Skip to comments.Global Warming and Settled Science
Posted on 04/24/2014 9:17:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The AGW community would have you believe that the science in favor of AGW is settled. As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.
“Why would anyone risk his career on something that wasn’t true?
Get your thinking caps for that one.
I had a discussion with agricultural phd candidates and explained that lack of c02 was a growth limiting factor. The implication is that c02 levels are self regulating and will absorp excess c02 for those with thinking caps. Plants are starved for c02. For example we pump c02 into green houses to stimulate growth.
Their response to this information? “I wouldn’t want to be in that green house.”
Just a reminder that co2 is only .0397%. Many of the models assume the whole atmosphere is c02.
Major constituents of dry air
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 397 ppmv (0.0397%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
“Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.”
Although I fancy myself a scientist, by inclination and to some degree by education, this is the basic question that has not yet been addressed, much less answered satisfactorily, in this matter of the capacity of carbon dioxide to induce significant warming of Earth’s atmosphere. I’ve been waiting, and waiting, for someone to address this question, substantively.
My question to them would be: Why wouldn't normal H2O evaporation and the heating from that cause runaway H2O evaporation and ever increased heating. It is not like there is a shortage of H20 available in liquid form.
The truth is not convenient for those who want to be in control of the means of production.
Meanwhile, if he's in a building, the internal CO2 level is probably 1,000 ppm or higher, as compared to 400 ppm outside.
Facts, shmacts. Don’t try to confuse them with logic. The green religion rejects logic.
For the same reason they think "heat" from global warming can sink below cold and hide in the deep ocean
or how they believe the record sea ice in Antarctica is caused by global warming melting glaciers which causes the salinity of the ocean to drop thus lowering its freezing point, but then can't explain how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic (We are always hearing about how Greenland & Alaska Glaciers are melting arent we? So shouldnt there be record sea ice around them and the Arctic as a whole?).
That is too say, they just make up what ever physics their hypothesis to work
Photons don’t bounce, they follow a straight line through space-time until they are absorbed by an electron. The excited molecule then shares that increase in energy with surrounding molecules by collision.
It is a well demonstrated physical phenomenon that increased CO2 slows the net flow of heat through the atmosphere. This results in a measurable increase in temperature. The amount of CO2 increase attributable to man is debatable, but irrelevant as CO2 alone cannot raise the temperature much more than about 1 to 2 degrees per century.
Where the IPCC goes astray is they insist without any evidence that the increase in temperature will result in an increase in humidity without a corresponding increase in cloud cover. If they were correct, which they aren’t, that could result in runaway warming. We know that doesn’t happen because the atmosphere has had massive amounts of CO2 in prehistoric times, without catastrophic results.
In short, they have an irrefutable but irrelevant CO2 argument, which they use to hammer skeptics, while relying on their completely unjustified multiplier effect to scare the ignorant masses.
The really sad part is they could easily win over the critics by selling mankind on the most widely affordable, safest form of energy known to mankind - nuclear. Both sides should be pushing each other toward nuclear power, as it meets all parties concerns by lowering energy costs and lowering CO2 emissions.
The equation for photosynthesis is 6H2O + 6CO2 -> C6H12O6 + 6O2
AND IT IS GREEN...................................
I think to make it easier for the younger crowd, .0397% of one 12 ounce beer equals 5 thousandths of an ounce (rounded up from .00476).
Agreed, I was thinking specifically of the statement that the photons would bounce around in the atmosphere and become a different wavelength. I should have stated that more clearly.
This true in the lower troposphere, although the effect is a lot smaller than the value assumed by the modelers. That bottleneck is also short circuited by other mechanisms, such as vertical convection, H2O latent-heat transfer, and circulation due to thunderstorms.
However, there is also a countervailing effect of CO2 which is almost universally ignored:
at the upper levels of the troposphere, H2O has frozen out and convection is blocked by the inversion in the lower stratosphere. As a result, EMISSION of IR from CO2 molecules is a critical mechanism for getting heat energy through the stratosphere and out of the Earth's atmosphere -- and thus cooling the Earth.
bs .C02 has no effect at all on the Earth’s climate
the Solar Cycle does which is why Chicago just had the coldest Winter ever
global warming is a hoax democrats created to grow government, to grow socialism and enslave us
Did you post this in chat?
Yes, I posted in General/Chat. Wasn’t really a breaking news article so I thought it was the most appropriate category.