The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory by Dr.Gray

[Newman]

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

 

Very interesting paper. Please give it a read, not a skim or a glance because you believe in AGW. For me, the only way I can learn more about this topic is by reading and studying. If you don't agree with or can prove something wrong in the article, please share it so I can gain more knowledge

[Snow_Miser]

The late Dr. Gray asserted in this paper that we would see a cooling from 1998 continue to about 2025. He still has eight years to go, but it isn't looking too great for his prediction.

[skierinvermont]

28 minutes ago, Newman said:

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

 

Very interesting paper. Please give it a read, not a skim or a glance because you believe in AGW. For me, the only way I can learn more about this topic is by reading and studying. If you don't agree with or can prove something wrong in the article, please share it so I can gain more knowledge

First, and importantly, we should note that this was not subjected to any sort of scientific peer-review process. 

If we do dare venture into the substance, it easy to get lost in the multitude of logical fallacies and muddled reasoning presented, but I will do my best.

My first observation was that he commits a basic error. Evaporation does not and cannot balance energy absorbed. Unless the evaporated water can actually escape to space. The heat of evaporation is still building up in the atmosphere. The only way to balance absorbed energy, is to increase outgoing IR. Outgoing IR is only increased when temperatures are increased. CO2 acts to limit heat release at the top of the atmosphere. Evaporation only moves heat around within the system.

I was able to quickly identify this logical flaw because I approached it with an objective perspective. This observation of mine was quickly confirmed by RealClimate which, coincidentally, had the exact same criticism that I had:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Here's a quick excerpt:

Gray’s grand answer to the riddle of global warming is evaporation, presumably modulated by changes in the THC. Again, Gray simply doesn’t seem to understand energy conservation. Evaporation does not create heat; it does not add any heat to the climate system or take it away. It is an energy transfer that moves heat from a moist surface (like the ocean’s) into the atmosphere. That severely constrains what evaporation changes can do to climate. In contrast, changes in CO2 concentration affect the top of atmosphere radiation budget directly, and change the rate at which the whole climate system loses energy.

 

This is just one of many errors they identify and explain in detail, although even they didn't bother to sort out all of the errors given their are so many. I suggest reading the rest of their thorough debunking of Gray's twisted thinking. 

 

 

[Jack Frost]

4 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

First, and importantly, we should note that this was not subjected to any sort of scientific peer-review process. 

If we do dare venture into the substance, it easy to get lost in the multitude of logical fallacies and muddled reasoning presented, but I will do my best.

My first observation was that he commits a basic error. Evaporation does not and cannot balance energy absorbed. Unless the evaporated water can actually escape to space. The heat of evaporation is still building up in the atmosphere. The only way to balance absorbed energy, is to increase outgoing IR. Outgoing IR is only increased when temperatures are increased. CO2 acts to limit heat release at the top of the atmosphere. Evaporation only moves heat around within the system.

I was able to quickly identify this logical flaw because I approached it with an objective perspective. This observation of mine was quickly confirmed by RealClimate which, coincidentally, had the exact same criticism that I had:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Here's a quick excerpt:

Gray’s grand answer to the riddle of global warming is evaporation, presumably modulated by changes in the THC. Again, Gray simply doesn’t seem to understand energy conservation. Evaporation does not create heat; it does not add any heat to the climate system or take it away. It is an energy transfer that moves heat from a moist surface (like the ocean’s) into the atmosphere. That severely constrains what evaporation changes can do to climate. In contrast, changes in CO2 concentration affect the top of atmosphere radiation budget directly, and change the rate at which the whole climate system loses energy.

 

This is just one of many errors they identify and explain in detail, although even they didn't bother to sort out all of the errors given their are so many. I suggest reading the rest of their thorough debunking of Gray's twisted thinking. 

 

 

 

Interesting, the paper initially cited states that it was prepared in connection with a May 2012 conference.

The RealClimate article addressing the cited paper was authored in 2006.

Maybe the 2006 paper is still relevant and addresses the points in the 2012 article.  But if you are going to cite a 2006 paper to refute a 2012 paper it is incumbent upon you to do the legwork and demonstrate its continued relevance.

On an ironic note, it is more than interesting, in hindsight, that Dr. Grey was belittled in 2006 for daring to disagree with A Convenient Lie's citing to Hurricane Katrina as evidence that, due to AGW, Atlantic hurricanes would continually increase in number and intensity.  Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Wrong and wrong.  Dr. Grey for the win on that one!

     

 

 

[skierinvermont]

The argument remains the same regardless of when published. The logical errors are the same. I thought you were all about substance? Why don't you respond to the substance?

All that you've proven is that Grey didn't correct his obvious logical fallacies even with 6 years to think about them.