SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: neolib who wrote (20191)2/10/2008 12:31:48 PM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Comrade, your scam is falling apart. You need another way to stop capitalism.



To: neolib who wrote (20191)2/10/2008 1:42:21 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 36917
 
Well neoliar AKA ear2earfeces, you have been asked what is the mechanism for CO2 to drive temperature. What is the neoliar reply.






What is wrong with this OISM explanation?
GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS

The greenhouse effect amplifies solar warming of the earth. Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the Earth's atmosphere, through combined convective readjustments and the radiative blanketing effect, essentially decrease the net escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth's atmosphere. The path of this radiative input is complex. It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.

Figure 18: Qualitative illustration of greenhouse warming. "Present GHE" is the current greenhouse effect from all atmospheric phenomena. "Radiative effect of CO2" is the added greenhouse radiative effect from doubling CO2 without consideration of other atmospheric components. "Hypothesis 1 IPCC" is the hypothetical amplification effect assumed by IPCC. "Hypothesis 2" is the hypothetical moderation effect.

When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ and are schematically shown in Figure 18. Without the water-vapor greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler (81). The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC (82,83) has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses, shown as hypothesis 2, predict the opposite – that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature (81,84,85,91,92). The experimental evidence, as described above, favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected.

Figure 19: The radiative greenhouse effect of doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 (right bar) as compared with four of the uncertainties in the computer climate models (87,93).

The computer climate models upon which "human-caused global warming" is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 19 illustrates the difficulties by comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century – an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effect on the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close correlation with increasing solar activity.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature rise (84,86).

The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate (87). For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect (88). It has been suggested that the climate models treat feedbacks from clouds, water vapor, and related hydrology incorrectly (85,89-92).

The global warming hypothesis with respect to CO2 is not based upon the radiative properties of CO2 itself, which is a very weak greenhouse gas. It is based upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by CO2 and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature increase, primarily through increased evaporation of H2O, a strong greenhouse gas. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same calculated outcome.
oism.org



To: neolib who wrote (20191)2/10/2008 5:15:12 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36917
 
Oh, I don't doubt you believe Al Gore possesses more scientific knowledge than Frederick Seitz who founded that web site. I just enjoy watching you and the other Patheist flail about when shown some facts. :-)

BIOGRAPHY OF FREDERICK SEITZ

Frederick Seitz was born in San Francisco, California on July 4, 1911. He received the A.B. degree in mathematics from Stanford University in 1932 and the Ph.D. degree in physics from Princeton University in 1934 where he was a postdoctoral Proctor Fellow. While at Princeton, he and his teacher, Professor Eugene P. Wigner, developed the Wigner-Seitz method for calculating the cohesive energy of a metal, the first such calculation, based on the known properties of the atoms involved.

He served on the faculties of the University of Rochester (1935-1937), the University of Pennsylvania (1939-1942), the Carnegie Institute of Technology, now the Carnegie-Mellon University (1942-1949), and was a research physicist at the General Electric Laboratories (1937-1939).

In 1940 Dr. Seitz published The Modern Theory of Solids, a book which is generally regarded as having been a prime influence in the development of solid state physics, including the development of transistors. His second volume, The Physics of Metals, was published in 1943. He has been an editor and consultant to numerous scientific publications.

He was the editor for the second Five Year Outlook for the National Academy of Sciences, and is consulting editor in solid state physics for the Encyclopedia of Science and Technology.

His career in public service began during World War II as a civilian member of the National Defense Research Committee and consultant to the Secretary of War. He was also the director of the training program in atomic energy at the Clinton Laboratories of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1946 to 1947. His wartime research included work on ballistics, radar, and nuclear reactors. Appointed professor of physics at the University of Illinois in 1949, he became department chairman in 1957, and dean and vice president for research in 1964.

Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, he served as president on a part-time basis for three years before assuming full-time responsibilities in 1965. He was a member of the board of trustees of The Rockefeller University from 1966 to 1978.

Seitz was science advisor to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Paris from 1959 to 1960 and was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee from 1962 to 1969. He has been an advisor to the Office of Naval Research, the Office of Aerospace Research, the National Bureau of Standards, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, the Defense Science Boards, the National Cancer Advisory Board, and The Smithsonian Institution, among other national and international agencies.

He has served as chairman of the United States delegation to the United Nations Committee on Science and Technology for Development, and as a member of the Secretary of State's Monitoring Panel for UNESCO.

He recently became chairman of an advisory board to the office of the Strategic Defense Initiative. He is former chairman of the board of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation and of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. He is a trustee of The American Museum of Natural History and of the Institute for International Education.

Among his numerous honors and awards, Dr. Seitz received the Franklin Medal in 1965, the Herbert Hoover Medal in 1968, the Defense Department Distinguished Service Award in 1968, the NASA Distinguished Service Award in 1969, the Compton Award, the highest award of the American Institute of Physics, in 1970, and the James Madison Medal of Princeton University in 1978.

In 1979 he received his second NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal presented for his "dedicated service as chairman of the NASA Space Program Advisory Council from 1973 to 1977." In addition to Rockefeller, 28 universities in this country and abroad have awarded him honorary degrees. Other memberships include The American Physical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Century Club, the Bohemian Club, the American Philosophical Society, the American Society for Metals, the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineers, the American Crystallographic Society, the Optical Society of America, the Washington Academy of Science, and a number of European scientific academies. Dr. Seitz is married to the former Elizabeth K. Marshall. They reside in New York City. November 1985



To: neolib who wrote (20191)2/12/2008 7:55:55 AM
From: HPilot  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
My bad, I wasted time looking and trying to understand it before I noted the source:

Apparently it is a waste of time for you to try to understand Barney the purple Dino.