I am sure the flat earthers said the same thing. How could the earth be spherical? We would fall off the other side. Those who are wrong always think they have science on their side. The problem is, they don't know enough to know if science is on their side or not.
Do you remember doing a "connect the dots" drawing puzzle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_the...
Let's say of crude figure of a sailboat (about 9 dots). If you erase the numbers and simply have the dots, it's hard but not impossible to find the sailboat by trying every way of connecting the dots. But you know dots are at the important points. Suppose the dots are randomly from the lines of the crude sailboat figure? Oops!
While I applaud the effort to model the climate, the data is simply inadequate to support the conclusions made. This remains so even if the climatologists issued a correction and predicted a cooling trend. Even if it subsequently happened. "A broken (old style) clock is right twice a day."
Whatever model, limited or comprehensive, it needs to follow the known natural laws. Modeling can be a useful scientific tool as long as neither too much nor the wrong type of information are demanded of them.
If you have a model that generates accurate information with the wrong laws, look for an error that cancels the law error. If not found, look for a complication your model missed that cancels the law error. If not found, use the model to find a more direct test of the law itself. If found, look for a good scientific journall to publish in and, if verified by others, look for your letter from the Nobel Prize committee.
It is also true that there are cases where the physical laws meant something else than what was originally thought, but that's rare compared to simple error. If you can simply interpret the laws differently in a particular case, skip the models and produce working technology from the interpretation. A clearly functioning useful device not only makes money but trumps everything.
I wouldn't mind if you killed this debate through finding a hole in thermodynamics, but the patent office requires a clearly working model.
The problem with your "scientific" link is that it pretends to be scientific.
It postulates that atmospheric convection is involved with vertical heat redistribution.
The error with that is that, at the top of the atmosphere, there is not another substance that the atmosphere can transfer heat to via conduction.
The reason that GHGs are considered and not the remainder of the atmosphere is that they mostly interact with energy leaving the earth, but not with energy arriving at the earth. Oxygen and nitrogen do not.
It is true that Venus' atmosphere is more dense and Mars' atmosphere is less dense, and Venus is hotter than earth, while Mars is colder, but the atmospheric density does not play a significant roll in that temperature difference.
However, Hans Jelbring makes that claim, the proceeds to do calculations based on it. In this case, the basic assumption is incorrect, thus the entire paper is wrong.
The real problem is that CO2 is causing warming, and you want that not to be the case. You, and most AGW deniers constantly do that -- point to one, or a few individuals, and claim that they refute the science behind global warming. Those relatively few individuals are an extreme minority of the scientific community -- both that which is directly associated with climate research, and the remainder of scientists, who, while not directly related, understand the science, and agree with the general direction.
It should be noted that among those who deny global warming, we find an inordinately high proportion of individuals that also deny evolution. At this point, anyone who denies evolution should have a scarlet letter imprinted on everything he or she writes, so that the rest of the community would know before reading whatever it is that the author is either not honest, or has a very poor understanding of science.
Edit: Consider the effect of atmosphere in general, and atmosphere with some GHGs.
The difference in temperature in the middle of the Sahara can be 90 degrees from day to night.
The difference in temperature in the Amazon is only 20-30 degrees.
The non-GHG atmosphere is the same.
The difference is water, which retains heat.
Another way to look at this is, how fast does the moon cool, compared to the Sahara desert?
The sahara desert cools 90 degrees in less than 12 hours.
The moon cools about 500 degrees in a couple days.
The rate of cooling is pretty similar despite the dramatic difference in "atmospheric surface mass density."
A claim, which ignores, among other things, the fact that heat can't flow from cold objects to warm objects. And the first law of thermodynamics leaves no doubt that greenhouse gases have a profound effect on temperature.
That article is garbage, which is why it was not published in real journal of either physics or atmospheric science. You should read textbooks if you want to know physics, not articles that are wrong.
EDIT: It does seem like you are denying pretty solid physics (greenhouse effect) and chemistry (ocean acidification). These require knowledge of physics and chemistry only at the freshman/sophomore level.
Ha! Ha! Some1 says, "It all comes down to how you INTERPRET them?"
True scientists never come to a conclusion via interpretation. They base their decisions on facts and data. If you don't you will become like this:
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
You see these type of people attempt to mold science and truth to fit their agenda. Anyway you look at it, it is pseudo-science. That will only get you into trouble. Today you see that these pseudo-scientists are trying to convince us that the earth is heating up at unprecedented rates. The data is just not there for their conclusion, so they resort to Goebbels law of repeating a lie over and over until it becomes the truth. That is not good science, but it is good propaganda.
Peggy, I guess you believe in Santy Claus and OA and AGW and ACC. Do you ever believe in something real? Read carefully:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/...
Deny to deny,once again... the progress of history
It all comes down to how you INTERPRET them? Really? You are going to go with that?
Added:
Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. How do you interpret that? Please, keep studying, Kano. It is not sinking in yet.
Added, part 2:
"Yes, I am going with the "Greenhouse effect is a function of atmospheric mass",..." - OK, Kano. Now do you have an understanding of potency?
"....while I do not dismiss the warming effects of CO2 I believe it is only a part of the equation." - Excellent, Kano! Now do you know what is meant by anthropogenic means? Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW.
<>
With such an awkward stance, it is no wonder you are so misguided.
It is not my science, try reading Nikolov and Zeller or that article by Hans Jelbring.
I have studied a lot lately, and it basically comes down to how you interpretate them,
explain why venus surface is hot. this is always fun to hear your explanation.
lets say your interpretations are wrong.
