Global Warming: For Experts Only

Discussion in 'Politics' started by julianVGS, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. exGOPer


    Can you link me to this guy's peer reviewed papers where he has published all this.
    #21     Sep 6, 2017
  2. #22     Sep 6, 2017
  3. exGOPer


    #23     Sep 6, 2017
  4. He lists at least nine peer-reviewed papers and provides links to them directly at the top.

    Are you blind or just being willfully ignorant?
    #24     Sep 6, 2017
  5. exGOPer


    However, my problem with Dr. Ward’s theory is how he claims to “prove” that it is physically impossible for increased CO2 to cause global warming. He lists off many claims that are wrong in a number of ways.

    Let me go over a few examples.

    “[models assume] there is more thermal energy contained in Earth’s infrared radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases than in the solar ultraviolet-B radiation that reaches Earth when ozone is depleted. Common experience… confirms that this is not true: you feel hotter standing in … radiation from the Sun than you do standing outside at night with infrared radiation welling up from Earth’s surface.”

    There are many issues with this statement, but it is a good example of how someone can confuse the anthropogenic global warming with all the other things that naturally occur in the energy budget of the climate system. The fact that the warming from CO2 is relatively small compared to other things does not prove that it is harmless. The change in the earth’s radiative budget by elevated CO2 is roughly 4 W/m2 of of extra downwelling radiation, considering all the feedbacks. Think about a 4W incandescent light bulb warming a square meter of the surface. It’s not something you would immediately notice on your skin, especially when standing in direct sunlight. However, adding this up over a long time, it amounts to a great deal of extra heat in the climate system.


    Even without increased CO2, the atmosphere is always radiating down on us. If you were standing outside at night and the atmosphere stopped radiating down on you, you would feel a lot colder!

    “Greenhouse warming theory also assumes that the heated air radiates energy back to Earth’s surface, and that this return flow of heat energy warms Earth. The problem with this is that the [lower atmosphere is] colder than Earth’s surface. Heat cannot physically flow from cold to hot. You do not stand next to a cold stove to get warm.”

    Heat “flows” in a few different ways, but heat is radiated in all directions. In a way, he is correct that the net “flow” of heat is always from warm to cold, but the downward radiation from the atmosphere slows this net cooling of the planet considerably. This downward radiation is actually really important, it is a key reason why Earth is not a lifeless ball of ice. He is obviously confused about how global warming works, because no one is proposing that there is a net gain of heat from downward radiation. Instead, the idea is that the net loss of heat from the surface is slowed by CO2, which naturally results in a net warming.

    ( less radiation output ) + ( same radiation input ) = ( more internal energy )

    There are more examples of Dr. Ward confusing simple facts about the physics of the atmosphere. Hopefully you can see just how wrong he is about the science of global warming.

    There are also many issues with his ideas about warming from ozone, but I don’t really want to dwell on them. One of the big ones is that he claims ozone loss can explain polar amplification, since ozone depletion is strongest at the poles. Polar amplification is expected to occur most strongly at the north pole, due to the vast areas of sea ice. However, the most destruction of ozone occurs at the south pole, because of the type of polar stratospheric clouds that form there. To add insult to injury, the south pole has seen less warming in observations than the north!

    So in summary, his theory is garbage. Hopefully this can help steer people away from his ideas.
    #25     Sep 6, 2017
  6. exGOPer


    The first one is clearly not which is what I asked for

    "I have now completed experiments showing that air with more than 23-times normal concentrations of carbon dioxide is heated no more than 0.2 degrees more than normal air when exposed to the same infrared radiation. Air with more than 10-times normal concentrations of carbon dioxide covered Earth 400 million years ago when ice ages were common."

    Where does he prove this in a peer reviewed manner? The guy doesn't even understand the area he is researching (as noted above), his peer reviewed papers in other areas are irrelevant.
    #26     Sep 6, 2017
  7. The gentleman is an expert in this area. I would urge you to read all of his information and citations that are relevant to your interests. I provided the link that has the information, the rest is up to you.
    #27     Sep 6, 2017
    WeToddDid2 likes this.

  8. In summary some "climate change" advocacy organization disagrees with his theory but can provide little evidence to dispute it.
    #28     Sep 6, 2017
    WeToddDid2 likes this.
  9. exGOPer


    The evidence was provided in details, it just went over your head.

    Again, where is the peer reviewed paper of this Ward guy's experiments?
    #29     Sep 6, 2017
  10. exGOPer


    The guy is a fake as proven above, expertise in one area doesn't translate to another area just because one wants to. Your link has no peer reviewed papers by him on AGW.
    #30     Sep 6, 2017