Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > An experimental demo of GHE.

Who said "Al Gore=Climate Science"? No-one here.

Um, right:

And you are saying there is no connection between what he was demonstrating and what the 'scientists' (none of whom have yet disassociated themselves from Gore's 'science') are claiming.

Do you now deny that Al Gore is a figurehead for AGW? Nobel Prize recipient?

or that Al Gore's demo goes to the basics of AGW?

On the thread topic of evidence: Al Gore is not a climate scientist. This is false equivalence. The relevant evidence is that from which the multi-disciplinary scientific consensus has emerged over several decades. Al Gore's demo was not a part of that body of evidence, so it is irrelevant.

All we are left with is the loudly unspoken conspiracy theory.

Aug 22, 2012 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I don't see myself as running rings around BBD. On the contrary, I am dug in on my question and BBD is the one going round in circles. If there can be no experimental evidence, just say so. If it is merely difficult to get, say that.

I am personally not aware of any experiment done since the nineteenth century that links absorption theory with the whole construct of greenhouse warming, whether it is due to back-radiation (is that officially abandoned now, or deprecated in the literature?) or increased radiation to space at TOA (where is that, exactly). I think it is theoretical. Now, it may well be a correct theory, but ought it not be checked against observation? No, not observation of warming which must then be given attribution, but observation of the theorised mechanism actually taking place. So, as I do not know the literature, what is the link between Arrhenius and the whole shebang? Was the experimental work ever done? A simple yes or no will suffice, and references if yes.

Aug 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

"All we are left with is the loudly unspoken conspiracy theory."

Did I miss out straw man? There it is.

Aug 22, 2012 at 10:20 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda

I don't see myself as running rings around BBD. On the contrary, I am dug in on my question and BBD is the one going round in circles. If there can be no experimental evidence, just say so. If it is merely difficult to get, say that.

We've been through all this, right here, on this thread. Shall I post a list of every single question I asked that you did not answer?

Aug 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD is like the phoenix. Rises after getting burnt every time.

Aug 23, 2012 at 1:55 AM | Registered Commentershub

Al Gore's demo was not a part of that body of evidence, so it is irrelevant.

Yeah, right.
It matters not a jot that he is the best known recipient of the Nobel Prize awarded for climate science.
Yeah, right.
It matters not a jot that this prize is shared by all of the others ...
Yeah, right.
It matters not a jot that his video was so discredited in a court of law...
It matters not a jot that his is apparently the only repeatable evidence ever put forward to prove GHE. And it matters not a jot that this evidence has been tainted by fakery and fraud in support of the cause.

Keep reciting the mantra, BBD.

Aug 23, 2012 at 2:38 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

BBD, I am asking a question, not making a case for anything (on this thread). I don't need to answer your questions when they address my motives or are posed as a false dichotomy or straw man. In fact, I don't need to answer them at all. Why did you not take the opportunity to clear up the yes or no to the question in my last comment? If I thought you had made it clear, I would not ask you again. I would be asking the warmist community if that was the verdict of you all, because I am not sure that you speak FOR the consensus as opposed to in favour of it.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:18 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

BBD
I repeat: no-one has said 'Al Gore=Climate Science'. Chasing after straw men as usual.
'Al Gore is a figurehead for AGW and a Nobel prizewinner' is quite correct.
And therefore there is a responsibility on him — greater perhaps than on you or me — not to fiddle his results to get the answer that he wants. No?
Or is this one of those bits of "post-normal honesty" where what you want to be so is so and getting the facts right is less important than getting the message across? Even if the message is rubbish.
And does not the fact that he can't get the result he wants without fiddling the results go a long way to prove that the message is claptrap?
Time to stop digging?

Aug 23, 2012 at 2:01 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Rhoda

I seriously suggest spreading this challenge wider on the blogosphere, leave your challenge here on BH but let people like Anthony Watts know about it and even venture to RC and invite them to enter a suggestion?
Were you to do this then I think all posts which were not either a proposed experiment or a comment on a proposed experiment should be moderated out, leaving a "clean" thread for others to join. Failing that then start a new discussion thread based on the challenge and get the Bish to agree tough moderation on off topic posts?

Aug 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM | Registered CommenterDung

see this for quite a balanced account of the greenhouse effect:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/08/the-best-ever-description-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

However, empirical backing appears to be scanty....as usual.

Aug 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM | Registered Commenterdiogenes

rhoda

BBD, I am asking a question, not making a case for anything (on this thread). I don't need to answer your questions when they address my motives or are posed as a false dichotomy or straw man. In fact, I don't need to answer them at all. Why did you not take the opportunity to clear up the yes or no to the question in my last comment?

You don't have to answer my questions or admit when you are mistaken but your serial refusal speaks volumes. As you know, even though your fan base is oblivious.

As to the 'experimental evidence' meme; it is misdirection. The radiative properties of CO2 and indeed all atmospheric gasses were thoroughly quantified decades ago. If you *really* want to check, nothing is stopping you. Obviously you do not want to check or you would have done so, which demonstrates that this isn't about a search for knowledge at all. You are in fact making a case.

Misdirections like the 'missing evidence meme' fit in with the generalised insinuation that there's sloppiness, absence of evidence, cover-up, corruption and of course, 'dodgy data'.

There are only two reasons why people engage in this behaviour: emotions and politics. It has nothing to do with science.

But then we both knew that from the off, didn't we?

