On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5, D B Davis
Post by D B DavisPost by Scott LurndalOn Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B
Post by D B DavisMass media first
promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years ago.
That would have been in 1874.
Well, 1896 anyway
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" -
Richard Feynman
Almost 40 years ago, Bryson
First, show a little respect. This is Reid Bryson, professor
of meteorology and old-school climatologist at U of
Wisconsin.
Seriously, it's not Bill Bryson.
stood before the American Association
Post by D B Davisfor the Advancement of Science and presented a paper
saying human activity could alter climate.
"I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he
told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
This would be about 1968. As Manabe had already (1965)
published the first modern estimates of global warming due to
a doubling of CO2 I don't think he was laughed at for that.
"In the early 1960's, we developed a radiative-convective
model of the atmosphere, and explored the role of greenhouse
gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in
maintaining and changing the thermal structure of the
atmosphere. This was the beginning of the long-term research
on global warming..."
Bryson, with many achievements to his credit, did have a
tendency to spout "facts" which were a bit dubious, as seen
below. A few of those before the wrong audience, and yes, he
might be laughed at.
Post by D B DavisIn the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a
radical proposition.
The facts show otherwise.
But nowadays things have turned almost in the
Post by D B Davisopposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some
authority figure claiming that whatever the climate
happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the
explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the
conventional wisdom. ...
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most
significant impact
and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of
the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation
from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to
affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is
absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80
percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the
surface is
absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
And here we have the first "fact". A highly prized quote,
it's all over the internet. It' also quite irrelevant. (I
also suspect it's just plain wrong, but as nobody ever gives
a source for it it's hard to check).
As I've explained before, saturation simply does not matter.
The mean free path of the photon does. Shorten that, and the
insulating effect increases.
And as Gilbert Plass showed in the 1950s (without being
laughed off any podium) the upper atmosphere, whence our IR
escapes to space, is very far from saturated, and increasing
CO2 there can warm the planet, even without the water-vapor
feedback effect.
(For the technically able: how big a problem is IR absorption
for infrared cameras? If 80% of the signal was absorbed -
and re-emitted - within 30 feet I'd expect problems, but I've
no idea how far these things can see in the lower
atmosphere.)
Post by D B DavisA: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight
hundredths
of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as
water vapor.
Our second "fact". Again, not true or relevant, again
because the atmosphere is not well characterized by its
bottom 30 feet.
Post by D B DavisYou can go outside and spit and have the same effect
as doubling carbon dioxide.
Third "fact", also untrue. And shows a strange, for a
meteorologist, ignorance of the different physical properties
of CO2 and H2O. The latter undergoes a number of phase
transitions in the atmosphere, and excess is removed quickly,
while CO2 is removed by a far slower process, with much of it
hanging around for centuries. CO2 accumulates in the
atmosphere, H2O does not.
Post by D B DavisThis begs questions
First, that's not what question-begging means. The previously
high standards of the Wisconsin Cooperative Energy News seem
to be slipping.
about the widely publicized mathematical
Post by D B Davismodels researchers run through supercomputers
Well, first we create them. And what we put into them is
also well known, available for criticism by the community.
The passage of IR through the atmosphere is calculated via
equations that have been known for over a century. The same
equations used everywhere in our wireless world. Maybe
that's why you get those dropped calls? The Global Warming
Conspiracy has the telephone companies using it's Fake
Equations!
to generate climate
Post by D B Davisscenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the
data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon
dioxide
Let's be kind and say that it was the reporter's incompetence here, not Bryson's.
and accounts
Post by D B Davispoorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to
evaluate the models' long-range predictive ability, he
answers with another question: "Do you believe a
five-day forecast?"
Actually, seven day forecasts around here are now pretty
good.
But Bryson, weirdly, fails to note the difference between
climate and weather. The latter is chaotic, the former not.
The accuracy or otherwise of longer range weather forecasting
has nothing to do with the accuracy of climate models.
I attended one of Bryson's seminars long ago. It was quite
reasonable (though I doubt one of the facts he used,
especially now). This exploitative interview with a very old
Bryson did him no favours.
age.