What Do We Think About Climate Change

Sure, by "definition" CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that definition is sort of self referencing. It is just a few physical properties and a word though.

What is important is how those physical properties of CO2 interplay with the various environments that it is found in.

CO2 being a "green house gas" in no way implies that in all scenarios a greater concentration of CO2 leads to greater macroscopic (global) temperatures.

There are many many various heat transfer mechanics that cannot be looked at without a more general and holistic approach.

 

Huh... yeah the density of the atmosphere (96 times denser), with multi layers clouds of liquid sulfuric acid, the lack of an intrinsic magnetic field similar to earths (resulting in the solar wind stripping of light elements like hydrogen and molecular oxygen) which results in no water, the proximity of the sun (see previous and..) with its persistently high temperature, length of the venusian day, etc.

None of these things aren't relevant.

That and that a venus is 96.5% CO2 and Earth is 0.039% CO2, with an appx. (I fudged it) partial pressure of CO2 in comparison to earth of 237,538 to 1.

I'd be the first one in line to make the unassailable argument that the chemistry and atmospheric behavior of Venus and Earth are 1-1. ::sarcasm::

 

Let's check out your Russian sources in a little more detail, shall we?

GV Chilingar is not a climatologist. He's a petroleum geologist. More specifically, he's a professor of civil and petroleum engineering. Gee - a climate change denier who's associated with the petroleum industry. Who woulda ever thunk?

L. F. Khilyuk apparently works at the same USC 'Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory' as Chilingar, although I couldn't find his specific specialty.

O. G. Sorokhtin works at a Russian Oceanic Institute. And he's a big proponent of abiogenic oil and natural gas: i.e., he claims oil and methane have a non-bioological origin; they're produced deep in the Earth and make their way up.

Yup...he sure sounds like somebody I should believe, when he starts talking about climate change.

I'll back off a little, and grant that all three do seem to be at least somewhat legitimate scientists, in their own fields. The fact that two of them work at a lab named for a professional con man kind of threw me off the trail. I suppose USC doesn't mind how Gunnerman gets his money, as long as he shares....

Why the three would veer off and co-write a book about adibiatic cooling of the Earth, I don't know. I'd guess their papers (one of which they've apparently had printed in two separate journals without admitting they were recycling) are intended to help sell their book, although I could be wrong.

 

Sweet, ad hominem attacks.

You know... there are other paper's and articles, this was just the first one that popped up.

Your assertion that there is not a single scientist who rejects your claims, is incredulous.

That, and apparently you are a peer-review board member who gets to decide who is a credible scientist and who isn't. Hell because the economics on the AGW side of things have zero, zed, nada questionable funding. Please.

Why don't you address the claims you make instead of wasting my time?

 

Questioning someone's qualifications to speak on climate change is hardly an 'ad hominum' attack. If someone claims to be a Spanish teacher, is it an ad hominum attack to point out that he doesn't speak Spanish?

If you scroll through pages and pages of Google, just about everything you see on adiabatic climate cooling and CO2 will be based on two papers these three gentlemen submitted. One of them they submitted twice: the second time thinly disguised as a response to a rebuttal of their other paper.

I'd say my qualifications for deciding scientific credibility are better than yours; at least I don't blindly believe scientific claims just because they're what I wanted to hear.

What am I supposed to be proving? That I didn't know of a single scientist who says CO2 is cooling the planet instead of warming it? I didn't, although I'm not sure how I would go about 'proving' I didn't know....

So now I know of three. And not only are they not climatologists, they do have ties to the petroleum industry. Sheer coincidence? I think not....

Face it: adiabatic climate cooling is just the latest bullshirt fad argument that's been siezed on by climate change deniers. To present it as though it's a mainstream scientific theory that somehow disproves the effect of greenhouse gases is complete rubbish.

 

I'll quote myself because apparently, you are not very good at reading. And I will follow it up with some nice pictures that make my point. That is... CO2 isn't necessarily a "warming gas".

I don't know if I buy into the adiabatic model or not, but there is mixing between the troposphere and the stratosphere, and even the most adamant AGW proponents will support the following two graphs. In fact, you could say that the physics of warming of the troposphere are dependent (interrelated is a better word) on the cooling of the stratosphere.

The cooling effect of CO2 in the Stratosphere significantly outpaces the warming effect in the Troposphere by CO2. There are various mechanisms (you could call some of them adiabatic if you want) regulate the mixing of these layers.

The main point to take is... CO2 (due to its concentration among other things) is a bit player, especially in the troposphere.



------------------------------------





Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colors from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. (ibid)




In 1967 Journal of Atmospheric Sciences published the paper: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity by Manabe and Wetherald.

 

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED
An Independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
by John McLean | August 16, 2010

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean_we_have_been_conned.pdf

 

That's hardly an 'independent review of the IPCC,' Marco. It's just one more in a long line of hatchet jobs, by a guy who's been chopping at climate change and the IPCC in his blog since at least July, 2007.

You might just as well call an Osama Bin Laden videotape 'an independent review of the US, western civilization and Christianity'......

 

Oh, I can read writin' just fine, bearflag. But you need to work on writin' something worth readin'...

Your whole post is smoke and mirrors; total distraction from the fact that you clearly said, 'it is debatable whether CO2 contributes more towards warming or cooling.'

That's a wildly inaccurate statement, which your pretty graphics and talk about atmospheric mixing do nothing to support. There's really no 'debate' at all; trying to manufacture one around those three Russians (who aren't even climatologists) is plain silly.

And you have a twofer going now, with your statement that 'CO2 (due to its concentration among other things) is a bit player, especially in the troposphere.'

You just keep throwing them out there....I'll also quote myself, to save time:

 

With all due respect, wow!!!!

Cheers

 

Having studied climate I proudly stand with the portion of students who actually know you are full of horsefeathers.

 

what we need is a study of people that deny climate change

I have the first question, " do you think about the things you think about?"

 

If you are going to throw this term around, you should at least know what it means.
When moist warm air is pushed up the side of a mountain, the adiabatic cooling is what makes the air release the moisture in the form of condensation, first as clouds, then as precipitation as rain, snow or hail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

That process is immutable as long as there is humidity, regardless of the percentage of CO2 being 0.2, 5 or 10%.

 

You know that is the best part about the patronizing attitude that dogmatic proselytizing people take.

WHO THE ^%#*!!! "Denies climate change?!?" I have never met a single person ever who argues that the Earth is in global climatic homeostasis. What people are denying is the inflated contribution of anthropomorphic CO2 and it's purported dire consequences.

The question is.... "Do you think about the *^%$ you are saying?"

If you want to criticize people at least get your critique correct.

 

Who's denying climate change? We have never said there is no climate change. Get your head out of your distal alimentary canal.