• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And you want me to treat you as more than a barometer reader with an unsupported opinion post like that? One that not only ignores vast swathes of climate science but shows no cognisance of basic physics underpinning that science?


the vast swathes of climate science shows nothing except that the climate is changing. none of it proves that mankind is the driving factor.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
the vast swathes of climate science shows nothing except that the climate is changing. none of it proves that mankind is the driving factor.

Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?

evidence_CO2.jpg


What we observe is that in pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 ppm. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100ppm. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by 15 gigatonnes every year.

and

Further confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity come by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions

and there is this

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative

You do realize the irony here of your using one man's personal crusade site to bolster your arguments for AGW don't you?

Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians
25
03
2010
I was meaning to write about the cringe-inducing website called “Skeptical Science” and today’s Revkin’s piece at dotEarth finally pushed me forward.

I feel embarrassment for John Cook, Skeptical Science author, for two reasons (neither concerning his rather disturbing photograph). First of all the very existence of such a site seems to be a loud scream at all that has gone wrong with the IPCC. If Mr Cook feels it necessary to spend as much time as he does on the topic, obviously he should be the first one to agree that the IPCC has been a communication failure.

(not that he’s really any better himself at that: by stating that “eventually, the scientific reality will be so in our faces that inaction will be impossible“, Cook is confirming that “the scientific reality” is currently not “so in our faces” as his scholarly lists of scientific papers appear to suggest)

The second reason I find Skeptical Science a disaster is that all it is ever going to tell us is that AGW is a self-consistent theory and there has been plenty of papers written on the topic. That can only highlight what will forever be missing: the science that was prevented to be published, the open questions, the competing claims within AGW orthodoxy.

In fact, one of the comments at dotEarth (#15) pretty much reveals the kind of person that would find the Skeptical Science site of high interest. The point is not to understand the world as it is, but to accumulate evidence for one’s own rationalization of what the world is presumed to be. Hence no space for any doubt whatsoever of any sort, not even for competing AGW interpretations, let alone for non-orthodox scientists (by definition, their work is “crap“).

Simplicius (*) would have been proud of that. “Science” it is not.

(*) the defender of the Aristotelian (geocentric) view of the world in Galil
Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.

The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.

Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.

Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.

I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.

For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.

Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.

Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!

Further, if Mr. Cook is saying we should listen only to specialists, and if Mr. Cook is not a specialist in climate science, what is his authority for reaching such a conclusion? Should I also ask my barber who to listen to?
Climate Change Dispatch - The New
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,168
Reaction score
35,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You do realize the irony here of your using one man's personal crusade site to bolster your arguments for AGW don't you?


Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE


Climate Change Dispatch - The New

Notice how nothing you posted actually addresses any of the science on his website? He links to all sorts of peer-reviewed science journals to back up what he says.

Unlike you.

Do you not realize the irony of not posting any evidence of anything you've claimed about climate? Literally all you've said is that "climate always changes." What, therefore mankind cannot possibly affect it? That's completely flawed logic.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Notice how nothing you posted actually addresses any of the science on his website? He links to all sorts of peer-reviewed science journals to back up what he says.

Unlike you.

Do you not realize the irony of not posting any evidence of anything you've claimed about climate? Literally all you've said is that "climate always changes." What, therefore mankind cannot possibly affect it? That's completely flawed logic.

Deuce, for you the bar is always just out of reach for information that counters AGW. I wasn't trying to counter his "science" I was countering his credibility and pointing out that the site is biased, and cherry picks data.

That would be obvious to anyone. Why you refuse to acknowledge that is plain to see. So why don't you go on another rant about how there is NO science that counters AGW.

There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because the radiation gets used up in the first ten meters (Heinz Hug's Measurement). More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature.

Several technical rationalizations are used. One is that the absorption bands supposedly widen with increased CO2. It doesn't, because a change in energy state of the molecules is required for widening the absorption bands (explained here).

Another assumption (pretense) is that reduced density on the shoulders of the absorption bands allows some radiation through until the density is increased through the addition of more CO2. But the increase in CO2 can only shorten the distance radiation travels before being absorbed, which is not an increase in temperature. Shortening the distance creates extremely slight increases in temperature by moving the heat to lower levels, but the quantities are extremely miniscule, not the catastrophic levels being claimed. (Explained on Crunching the Numbers)

A "denier" (authority, scientist) will say, the simple math is beyond question showing that doubling the CO2 will result in a 1.2°C temperature increase, the only question is whether water vapor will increase it through "forcing."

Then an "alarmist" (authority, scientist) will say, there is no question of the laboratory measurement showing a 1.2°C temperature increase with the doubling of CO2.

They both use the number 1.2, but one says it is derived through simple math, and the other says it is produced through a laboratory measurement. There are no connections between a simple calculation and a laboratory measurement. If the number is so unquestionable, why can't they determine where it came from? A fake curve is used, and it is phonier than a three dollar bill.

