Home
> AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Humor, Omniclimate, Skepticism > There’s Probably No AGW

## There’s Probably No AGW

Anybody up for a new “Bus Campaign”?

It would be quite appropriate indeed, given the fact that Anthropogenic Global Warming has become an article of faith for some. Take Arianna Huffington (*please!*):

Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects,

I am a firm believerthat there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

(my **emphasis**)

Advertisements

Categories: AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Humor, Omniclimate, Skepticism
Culture, Global Warming, Skepticism

That’s why I included the “Hopefully they fully checked these numbers before posting!!” After the recent incident you would think they would have had a programmer take 15 mninutes to write alert routines!!

Sadly, they have not learned from their last mess. Small errors are understandable, but, especially this one, where there is an UNPRECENTED lack of increase, they should have been able to trap the error, for a human look, before posting.

This is another example of the cavalier attitude that the data is handled with. These people should NOT be allowed to continue this unprofessional, sloppy attitude!!

So, with such poor standards, can we trust the data that alledgedly shows AGW????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mauna Loa posts .24 yearly rise in co2 for 2008, the smallest since recording began in 1959!!!

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Hopefully they fully checked these numbers before posting!!

You taking donations to start that campaign???

Not so fast KuhnKat…data are still preliminary and plenty of upward corrections will materialize soon, no doubt

I think the greenhouse effect per se is minor- warmer surfaces

have everything to do with the adiabetic(environmental) lapse rate.

The temperature for Earth

is about 255K; the 288K surface temperature is supposedly caused by

the greenhouse effect raising the temperature 33 degrees.

Using the 255K radiated to space as the average air temperature, and

plugging this

into the equation

H= kT/Mg

where k = 1.38* 10^-23 J/K = boltzmann constant,

T= degrees Kelvin,

M= mean molecular mass of dry air = 28.964 * 1.66* 10^-27 kg

g= gravitational constant= 9.807 m/sec per sec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height

and you get a scale height of about 7.5 kilometers

The environmental temperature lapse rate for earth, with its water

vapor, is about 6.5 K per kilometer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

The atmospheric pressure drops off at a rate

proportional to e^-z. The temperature drops until it reaches a height of around 12 km, when

it holds fairly steady .

Let a z of 1 equal the scale height. Then the AVERAGE temperature of

the

atmosphere will be K times the integral of *ze^-z from zero to

infinity minus K times the integral from z=12km/7.5km , which works

out to K(1-0.2) times the temperature at level zero, which is the

ground temperature.

K= 7.5 * 6.5= minus about 49K. Multiply this by 0.8

and you get the average temperature of the atmosphere is about

(289-39.2)= 250 K. Allowing for the inexactitude of my calculatons

(the tropopause must be somewhat LESS than 12.5 kilometers), this is

close to the theoretical 255 K.

The end result is, for earth you can IGNORE any theoretical

greenhouse effect. The average temperature of the atmosphere is about

250 K, and that’s why you get the 250 K radiation to space. The

ground temp is natuarally higher than this average because of the

atmospheric lapse rate of about 6.5K per kilometer, but this is

counterbalanced by the atmosphere above

(288-250)/6.5 =5.8 kilometers, which is radiating at a temperature

BELOW the 250 K average.