Crank Scientists keep cranking out global warming denial
David Siegel keeps cranking out links to bullshit arguments from AGW deniers. (Anthropomorphic Global Warming). Latest is a published paper in “Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences” giving the climate world shaking title of -
“Laws of Physics Define the Insignificant Warming of Earth by CO2 “.
This is a lovely provocative and bullshit title for this paper. Global warming caused by CO2 is exactly working out according to our known laws of physics. I suppose that if our disasters from growing number of weather extremes are insignificant, then so too will be our duration of life on this planet. It is very likely that our human civilization as a whole will be crushed by the very significant warming caused by our buildup of CO2.
I expect that this paper would be rejected by a quality peer reviewed climate science journal, for its title alone. Despite the bullshit title of the paper, the physics of CO2 still remains. It is a well mixed greenhouse gas and is the still growing major cause of global warming.
I can see why David Siegel was captivated by the title, and wants to waste peoples time and confirm climate change denial by pushing it. The paper compares the proportion of CO2 and H2O molecular contributions to the heat energy in air, as this varies a real lot between the poles and the equator. But what has this got to do with global warming?
The paper does Enthalpy calculations, which are about heat (vibration and motion) and thermodynamics. This has nothing to do with radiation physics and effects of green house gases. The logic of the paper can be summed up as “It is hot and humid in Mogadishu, near the equator. This proves that CO2 does not cause global warming”.
So sure is he that the climate change bogeyman has been entirely defeated at last, David Siegel writes “To answer this, read the paper and then explain exactly, in detail, using the author’s own data and words, what they got wrong” and “use the author’s own words and data to make your case. Show your work.”
Okay then, from comments it appears that this ruse is already recognized. It is quite astounding that it gets so regularly retried.
Ratzer is a professor emeritus of something or other at McGill University Canada. He does have a first degree in Physics, and was as founding member of the School of Computer Science at McGill in 1970. Not a real climate scientist then. His paper and Research Gate submissions immediately define him as a crank.
This you-tube presentation (by a person that appears too young and recently graduated to be a crank) describes cranks as experts retired from their own employment lifetime, and somehow now feel they can work in and challenge accepted science in another field, without first undergoing and accumulating the many years of training, mistakes corrections, and breadth of that other field, and acquiring enough social connections with active young workers in a their newly chosen field.
No surprise, since there are limited positions available. Cranks are created by our societies structural ageism. When you’re old, you haven’t so much time and energy left as to start again in any kind of specialty. Science, like too many professional careers now, is strongly divided into many special tall and thin “silos of knowledge”. All are competing for research dollars. Interdisciplinary work is difficult, and best done by good teamwork. Team sizes of big science keep getting bigger. Teams are built from the driving energies and enthusiastic career paths of the young, who also get to be the lowly paid.
This doesn’t stop anyone from slowly gaining a deep understanding of any field they consider important. It takes time. And we live in an information rich world.
Alan Urban wrote a medium article on how he overcame bias, wrong belief, and persevered over time, to gain solid comprehension and acceptance of hard climate science.
Details of the crank paper.
The paper takes about 20 places from the poles to the equator, and uses a sample of temperature and relative humidity data to calculate the ratio of molecule counts water vapor — H20 and carbon dioxide — CO2. From this it calculates that at the poles, CO2 has an effective presence 418 ppm, and at the equator somewhat less — 311 ppm.
The high relative humidity at the equator, at Mogadishu on the African East Coast, means an enormous number of water molecules exist relative to the count of CO2. Therefore the heat energy present in CO2 molecules is tiny, tiny, tiny, relative to that stored in H20 molecules. Therefore CO2 was said by this paper to have nothing much to do with global warming. This is a rehash of populaor argument that CO2 has no effect because it is a trace gas. It is a regular old bullshit argument pushed by global warming deniers.
Sowing knowing confusion
The writers of the paper are quite clear about their aim. Bold title and all. Of course, CO2 figures in ppm are normally reported for dry air, after removal of all water vapor. Ideal gas laws pretend that gases mix very well independently throughout the atmosphere. Excepting that water vapor precipitates, condenses out by the time it reaches the top of our Troposphere, where it meets the Stratosphere. High up there, the CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, without any water vapor.