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

What is stopping me from ttempting an experiemnt? Apart from trivial things such as funding and practical problems with skill and gear, what is seriously stopping it is agreement beforehand that the experimentt is correctly configured to give a worthwhile result. Otherwise we already have Klein for the mylar bag thing. Now, Klein has not been taken as a valid test by warmists. There may indeed be problems with it either with its execution or interpretation of results. A proper scientific approach is to decide on a suitable experiment first with a view to what the data will show, then to do the experiment and let the chips fall where they may. Why the reluctance to accept that as a course of action? Whay have you got to lose? Surely you know what the data will show already, and you will win the argument you alone are involved in. Because I am not making a case, I am looking for the missing link between the theory and the warming. Not supposition and 'we can't think of anything else' but a logical chain. If you can't see why that chain is lacking I can't help you. And I will not answer what you have plainly posed as gotcha questions. Propose an experiment, critique other proposals or take it elsewhere. You are allowed to start your own discussion thread where you can indulge in your vapourings to your heart's content. You really don't have to pollute this one with irrelevance.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda

Are you after confirmation of absorption and re-radiation of IR by CO2 or a model of the behaviour of the radiative-convective atmosphere from surface to TOA under increased CO2 forcing? I'm not even sure what you think you want at this point.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD

Propose an experiment, comment on the Berthold Klein experiment or do not post in this thread. Simples.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM | Registered CommenterDung

And I will not answer what you have plainly posed as gotcha questions.

Trans: I won't answer anything that I can't answer without conceding a point. Christ, I hope you don't rely on that in court.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

You really don't have to pollute this one with irrelevance.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM | rhoda>>>>>

It's classic troll bahaviour.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL is the standard advice at BH for this sort of disruptive behaviour.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

(Note: standard behaviour when confronted by anything that challenges the dominant memes here is aggressive rejection and repeated attempts to shut that commenter down.)

rhoda

What is stopping me from ttempting an experiemnt? Apart from trivial things such as funding and practical problems with skill and gear, what is seriously stopping it is agreement beforehand that the experimentt is correctly configured to give a worthwhile result.

Since what I wrote is slightly ambiguous, I will take the blame for this. I meant 'check the literature describing the measurement, under laboratory conditions, of the absorption and re-radiation of IR by various gasses, but particularly the validation and subsequent refinement of early work done on the radiative properties of CO2'.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

The standard IPCC description of GHE is that it is the result of back radiation from the LOWER troposphere [where CO2 and vapour is at it's maximum concentration] to the surface ie. a very localised effect with absolutely nothing to do with TOA. Klein's mylar experiment was very apt in that respect [including his lab experiment using tungsten lighting]. If GHE exists within the lower troposphere [as low as surface level] it should be straightforward to simulate it in the lab, as Rhoda has referred to.

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Are we still looking for back-radiation, or have we disavowed that? Is that now the warmist consensus, because I seem to remember a climate scientist right here on the blog who made quite a big deal of it a few weeks back. I'll check back.

Oh. I am not rejecting your evidence. It is indeed evidence of something. Supportive of warming, at least prima facie. But not of the link I seek. Perhaps I need to explain that again. Maybe you can point me at some IPCC work that makes the link. Surely it is in an early WG1 chapter, isn't it?

Aug 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

The standard IPCC description of GHE is that it is the result of back radiation from the LOWER troposphere [where CO2 and vapour is at it's maximum concentration] to the surface ie. a very localised effect with absolutely nothing to do with TOA.

Can you link to the html version of AR4 WG1 in which this standard description appears? Since it is radiative disequilibrium at TOA that causes the troposphere and surface to warm, I'm interested to see the reference.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Some numpty here seems to think that experiments on the radiative properties of CO2 somehow PROVE the existence of global warming by GHE.

It's like comparing apples and oranges - they're both fruit but not the same.

A bit like saying that if it gets warmer while CO2 increases, then the warming MUST be due to the presence of CO2 [totally ignoring all other possible causes]

As Rhoda says, PROVE experimentally the [surface] warming effect of GHE. [I state surface as that is what the IPCC claim is the effect - nothing to do with TOA whatsoever]

Anyone who thinks it's not the same as the IPCC says [trying to claim their own personal theory for the effect of TOA] should remove themselves from the thread. They should have the guts to start their own thread proposing their own view of how GHE works, instead of cluttering up this one with their off topic irrelevances.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

rhoda

(ahem)

Are you after confirmation of absorption and re-radiation of IR by CO2 or a model of the behaviour of the radiative-convective atmosphere from surface to TOA under increased CO2 forcing? I'm not even sure what you think you want at this point.

This matters. Please clarify so we can continue.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Can you link to the html version of AR4 WG1 in which this standard description appears? Since it is radiative disequilibrium at TOA that causes the troposphere and surface to warm, I'm interested to see the reference.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM | BBD>>>>>

TOA is just that, it's where the atmosphere meets 'space'. Disequilibrium is simply a measur of energy in at TOA compared to energy out at TOA. It is a simple measurement - it causes nothing but is used by the IPCC as proof of surface warming - NOT the CAUSE OF.

AR$ WG1 is a lengthy document - please refer to the exact paragraph, with link to html or pdf, which states that conditions at TOA are the CAUSE of surface warming.

Whichever source you choose to look at, including Trenberth, surface warming due to GHG's occurs WITHIN the atmosphere - Not at TOA where GHG's do no exist.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

For anyone confused, including myself, by the sudden change from upper to lower case for my posting name, I've just registered and logged in and, even though I registered with upper case it has not shown that.

I'll try amending my profile.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

For anyone confused, including myself, by the sudden change from upper to lower case for my posting name, I've just registered and logged in and, even though I registered with upper case it has not shown that.

I'll try amending my profile.

Aug 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM | RKS>>>

Fantastic. Not only has my profile been amended but my name has been amended on all my back dated posts since registering.

Aug 23, 2012 at 9:10 PM | Registered CommenterRKS