of their use.
On Climate change, your explanation looks empty to me. It amounts to JMC doesn't want to accept what the overwhelming majority of relevant people do accept. I know you occasionally quote some opposition waffle about the models and state the maths is all wrong, but never state what is right in your "expert view"
What is similar between the climate change issue and the financial crisis is the fact that both were inevitable, but there was no action to stop the inevitable. Sub prime mortgages were an obvious problem for a long time. The response was to hide the underlying problem by packaging into mortgage backed securities that traders and bankers did not understand and could not value. They happily traded until the bubble burst. The problem is one of chaotic emotional human behaviour, which is never easy to model.
Climate change is a similar chaotic picture, where short term examples can always be ceased upon to pretend a long term trend isn't there. The fact is the trend is there and denial is futile.
You may consider that I am a fool, but you'll need to do more than wave your arms around and pretend that you know the maths to justify that opinion.
@checkthefacts
Who are these overwhelming majority of people? How many of these wise people know about numerical solutions of partial differential equations?
Do you?
I do. And its very important to understand the problems with initial value, cumulative errors etc when it comes to claims of accuracy made about these kind of models. People who know how this stuff actually works dont make those kind of accuracy claims.
Arm waving? Get back to me after you have read Chapter 19 of an introductory book like Numerical Recipes by Press, Tukolsky et al and we can discuss just how much needs to be changed to make it work in the real world. Some of use do know the maths. All the way down to the very messy foundations. And howto make it work. Not just theoretically.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you seem to have only a cursory knowledge of any of the subject involved. Or even the basic statistics it seems. But here is a hint. Never believe anything just because "everyone else does".
Here is a perfect example from recent history. Which "everyone believes". That no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq. Guess what. They were. About 60,000 tons worth of WMD were found in Iraq. Because WMD is defined as Nuclear, Chemical, Biological and Radiological Weapons. And those WMD, the chemical ones, were used to kill tens of thousand of Kurds. Among others. Then there was the yellow cake found on the very high grade Iraq scarp metal shipped to the Netherlands...
None of which had anything to do with the "Dodgy Dossier" but the WMD was found. And one side effect was getting the nuclear weapons programme in Libya shut down. But that's not "what everyone believes"
So thats why anyone who uses the "everyone believes its true" argument is just showing themselves to be a fool on that particular subject.
Which is why you should always be skeptical. And always ask the awkward questions. No matter what the "overwhelming majority" of people might believe. Because mostly there are wrong. To a lesser or greater degree. There is not much wisdom in crowds but quite a lot of stupidity in mobs.
Look around you in the world at the moment for a casebook example.