There is no such number in reality, nor anything close to it. The impossibility of making a real calculation or measurement is a quagmire beyond the ability of any scientist to unravel. It is common to write crazed equations as if they had some meaning, but they all run into conflict with each other, besides having no basis in objective reality. That doesn't happen without charlatanism replacing science a long ways back.

So it's important to understand the difference between the overwhelming charlatanism and the missing science. And it's important to realize that the reason why both sides can be so far apart on supposed science is because there is nothing resembling valid science behind the arguments on the official side, and opposing views are not allowed within science.

Producing valid science is about the most demanding task humans attempt. Probing the unknown is so difficult that the task has largely been abandoned and replaced by development of technology, which tends to look the same. Then when science is really needed, as with global warming, there is no real science to fall back on.

The most important element of real science is a body of knowledge which evolves over time. No one can arbitrate it; it just evolves. Anyone can question any part of it, and real scientists normally do.

This means that every element of science is just worth whatever it is worth. It's not a push-button machine which spits out yes or no answers for ignorant fools. What any element of science is worth depends upon all elements of the complex process.

One of the most obvious things about the global warming argument is a complete absence of the evolved knowledge of science, if not a total contradiction to it. A few examples are informative.

When fakes talk about ice melting in the Arctic, they pretend that the 0.6°C claimed increase in global average air temperature is the cause. Supposedly, the warm air is melting the ice. Such a miniscule temperature increase does not have the slightest ability to melt a slight amount of Arctic ice. Air has little heat capacity compared to water, and a massive amount of heat is needed to change the state of ice to water. And heat does not go downward, it goes upward. For these reasons, only warm ocean water could be responsible for the Arctic ice melting. None of these basic principles of science are evaluated by the charlatans—on either side of the issue.

Another example is the claim that all heat on the planet can be accounted for. It supposedly must be either in the atmosphere or oceans. What about the rocks. Well, we could do a little adjusting for that. And then they will say, we aren't sure how much heat escapes into space or at what rate, but just ignore this little technicality. They also forgot to consider how much solar energy entered the oceans and accumulated. There is no concept of how long solar energy should accumulate in the oceans or at what rate it would escape or where to or how. And then they forgot to account for the geothermal energy which continually moves upward from the center of the earth, which would accumulate in the oceans for thousands of years.

If there were a real science involved, none of this would have been missed, and the conclusion would have to be that we don't have the slightest idea how much heat there is in the oceans, where it came from or where it is going. But none of that matters for charlatans; they just want you to think they are unquestionable gods who could not be wrong having the tools of modern science at their disposal.

The frauds are not being held accountable for any of this, because all the public gets is a few trite quotes from authorities who no one has heard of. So journalists pick their favorite authorities to quote, and the two sides try to overwhelm each other through propaganda.

Fake Equations — where the number 1.2°C came from

Hacked files expose the fraud at it's source — Tim Ball

None Dare Call It Fraud — Paul Driessen
CO2 Charlatanism.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, the ice sheet loss isn't as bad as previously calculated. This is good.

edit: Also, it's freaking crazy that there's enough ice there to compress the earth's crust. Imagine the force necessary to do that!

What do you expect two miles of ice to weigh? And the earth's crust floats on the mantle. The added weight has to deform the supporting structure, it's basic mechanics.

And naturally, there's one more nail in the coffin of the global warming hoax.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Notice what it does NOT say? It does not say that global warming is not happening - simply that we overestimated the ice loss because of the flexing of the crust.

As deuce says THIS is how science works - now THIS datum will be included in future IPCC reports

Nobody says global warming hasn't happened.

The fact that there WAS an Ice Age, and now there ISN'T is proof of that.

What isn't happening is the Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a hoax made by dishonestly parsing evidence to craft an imaginative little tale that doesn't reflect the real world.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People with no understanding of the scientific process commenting on a scientific issue are fun :)

No, I find the need to continually re-educate the ignorance expressed by the AGW clods to be annoying after a while. I mean, now we who pay attention to the earth have to explain simple isostasy to the True Believers?

What's next, explaining how the laser reflectors were placed on the moon that confirmed continental drift?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.

Tell me about it. I'm structural engineer and I've had lots of experience in the futility of explaining mechanical failures of buildings to the so-called "Truthers".
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Once again - show me you can differentiate between a peer reviewed research article and an opinion blog and I might listen.

Well, Climategate pretty much told us your side is trying to eliminate the honest reviewers and replace them with people who will promote your agenda regardless of what truth is, or, more precisely, despite what the truth is.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nobody says global warming hasn't happened.

The fact that there WAS an Ice Age, and now there ISN'T is proof of that.

What isn't happening is the Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a hoax made by dishonestly parsing evidence to craft an imaginative little tale that doesn't reflect the real world.

How can we "hoax" the following?

Rising Co2 levels
Changing ratios of carbon dioxide isotopes reflecting the increased amount of Co2 derived from fossil fuels
changing levels of long wave radiation escaping the Earth's atmosphere
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, Climategate pretty much told us your side is trying to eliminate the honest reviewers and replace them with people who will promote your agenda regardless of what truth is, or, more precisely, despite what the truth is.

