About 'global warming gases' in general - can someone explain to me the flaw in this this logic:
The atmosphere stack is about 100Km thick. The mix of gases is relatively uniform throughout that stack.
Transmission of IR radiation in the air stack is determined by the absorption of IR photons by molecules and particulates, then re-emission in random directions. So there's a statistical barrier to photons being able to travel right through the air stack.
The AGW people point to the atmospheric barrier to IR transmission, saying "More CO2, leads to higher Earth surface temps, because heat is retained better."
But...
There's nothing uni-directional about that IR transmission barrier. By basic physics it will work the same in both directions.
And where does most of the heat input to the Earth's surface come from? From the Sun, via photons (visible and IR). Is the supposed 'CO2 blanket' effect due to visible light that got converted to heat at the surface, then has to get back out as IR? Is that more than the variations in solar output that occur? (You do know the Sun is a variable star, right?)
But...
You can see from your own eyes and experience that by far the greatest influence on Earth's average surface temp is _clouds_. Think: sunny, hot day, things heat up a lot. Then if the sky is clear at night that heat all radiates back to space, and it cools down nicely. However if it happens that even a thin layer of cloud develops in the evening and lasts overnight, forget about it cooling down. In one 12 hour period, clouds can make a huge difference in surface temp; 20 deg C or more commonly. Clouds _vastly_ overwhelm any effect CO2 has.
Now the point is, CO2 levels can't vary regularly in sync with the day/night cycle. But clouds can, and do. So the degree of temperature control via clouds (water vapor condensation) is further amplified by water's ability to form a 'parametric amplifier' - chopping the atmospheric heatflow in sync with the day-night cycle. If on average there are more clouds at night than during the day, things heat up. And vice versa. But this is a feedback system - cloud formation is affected (in complex ways) by average temp.
The AGW-ist atmospheric models do NOT include these relationships.
There's also the experimentally proven interaction between the solar wind and high altitude formation of water droplets. More solar wind, blocks more high energy cosmic rays - which cause the nucleation that forms water droplets. So the Sun greatly influences high altitude cloud formation. Incidentally, the AGW political forces tried and nearly succeeded in shutting down the 'CLOUD' research project at LHC that proved that relationship.
Oh and also, if 'our rising CO2 levels' are supposed to be so terrible for Earth's surface temp, how come today's CO2 level of around 400ppm is still near the lowest it's ever been in Earth's geological history? It was well over 1000ppm and typically around 2000ppm for most of Earth's living history, and the results were all good.
See
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.htmlIn fact CO2 levels have gone so low in recent millenia, that the viability of photosynthetic plant life was threatened - plants simply can't live below around 150ppm CO2.
With CO2 starvation stress, plants need more water since they open their leaf stomata wider, and that increases water evaporation loss. More CO2, and the plant can grow more vigorously, and also need much less water. Greenhouse horticulturists know that if they pump in more CO2, their plants grow much better.
Have you ever taken a walk in a coal mine? It's very impressive, looking at those huge amounts of carbon, and realizing all that carbon was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. Back then almost the entire Earth was covered in dense forests. It can't be now, as too much carbon is buried in coal seams. Oh btw, no more coal can ever form, since fungi species developed the genetic machinery to break down Lignin - the molecular building block of wood. That genetic development has been pinned down to just around the time the last coal seams were forming. No coincidence.
Maybe our burning some of that coal, and the _slightly_ rising CO2 levels that result, are why many deserts are turning green again now? Not so much water necessary for growth. And besides, forests retain water, and produce their own local climate.
It's proven the core AGW pushers are:
- Falsifying the science by deliberately 'adjusting' raw data to suit their purposes,
- Doing it for ideological and profit motives (did you know Gore is a major stockholder in the carbon credits trading scheme?)
- A small group of people (names and influence paths are known) who have been using political influence to suppress scientific papers contradicting their own line,
And also:
- It's proven that water vapor vastly swamps any CO2 warming effect (which in itself is disputed),
- The Earth's biosphere is actually currently starved of carbon,
- There are much more urgent _real_ problems that must be dealt with,
- The corruption of the scientific process that the AGW-ists have created (along with the big pharma co's) is an inexcusable disaster for humankind and our ability to deal rationally with serious problems,
So frankly I have very little patience with people who still insist "the science settled, no argument, everyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, and a threat to us all."
Since the planet's overall temp is actually falling atm, and it's starting to look like we may even get another little ice age, it's going to be very amusing to watch the AGW-ists get more and more strident and silly looking, as the snow piles up.
My advice to AGW supporters is to think carefully about what people are going to be thinking when they are getting seriously cold. Scapegoats at such times may well find themselves adorning bonfires.
Some resources
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_CRU_emails_links.txt
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
