Physics of Global Warming

Phrak;

First; a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) as well as sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have directly measured the imbalance. They have found it to be about 1.4 watts/meter^2. Of course it varies somewhat over time.

Second; Temperature measurements of the atmosphere and oceans as well as melting sea ice, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps have shown that all major parts of the earth are warming.

Third, the IPCC in the Technical Summary on page 32 Figure TS.5 has calculated the inbalance and reported a value of 1.6 watts/meter^2 with a range of anywhere from 0.6 to 2.4 watts/meter^2.

These data sources are science when practitioners are in a position to be objective. As the last is governed by a political body, it fails to meet this screening.

Provide critical sources for any of your remaining claims. Not the original reports, but the criticisms--pro or con if you can.

The IPCC is a valid source. It does not conduct science, it assembles the body of research related to climate change every five years into a comprehensive assessment.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=280637

The report summery is biased and written by policy makers.

Not really.

It undergoes political review by government delegations, but the summary (at least of working group 1's report) it is written by scientists.

The IPCC is a valid source.

No. The report is written by 'participants'. The 'facilitator' reserves the power to rewrite anything.

Interesting opinion.

The temperature of the earth is governed by physics, namely the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the amount of energy radiated is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

Can I ask a moderator to move the parts of this discussion about the IPCC to the social science area. I really don’t want to derail this thread.

... is biased ...

It certainly is not. The Earth is not a black body.

Huh?

The Physical Science Basis report contains all types of uncertainity analysis as well as assessments of where the current level of scientific understanding may be low and needs further study.

So, what part of the report might be biased?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.

Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.

Any coloured body is still radiates energy proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. It just has a different emissivity constant.

John Creighto;

So there is no specific part of the IPCC's Physical Science Basis report that is considered as possibly biased in a scientific sense. Just broad dismissals based on the opinion and insinuations of an Economics Professor.