Recognitions:
Homework Help

## Geo. Chilingar paper - Is this science?

I have read Geo. Chilingar's which can be found here

The same journal that published this paper (Environmental Geology)
also printed a rather scathing rebuttal which can be found here (one wonders why they published the Chilingar paper at all if this rebuttal is well founded).

Neither paper is all that difficult to understand. I would be interested in some of your comments (eg. Andre, Evo, Bystander) to these questions:

1. Why would anyone in a serious paper talk about the heat given off by burning fossil fuels? It represents a miniscule fraction of the amount of heat from the sun. Since no one is arguing it has an impact on global warming, why even talk about it?

2. Why talk about annual fluctuations due to changes in the sun-earth distance? That has nothing to do with changes in the average earth temperature, which is an annual average temperature.

3. Why talk about total outgassing of C02 since the dawn of time? Isn't this like saying don't worry about Katrina: the rain it will bring is but a tiny fraction of all the rain that has fallen on New Orleans since the dawn of time, and the wind energy it will pack is but a tiny fraction of the wind energy that New Orleans has withstood since the dawn of time!

This paper sounds like something written by someone at the end of a distinguished career starting to dabble in something that they only partially understand. The name of William Shockley comes to mind. Ponds and Fleishmann and cold fusion also comes to mind.

AM
 PhysOrg.com earth sciences news on PhysOrg.com >> Scientists: Soggy British weather likely to stay>> Seismic gap outside of Istanbul: Is this where the expected Marmara earthquake will originate from?>> Meteorologists meet to mull weird British weather (Update)
 Hi, I read the first bit of that paper and then I just had to stop, it just wasn't good science. 1. Why talk about burning fossil fuels? I think people are arguing about burning fossil fuels. The problem is he's arguing about it by saying that we use 0.0077% as much energy as the Sun gives us, therefore the Sun is the dominant force in driving the atmosphere. That's just bad science. We know the Sun drives the atmosphere already, nobody was ever arguing that the energy given off by our power consumption generated more heat than the Sun. A lot of the Sun's energy is reflected into space, it drives an ecosystem and warms up oceans, you think you could do all that with fossil fuels? Besides that's not the point, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas. It's the effect of insulating the Earth slightly that does the damage, not the actual release of heat! This is linked to your third point, I didn't read what the guy wrote about the history of CO2 release, but if he cared to look at the evidence he probably would have realized he was enhancing his antithesis. The record shows long warm periods in the Earth's history, what caused these warm periods? Could at have been runaway greenhouse gases? I fail to see how it couldn't. I suspect that if we heat the Earth to a point the climate will runaway, all the best climate models show this. The release of natural gas hydrates (massive reserves of solid methane that will evaporate) will be unstoppable, and will almost certainly be accompanied by a mass extinction. If it's happened in the past it'll happen again. All in all this guy has grossly oversimplified the earth's climate. Alarm bells rang when he listed off references that showed anthropogenic warming was a 'myth'. I've yet to find a shred of evidence that could possibly allow such a bold statement.

Blog Entries: 2
Recognitions:
Gold Member
I agree that the paper is bad, but not all is wrong and the rebuttal is not correct on every point.

I'm a bit pressed for time and away from my resources for the moment so you have to take this without substantiation for the moment.

 Quote by billiards Hi, I read the first bit of that paper and then I just had to stop, it just wasn't good science. 1. Why talk about burning fossil fuels? I think people are arguing about burning fossil fuels. The problem is he's arguing about it by saying that we use 0.0077% as much energy as the Sun gives us, therefore the Sun is the dominant force in driving the atmosphere. That's just bad science.
There is a very recent paper early this year that shows a strong measured correlation between industrial "temperature grids" and satellite MSU data for the lower troposphere, which may also have upset the local thermometers. Therefore the influence of the direct heat is not a fable. I'll find it back.

Edit: I did find it back, brainflash: http://www.knmi.nl/~laatdej/2006joc1292.pdf

 I suspect that if we heat the Earth to a point the climate will runaway, all the best climate models show this. The release of natural gas hydrates (massive reserves of solid methane that will evaporate) will be unstoppable, and will almost certainly be accompanied by a mass extinction. If it's happened in the past it'll happen again.
This runaway idea aka flickering climate is based on a misinterpretation of the Greenland ice core proxies, which can be demonstrated to be wrong. Concequently climate will not runaway.

 All in all this guy has grossly oversimplified the earth's climate. Alarm bells rang when he listed off references that showed anthropogenic warming was a 'myth'. I've yet to find a shred of evidence that could possibly allow such a bold statement.
However we could turn that around and demand for the evidence that anthropogenic warming is substantial. haven't seen that yet, despite numerous appeals.

## Geo. Chilingar paper - Is this science?

No this isn't based on the 'misinterpretation of Greenland ice core proxies', it's based on a body of evidence. Warm peiods have occured in the past, this is a fact. Take the K-T boundary and the Early Eocene for example, are you gonna tell me they weren't hot?

And even if you read some study about how someone misinterpreted the ice record (which has blatantly happened in some cases) you cannot suddenly jump to the conclusion "Concequently climate will not runaway".

The fact is there are a lot of feedback mechanisms that might cause the temperature to runaway (definitely NOT aka "flickering climate"). For example if one year there is less sea ice production in the winter, this will make for a warmer summer - in turn making for less sea ice the following winter -> a warmer summer......

Also I'm not arguing that anthropogenic warming is 'substantial', I'm pretty sure that the phenomenon exists but I know that it is fairly small in relation to the whole earth. Thus I'm simply arguing that it is not a 'myth'. There are two sides, and I sit somewhere in the middle. I'm lucky enough to study in a department with some of the leading thinkers in this field (esp. w regards to ice sheet modelling), none of them are callous enough to firmly take one side, the dynamics of the system are more complicated than any computer can model.