You mean like when that fake "survey" was sent out mimicking a letter and survey from the National Academy of Sciences. The same survey that was left as an open database anyone could sign on the internet (it did not even have a IP checker so people could sign in multiple times) the SAME survey that is still touted all over the blogosphere as "proof" there " is no consensus on global warming"?

Or the myriad amounts of cherry picked data that flood these threads

Or this

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit independent scientific organization formed in 1969, has slammed what it calls ExxonMobil's disinformation tactics in regard to climate change. The UCS has just released a report that details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics (as well as some of the same organizations and personnel), to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. The report claims that in the last seven years, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the UCS' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Scientists Slam ExxonMobil's Global Warming "Disinformation"

Last July I discussed another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite their public pledge to “discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

Even though the UK’s Guardian and other media outlets pointed out the ExxonMobil lie last year, they continue to fund anti-science disinformers. Desmogblog’s Brendan DeMelle has the story in this repost.

ExxonMobil gave $1.5M to climate disinformation groups last year, breaking its pledge to stop funding denial machine « Climate Progress

Got ANYTHING to equal that load of crock and fraud?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
How can we "hoax" the following?

Rising Co2 levels
Changing ratios of carbon dioxide isotopes reflecting the increased amount of Co2 derived from fossil fuels
changing levels of long wave radiation escaping the Earth's atmosphere

How many parts per million per year is the CO2 rising?
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How many parts per million per year is the CO2 rising?


my give up, better to just go along and scream "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" with the rest of Al's disciples
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
How many parts per million per year is the CO2 rising?

Oh Ho! are you one of those that does not think the greenhouse effect can be engendered by "such a small amount" of CO2?

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,168
Reaction score
35,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nobody says global warming hasn't happened.

The fact that there WAS an Ice Age, and now there ISN'T is proof of that.

What isn't happening is the Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a hoax made by dishonestly parsing evidence to craft an imaginative little tale that doesn't reflect the real world.

Show me some evidence of this statement.

Well, Climategate pretty much told us your side is trying to eliminate the honest reviewers and replace them with people who will promote your agenda regardless of what truth is, or, more precisely, despite what the truth is.

Show me some evidence that this actually happened.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,168
Reaction score
35,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CO2 can only absorb so much. I think I've yes, yes I have all ready posted the debunking of CO2. So, carry on with your blog site lol.

Can you link the post where you did this?
Also, a few parts per million may not seem like much, but we're talking about in a very, very large atmosphere and this is an accumulation over time. It will only increase. PART PER MILLION! ZOMG SO SMALL! Except it's gigatons per year. Wait, now it seems like a lot!

Maybe you should post some evidence of how much absorption that might cause? Seeing as how you've already "debunked" CO2. (debunked what, I wonder? it's infrared absorption capabilities?)

The present rate is closer to 2ppm. I think your 1.43 number comes from the average over the last century.

Maybe you should actually read that "lol blog site" because it's linking more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies on that page alone.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can you link the post where you did this?
Also, a few parts per million may not seem like much, but we're talking about in a very, very large atmosphere and this is an accumulation over time. It will only increase. PART PER MILLION! ZOMG SO SMALL! Except it's gigatons per year. Wait, now it seems like a lot!

Maybe you should post some evidence of how much absorption that might cause? Seeing as how you've already "debunked" CO2. (debunked what, I wonder? it's infrared absorption capabilities?)

The present rate is closer to 2ppm. I think your 1.43 number comes from the average over the last century.

Maybe you should actually read that "lol blog site" because it's linking more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies on that page alone.

No, I can't link the post. I've done it a half dozen times. You always seem to miss it then demand to see it later.

I've told you, I'm done wasting effort with you. NO link is good enough, no science legit, no paper peer reviewed properly, no evidence meets you exacting standards... well at least if it counters your AGW stance.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
CO2 can only absorb so much. I think I've yes, yes I have all ready posted the debunking of CO2. So, carry on with your blog site lol.

Sceptical science is used because unlike most of the denialist blog sites it llinks to peer reviewed research. Something I have noticed lacking in the denialist posts on this forum.

But if you have a real issue with what was posted there I am more than willing to access a number of other science sites.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's 1.43 last time I did the numbers.

Really. 1.43 PART PER MILLION.

Think about that for a while folks.

But 15 gigatons of CO2 added each year by man - think about that for a while

BTW - I will start posting links supporting data again when you do - this is FUN!!
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, I can't link the post. I've done it a half dozen times. You always seem to miss it then demand to see it later.

I've told you, I'm done wasting effort with you. NO link is good enough, no science legit, no paper peer reviewed properly, no evidence meets you exacting standards... well at least if it counters your AGW stance.

Now I a NOT saying you fall into this category but I have had this game played on me before - an opponent insisting that they "have already linked to the evidence multiple times" only the links can never ever be found and somehow they cannot give a synopsis of the argument either
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.

What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.

It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.
Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.

Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.
CO2 Absorption Spectrum Explained.


It's still only 1 - 1.5 (at most) parts per MILLION increase, I.E. negligible.
 
Top Bottom