Are Global Warming Climate Models Wrong?

They have to be wrong, because they haven't made any correct predictions yet.

Engineering models should be and are corrected (updated) when they fail to adequately predict what should happen. This actually happens in climate science as well, as a recent discussion between myself, your friends Dana, and Bob revealed:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Avjwu...

CO2 does not interfere much with UV and visible sunlight traveling to earth, but some of that light is converted to heat when it hits the surface rather than simply being reflected back into space. This heat is then released from the earth in the infrared range. Some of that infrared radiation (~8%) is about the correct wavelength for CO2 to absorb. Once absorbed, it will be released eventually as infrared though not necessarily at the same wavelength, nor at the same altitude at which it was absorbed.

When these models were originally built, there were problems:

H2O has a similar absorption spectrum, and is much more abundant than CO2 in the lower troposphere. Any contribution by CO2 at that level of the atmosphere, would be masked by the hordes of H2O molecules around. For this reason, the CO2 effect would be most evident near the poles where the vapor condenses at lower altitudes, and least evident at the tropics.

However, some CO2 and O2 would still make it to the upper atmosphere due to winds. The point at which CO2 is thought to have the most effect is at the middle of the troposphere (altitude ~ 6 Km), just above the clouds. Once the CO2 catches the 8% of the infrared escaping radiation from the lower levels of the troposphere, it is just as likely to send it back down toward the earth as on into outer space.

Thus, the previous problems had to be taken into account for the original models that naturally predicted that this 6 Km layer would show more warming than the surface. However, from 1979 to 1999 during which both the surface of the earth and the 6 Km layer of the Troposphere warmed, the surface warmed more than the 6 Km layer, causing some AGW scientists to become skeptics, and the rest to revise their models. The one silver lining for the warmers was that most warming did indeed happen at the higher latitudes.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

The new models now simply call for warming up to 6 Km, and cooling above that. This presents new problems:

At current concentrations (0.038% CO2), half of all absorbable infrared would be absorbed every 10 meters at the surface. At 6 Km altitude, the pressure is only 0.46 atm, and it is cold. The air is only one 58% as dense as it is at the surface. This leaves a capture distance of 17 meters to get half of all the infrared that can be captured by the CO2. Since the radiation would have been released from the vapor level, there is no reason to believe that all of the rays are going straight up, thus a root means square correction has to be factored in to convert the distance traveled to altitude:

17 meters/sqrt(2) = 12 meters

Note that the troposphere continues for another 6 Km at which point the pressure will be 0.21 atm. This means that only 5E-76 % of the CO2 will escape the troposphere and go into the stratosphere without being absorbed at least once. Then, it will get re-emitted at a wavelength that probably will not get reabsorbed again in some random direction. If it is in the 8% that can get absorbed again, it will be until it gets changed.

Note that when looked at that way, there is no room for any effect of additional CO2. Worse, this vapor free layer sits on top of a vapor layer that is doing the same thing only more so. Theoretically, the CO2 should not encounter any infrared it can absorb at all. The water vapor below would have already have converted it to escapable wavelengths that CO2 would not absorb. Yet, these models assume that the CO2 is not saturated, and that some infrared is still getting through. Thus, the assumption that more CO2 will have an effect that they can measure.

The theory of the mid troposphere being heated by the rays not being converted has been destroyed by the satellite data. The new theory never really made sense in the first place. It assumes that a large portion of the infrared that is absorbable manages to escape uncaptured into outer space in violation of laboratory measurements.

The problem is that the leveling off of the warming in the last decade forces this model to incorporate the notion that there are short term climate drivers that may be more influential for a period of decades. Of course solar cycles work nicely, but that concedes something to the solar believers. The problems for the faithful warmers are getting more difficult if they are actually looking at the data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperat...

Actually, the bigger question i think is the loser part of our population that is so eagar to jump on a band wagon and believe in something so intense that they deny all real scientific data and common sense that points to them being wrong.

These deniers of the truth and so stubborn, dumb or unwilling to change thier point of view are a plague to man kind for these are the fools that will and do influence policy, vote for bad politicians, adversely effect government, our economy, our personal finances. They whine and cry thier way into effecting laws, and raise our children biased against the truth all for thier own selfish agenda.

Perhaps we should be delving into the hearts of those wicked or stupid that do nothing on thier world but cause strife to the average person that just wants to live out thier own lives in peace

Global warming is based on the unproven assumption that CO2 is a big deal, new science and real factors have been proving it isn't, Even the reports of the past are being proven as lies and mis-representations, The NOAA even shows that water vapor in the stratesphere is many times more to blame...yet the changes in the water vapor amount is still as yet unknown.

And this is the flawed, failed and unidentifying science that these fools are trying to force us to change our lives over ? What arrogance....what pride.....how impetuous, smug and pompus

You need to re-readd the article that you sited.

What your saying is NOT what the article and scientific study is saying. Yes the feedback of the water vapor in the upper atmosphere caused less warming than expected over the last ten years. So, instead of .25 F rise which was predicted, it was a .18 F rise.

From your article:

But Solomon points out this isn't an indication that predictions on global warming are overstated: "This doesn't mean there isn't global warming," notes Solomon. "There's no significant debate that it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago, due to anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases."

And how will this water vapor affect future global warming? "We really don't know the answer to this," says Solomon. "If the water changes are due to the specific way the sea-surface temperature pattern looks right now, then it may well not be linked to the overall warming. It could just be a source of variability from one decade to another as the ocean pattern slowly changes. Or it could be linked to the overall warming of the tropics, in which case it could continue to 'put the brakes on.' Only time will tell, and more data."

Try to understand the science Jello.

So far they've been pretty far off. CO2 has an effect - just not a material effect in the amounts we're talking about.

Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information

yet these same morons know that seas will be 5 feet higher and temps will be 5 C higher in 100 years

theses people know diddly squat about all the aspects of climate yet we're supposed to believe what they tell us

My personal opinion is that climate models don't prove man-made global warming because they are made on the assumption that global warming is caused by humans. Because we haven't had enough time to prove that these climate models work, we can't use them to prove anything.

It makes sense to continue with Cap and Trade if you are a disciple of the Global Political Left, who's hellbent on controlling the world's energy output, and thus, their economies.

If not wrong they are incomplete.

AGW is bollox.