Blog Entries: 2
Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by billiards No this isn't based on the 'misinterpretation of Greenland ice core proxies', it's based on a body of evidence. Warm peiods have occured in the past, this is a fact.
The flash heating idea and the tipping point nonsense is based on the interpretation of the Bolling Allerod - Younger Dryas - Preboreal sequence of the isotopes in the greenland ice cores. Ten degrees within a decade was the slogan. Panic all around. There is now a body of evidence that periglacial warming of the Northern hemisphere started some one and a half millenium before the Bolling-Allerod, (i.c ~17.5 ka versus 14.7 ka) effectively falsifying the ice core interpretation. Please do click a link. Skyhunter may wonder why Georg Hoffmann never ever commented in that thread despite my numerous challenges to do so.

 Take the K-T boundary and the Early Eocene for example, are you gonna tell me they weren't hot?
The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is less understood than ever. Duckweed and tropical algae at the North Pole is rather impossible to explain with some greenhouse effect. if you want to reach those temperatures at the North Pole then the equator would be boiling. But even then, fresh water duckweed in the salty ocean! Clearly the PETM is a formidable magical trick of the Earth which requires considerable thinking out of the box to get it solved.

It can be done though. When I'm confident enough to face the consequences like shooting the piano player, I might give it a try.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by Andre However we could turn that around and demand for the evidence that anthropogenic warming is substantial. haven't seen that yet, despite numerous appeals.
Are you suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Are you suggesting that CO2 levels are not increasing due to fossil fuel burning?

Leaving aside the issue whether the increase in CO2 levels over the last 2 centuries has had a material impact on average earth temperature, are you suggesting that if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate that we will not increase the concentration of CO2 to a point that it will effect a material climate change?

AM
 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member The problem with CO2 is that it's greenhouse effect is grossly over estimated. I have shown here in old threads with Modtran and Stefan Boltzman that the immediate result of doubling CO2 in a black body setting would mean an increase of 0,68 degrees for doubling CO2 and about 1,2 degrees after regaining thermal equilibrium which should take centuries to millenia. Not something to get scared about. So for some positive scaremongering feedback, the water vapor positive feedback effect was invented but this was debunked by Olavi Karner here: http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf and here: http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf which means that the actual warming for Earth conditions with negative feedbacks may be around 0,3 degrees for doubling CO2 considering the Hurst-factor mentioned in the first paper.
 CO2, H2O, and CH4 are the only MAJOR greenhouse effects. Without them, the earth would freezing. If we keep increasing CO2 the temp will raise. Its radiative transfer, nothing more. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will have risen to between 650 and 970 ppm by 2100. As a result, global temperatures would warm by nearly 6°C compared with 1990 levels, the IPCC predicts."

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by sneez CO2, H2O, and CH4 are the only MAJOR greenhouse effects. Without them, the earth would freezing. If we keep increasing CO2 the temp will raise. Its radiative transfer, nothing more. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will have risen to between 650 and 970 ppm by 2100. As a result, global temperatures would warm by nearly 6°C compared with 1990 levels, the IPCC predicts."
Sneez, when quoting from a website, please include a link to the website. If quoting from another source, please cite the source.
 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member Without citing a source, I predict that there will be a big CO2 war within a few months and this little translation here has a lot to do with that. Would it matter, by the way that CO2 dissolves in suphur acid? Answer within the same few months.
 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member Okay granted, one evidence is no evidence and one swallow doesn't make a summer yet (Dutch slang). So observe what Misra measured in India, shortly after Wilhelm Kreuz in Gießen. Abstract and a table from his paper.. May it redundantly be remarked that "0.049%" is 490 ppmv whilst the current average CO2 concentrations are around 380 ppmv. Edited with: Actually together with some more papers like that (but granted I showed the best), I digitized some graphs, and used the tables to compile monthly average CO2 concentration during the ninetheen-forthies. Also granted, I omitted hap hazard results of single measurements, for instance at the Antarctic, which yielded about 1500 ppmv but in the elaboration, the author told that he had to hold his breath during sampling. Any idea how long the air hovers on the same spot below -40 regardless celcius or fahrenheit? Indeed he measered his own breath. Anyway, this was the result
 I really appreciate your work andre, but CO2 connection with temperature increase was showed decisivelly (IPCC report). There is enough evidence of that. This whole 2 camps of global warming looks to me just like ozone hole when discovered was so badly denied and sponsored by corporations (du pont in that case). And it might not be bad, it will lead to more rigorous proof that human impact on global worming, but when the evidence is just too obvious, well,....... Lets remind ourselves that climate and ecology is higly non-linear/chaotic. "seemingly small" changes may introduce (and obviously do) big changes. I will go through your papers and let you know what is my opinion.

Blog Entries: 2
Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by sneez I really appreciate your work andre, but CO2 connection with temperature increase was showed decisivelly (IPCC report). There is enough evidence of that.
That's the general idea. However you may want to to reread the IPCC Third assessment report and show where that evidence is exactly. I haven't seen it.

Don't forget that the hockeystick (fig 1b of the summary for policy makers) is effectively debunked, that the CO2- isotopes of the ice cores show a inverse dependence: CO2 rises after temperature rise. And the measured 1940-ties CO2 spike confirms that ice cores are lousy CO2 storage containers.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
Each square metre of the earth receives an average of about 340 watts of solar energy (averaged over 24 hours). Let's assume for the moment that this does not change. Blackbody physics will tell us the atmosphere's outer surface temperature at which the earth reaches thermal equilibrium (ie the outer surface temperature at which the earth will emit energy at the rate of 340 watts/m^2). Assuming reflectivity (hence emissivity $\epsilon$) does not change, that temperature of the outer surface of the atmosphere will not change.