Global Warming - It's Unraveleing - And Future Genrations Will Laugh

Global Warming - It’s Unraveleing - And Future Genrations Will Laugh

Science • October 2009 • Views: 707

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

Recent Pages by MurphyB:
60 Votes For Public Option? Sounds Fishy.....Thank You George Will Dog Eats Global Warming Data NYT Discovers Solar Effect on Planet Earth - Pigs Helplessly Fly But CO2 Still Causes Global Warming Pimping is the Second Oldest Profession Honduras Bake Sale

Jump to bottom

4 comments

Mad Prophet Ludwig Oct 25, 2009 11:11:49pm

Discussing all the reasons why this is utterly false would take a very long time indeed. It is essentially one lie after another from start to finish…

But just to point out one, AGW research did not start in the 70’s with a failed view of ice ages. This is pure hogwash.

actually, the first scientist to think about the consequences of dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was Svante Ahrenius back in 1896.

The actual and factual science on AGW, in terms of the basic mechanisms has actually been pretty thoroughly established since the 1950s.

abu_garcia Oct 26, 2009 5:15:12am

Svante Arrhenius’ calculations (I assume that’s who you were referring to) were based on an assumption of an infinitely thick atmosphere. Not because he believed that to be true, but because that was how that type of model calculations had to be done before computers (that is also how many stress model calculations were done in structural analysis and soil & rock mechanics - some of my fields).

The calculations were of very little relevance and completely wrong when extrapolated to long term effects.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Oct 26, 2009 11:19:59am

re: #2 abu_garcia

Svante Arrhenius’ calculations (I assume that’s who you were referring to) were based on an assumption of an infinitely thick atmosphere. Not because he believed that to be true, but because that was how that type of model calculations had to be done before computers (that is also how many stress model calculations were done in structural analysis and soil & rock mechanics - some of my fields).

The calculations were of very little relevance and completely wrong when extrapolated to long term effects.

This is a marvelous case of knowing just enough to be dangerous when making a completely misdirecting and ultimately false argument.

Arrhenius first off, based his calculations on an energy budget, you could if you wish, read the actual paper, it is on line. Second off the claim was that he was the first to think about the consequences of increased CO2 in 1896, as opposed to the false claim that this started in the 70’s made by this shoddy article.

Further, his work was picked up by Angstrom, who made more detailed calculations in the early 1900’s. By the thirties, with the understanding of QM, it was clear to everyone, that the CO2 in the atmosphere had a warming effect. By nature of it’s electronic structure, it must absorb IR. It only followed that increasing CO2 must increase the global temperature.

By the 50’s all of the basic mechanisms of the science (at least as far as CO2 was concerned) were really quite well established.

So the claim of this article is completely false. Further, your attempt to discredit Arrhenius manages to discount all of the science that happened after him.

That’s very disingenuous of you.

abu_garcia Oct 26, 2009 5:15:09pm

re:#3 Ludwig

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is true, but the “runaway greenhouse” is based on the infinite thickness calculations. I was not attempting to “discredit” Arrhenius (the scientist) anymore than I would the numerous engineers who have developed stress calculations using the same method - which is why I mentioned them.

But the “runaway greenhouse” extrapolation that is bandied about is well outside the ability of these models to predict and is just scare talk. IMO, that extrapolation is why Arrhenius’ name is usually invoked.

I did not bother to read the article. No one knows if the climate is going to cool or not and I certainly do not share the quoted belief that future generations will be “bemused”. The idea that any of the early models could predict the behavior of earth’s climate is laughable.

Just to be clear, I regard the current brouhaha about global warming to be just a 21st century “ghost dance” being put forward as a way to avoid the coming population collapse. Dance away, the wars will come anyway.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!