Tuesday 14 July 2020

Why luke-warmism implicitly supports climate alarmism

In a recent article Richard Lindzen wrote:

"An oversimplified picture of the climate behaviour based on a single process can lead to distorted conclusions"

The single process Lindzen refers to must be the so-called greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. In particular: the model of the GHGE proposed by Manabe and Wetherald 1967, M&W1967, amended by Held and Soden 2000, H&S2000.

This is the only simple model of GHGE alarmists ever considered. 'Belief in' and obsequious homage to this GHGE model defines the climate alarmist position. They consider the M&W1967/H&S2000 model to be "settled science" and "simple physics".

  1. Alarmists. M&W1967/H&S2000 model is not an "oversimplified process". It cannot be improved by complicating it or nit-picking some gross flaws (as Monckton does). It is a mistaken process. It is not even physics. It's very description misrepresents the physical world. A top of the troposphere, ToT, warming cannot be transmitted back to the surface, by assuming the lapse rate is a plane, or line drawn in the sky which stays constant (as Andrew Dessler, Ken Rice, and others do). Because the ToT is over 75C cooler than the surface with an atmospheric density about one quarter. This model assumes a mass of air, one quarter density and 75C colder can warm another mass (at the surface) which is 75C warmer and 4 times as dense. This basic model literally describes an impossible process. An insane process.
  2. Lukewarmers, do not have an alternative model they signed up to 'believe in'. They basically have nothing. Yet by saying they believe in a GHGE they give credence to the anti-science nonsense of M&W1967/H&S2000 alarmist crowd. Lukewarmers need to up their game if they want the slayers to take them seriously.
  3. Slayers. The responsible position in the GHGE debate is to assume a null hypothesis.

Citations

  • Lindzen, R.S. An oversimplified picture of the climate behavior based on a single process can lead to distorted conclusions. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 462 (2020).
  • M&W1967 Manabe and Wetherald 1967
  • H&S2000 Held and Soden 2000.
  • My comment at WUWT

No comments:

Post a Comment

There's no Greenhouse Effect

If an atmospheric greenhouse effect existed for CO₂, it will be possible to measure the ‘back-radiation’. It will show up in both the ther...