Carl’s theory makes a number of claims that are not recognized by any scientific curriculum. Assuming they were all correct, how would the science of climate change be changed? Would it be “new,” or just updated? Updated is probably a better word, but some of the recommended changes would nevertheless be quite radical. Acceptance would require big changes in model construction and a whole new approach to communicating with policy-makers and the general public. I want to go over some of the details of the visualized changes, from a bottom-up perspective rather than top-down. That means revisiting the foundations of this science, one by one, and the extent to which they have been held in place. An appraisal of noteworthy omissions and oversights will also be considered. The best concise source of foundations history that I know of, very clear and up-to-date, was published a year ago on the Skeptical Science website: https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html. I will be using it for reference—please give if a more complete reading as we go along.
1. Fourier, 1820s. His ideas of two kinds of radiation and recognition of an insulating blanket in the atmosphere, the content of which is not otherwise specified, are rock solid, truly great discoveries.
2. Foote and Tyndall, 1850s. Both performed experiments establishing a link between the CO2 level of content in the atmosphere and surface temperatures. Tyndall did the same for water vapor, and also did work denying such a link for oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Hydrocarbons like methane were called open possibilities. The existence of Fourier’s “insulating blanket” had been confirmed and its key ingredients identified.
3. Arrhenius, 1890s. The first to make calculations about how a doubling of the CO2 level would affect temperatures. He came up with an answer of 5-6°C of warming as a globally-averaged figure. He was also the first to tie water vapor to CO2 as a regular feedback, using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation: the amount is about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. And that additional water vapour would in turn cause further warming – this being a positive feedback, in which carbon dioxide acts as a direct regulator of temperature, and is then joined in that role by more water vapour as temperatures increase. Today’s climate scientists, while using more conservative numbers with respect to strength of radiation, apply this very same linkage to their calculations of CO2’s affect on global temperatures. The effects of other greenhouse gases are then added to the final calculation without giving them any proportional link to water vapor as a feedback. I would abandon a practice that may have made sense to Arrhenius but is now obviously misleading, and just plain wrong. Water vapor is in fact entirely produced as a natural feedback, clearly linked to the growth in surface temperatures, but not to any single one of the many factors contributing to the change in temperatures.
4. Angstrom, circa 1900. Published theories concerning the radiation band effects of CO2 and water vapor, which was criticized by Arrhenius. The latter explained…how in the dry upper atmospheric layers, the role of water vapour was of limited importance. According to the author of this history, this remains the predominant view of today’s scientists, saying: This was – and still is – because water vapor in the upper troposphere occurs in concentrations several orders of magnitude less than in the lower troposphere where most of our weather occurs. Carl’s theory presents a completely opposite view of what goes on in the upper troposphere, identified as the atmospheric region of each hemisphere, outside of the tropical belt, where jetstream winds are active. Concentrated vapor streams entering these regions produce greenhouse energy effects that have a vast—and accelerating—influence on all non-tropical surface temperatures. Recognizing the evidence submitted in these letters would put an entirely new face on the science of climate change.
Frequently, affected individuals may use Forzest pills to get hard and stay hard for as long as they are minimal rises, and can be seen to drop to normal levels within a couple of months to become, if viagra on line not Arnold Schwarzenegger, but, at least, Taylor Lautner. Separation Anxiety Disorder Treatment Separation anxiety disorder is mostly found in 1 out of 68 order cheap viagra children according to CDC’s report. This helps restore and boost the natural functioning prices cialis of nitric oxide in the body. discount on cialis Past research in addition has recommended that finasteride could cause lasting, permanent, impotence.5. Hulbert, 1931. Calculated a temperature increase of 4C from a doubling of the CO2 level with water vapor feedback added. Basically confirmed the relative importance of greenhouse energy in controlling temperatures, a positive step forward for science in that era.
6. Callendar, 1938. Made calculations of greenhouse warming similar to Hulbert’s but considerably lower due to a mistaken view of ocean sink processes.. From this report, I do not see any original contribution to climate science by Callendar that is still being accepted.
7. Revelle, Plass and other scientists in the 1950s began using computers in analyzing prospects for future climate change. Additions to the CO2 level, enhanced by a linear feedback relationship with water vapor, became entrenched as the primary cause of the greenhouse warming effect in all of their work. Carbon dioxide and water-vapour had their own sets of absorption-lines that did not exactly coincide and it was reaffirmed that water vapour was relatively unimportant in the dryer upper levels of the atmosphere. Many other meaningful natural factors that could affect climate change outcomes were introduced and debated. There is nothing said in this part of the history about the contribution of other greenhouse gases. To be continued.
Carl