Our greenhouse gas heat are mirrors spread throughout our atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases don’t store the heat accumulated in the warming of our globe. They are little mobile reflectors that stop heat photons escaping into space. —at those infra-red frequencies that carry heat energy. The reflected back heat instead now accumulates in our oceans, those capacious volumes of warming water spread far across our planet.
Heat storage distribution among molecules in air is a different property to energy reflection by same molecules in our atmosphere, and is different part of the process whereby our heat accumulation in oceans. Professional deniers love to find ways to hit on these many pools of human confusions about the global warming processes.
Below is a real time movie of a simulation of CO2 spewing and plants breathing in and out across our planet. This is now quite old, from 2006, so actual values of CO2 range now range from 416 to 424, and not 377 to 395.
Now finally, we have ChatGPT, fast being taken as the word of GOD in rephrasing the most valued sources of digital-stored knowledge. Why depend on the likes of David Siegel, when we have ChatGOD? Are writers of Medium become defunct? No, because this is all about politics, not science.
Q. How much does CO2 excess in our atmosphere contribute to current global warming compared to feedback effect of water vapor?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most significant contributors to global warming. It has been estimated that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and transportation, have caused levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise by more than 40% since pre-industrial times. This rise in CO2 levels has caused an increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature, which is leading to significant changes in our climate. Water vapor is also an important contributor to global warming. It is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and it amplifies the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, including CO2. As temperatures rise due to the increase in CO2, more water vapor is evaporated into the atmosphere, which in turn causes even more warming. So, both CO2 and water vapor contribute to global warming, but the primary driver of warming is the increase in CO2 levels. This is supported by a vast body of scientific research and data.
Q. Why is global warming, measured by rising temperature anomaly, happening fastest in polar regions, particular Arctic regions?
There are several reasons why global warming is happening fastest in polar regions, particularly in Arctic regions:
1. Albedo effect: The Arctic regions have a high albedo, which means that they reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. However, as the temperature increases, ice and snow melt, and the exposed land and water absorb more sunlight, leading to further warming.
2. Q. Why is global warming, measured by rising temperature anomaly, happening fastest in polar regions, particular Arctic regions?
There are several reasons why global warming is happening fastest in polar regions, particularly in Arctic regions:
1. Albedo effect: The Arctic regions have a high albedo, which means that they reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. However, as the temperature increases, ice and snow melt, and the exposed land and water absorb more sunlight, leading to further warming.
2. Positive feedback loops: As the Arctic warms, the permafrost (frozen soil) thaws, releasing methane and other greenhouse gases that further amplify warming. Also, as sea ice melts, more dark ocean water is exposed, leading to more absorption of sunlight and further warming.
3. Atmospheric circulation: As the Arctic warms, the temperature gradient between the Equator and the poles decreases, leading to a weaker jet stream and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. This can lead to more frequent extreme weather events in other parts of the world.
4. Ocean circulation: The Arctic Ocean is a key component of the global ocean circulation system, and changes in the Arctic can affect the transport of heat and nutrients throughout the world’s oceans. Overall, these factors contribute to a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification, where the warming in the Arctic is much greater than the global average temperature increase. As the Arctic warms, the permafrost (frozen soil) thaws, releasing methane and other greenhouse gases that further amplify warming. Also, as sea ice melts, more dark ocean water is exposed, leading to more absorption of sunlight and further warming.
3. Atmospheric circulation: As the Arctic warms, the temperature gradient between the Equator and the poles decreases, leading to a weaker jet stream and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. This can lead to more frequent extreme weather events in other parts of the world.
4. Ocean circulation: The Arctic Ocean is a key component of the global ocean circulation system, and changes in the Arctic can affect the transport of heat and nutrients throughout the world’s oceans. Overall, these factors contribute to a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification, where the warming in the Arctic is much greater than the global average temperature increase.
GOD AI has spoken.