Can anyone here refute this mathematical analysis by Bryce Johnson?
zero and zero
There are a couple of obvious things wrong. One is that he does not use a three-dimensional fluid mechanical model of the atmosphere, he only uses a radiative transfer code (Modtran), which should have been used in conjunction with a numerical climate model, not instead of it.
He assumes that cloud feedback is all negative, when it is not. Low clouds (stratus and stratocumulus) provide positive feedback to warming.
The type of argument he is using is a typical argument for finding the order of magnitude of an effect, but is clearly insufficient for finding a precise answer In that sense he is probably correct within a factor of ten.
EDIT: I'm sorry Zippi62, where has it been published? Please provide the reference.
Another EDIT: I'm still waiting on that reference. If you want the equations that go into climate modeling, I'd suggest starting with "Introduction to Three-dimensional Climate Modeling" by Washington and Parkinson. Simple calculations show that increased greenhouse gases cause warming. More complicated calculations like the one that Johnson does (even if he doesn't understand feedback) also show warming. The climate models are the best we have, but the point is that every one of these shows warming. You want simple equations and simple answers? Sorry, the world doesn't always work that way.
Oh, it's published on the web? Sorry, I was using the "published" in the sense that scientists use it, not in the denier sense.
A Further EDIT: I'm surprised that you would emphasize the section that mentioned the variability of water vapor--if anything, that shows that the approach of Johnson is misguided, since it has no way of dealing with such variability. It is well known that carbon dioxide is well mixed throughout the troposphere, while water vapor is not, so why would he base all his calculations on a model that can't handle this aspect of the problem?
Alph why do you always bring up Venus, it has nothing to do with Earth, Mars has 95% CO2 as well but it is freezing cold, and it is thought by some scientists that our Earth also was mainly CO2 before simple forms of life appeared.
Page 10: You plug in the numbers, temperature should rise, there is LESS NET LOSS to space.
Excited CO2 molecules "radiate" in all directions and excited CO2 molecules knock other molecules in the atmosphere, not only GHG's but the entire content, so KE is really important part of 'transfer' or 'warming'.
Page 41: "Note that added atmospheric H2O either as vapour, aerosols (clouds) or rain diminishes temperature effect ofCO2 in all cases. " and "Cloud cover, by itself, lowers world temperature "
Truck full of sophisticated manure, really, think of nights when there is cloud cover it is warmer than cloudless nights. "Atmospheric H2O" is NOT aerosols, (as he claims) aerosols makes tiny surface that serves to 'seed' clouds.
Alph makes valid point to the fact: "paleo evidence is quite clear, we can still heat up beyond what our civilization would recognize."
Even a doubling has to be modeled. So the arm chair climatologist has the anything possible postulation. As long as it goes up. Basically alarmist think of themselves as, I'm almost a expert.
If I could only express what I feel about pretentious idiots. If temperatures go up, they should also go down according to CO2 values. Hasn't happen but I do enjoy listening to fools.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/ne...
Page 23 in your link shows, "All molecules but carbon dioxide." You can't remove carbon dioxide without removing water vapor. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are indivisible in a planet that is capable of supporting life.
<"WATER CAN VARY AS MUCH AS A FACTOR OF 3 IN A MATTER OF HOURS WITH A REPETITION RATE OF SUCH VARIATION OF SEVERAL TIMES PER YEAR>
Water vapor can go up in a matter of hours if warm dry air passes over a body of water. Water vapor can go down in a matter of hours if updrafts cause water to condense. Both are driven by temperature and do not happen by themselves. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
he's not looking at the paleo evidence. Look up PETM and see what happens.
why buy his model over others?
it's pretty obvious to me a lot of CO2 is deadly, Venus being a prime example. Fortunately, our planet is different, but the paleo evidence is quite clear, we can still heat up beyond what our civilization would recognize.
You will never know, because we do not know enough about the subject. If we truly did know, then the climate models would be more accurate.
Anyone who puts for a mathematical analysis, is just blowing smoke.
well ,this is BS and with out the seas we would be 400 degrees today and with out the sun it would be very cold , and if you had no lungs you would not breath .
Don't be fooled by the words of fools.
We need the co2 to live!
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bryce-johnson-co2.pdf
Can anyone here refute this mathematical analysis by Bryce Johnson?
