Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global Warming and Settled Science
American Thinker ^ | April 24, 2014 | Andre Lofthus

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: andrelofthus; climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax
A very good, scientific point about CO2 infrared absorption.
1 posted on 04/24/2014 9:17:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
That's the first thing I thought when I looked at the CO2 absorption spectrum years ago, there is no way this sparse "fence" could block heat in any significant way.
Absorbed energy is also released in the same band, it won't take many bounces for a photon to lose enough energy to enter a transparent band and escape into space.

2 posted on 04/24/2014 9:29:49 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.


I had a discussion with an electrical engineering professor at the local university who SHOULD BE A THINKER. After presenting strong factual info to him do you know what his response was?

“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.”


3 posted on 04/24/2014 9:30:03 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

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%)


4 posted on 04/24/2014 9:37:33 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

“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.


5 posted on 04/24/2014 9:38:26 AM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
The climate alarmists seem to be saying that CO2 will cause extra H2O evaporation and the H2O is what causes the majority of the predicted warming.

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.

6 posted on 04/24/2014 9:55:30 AM PDT by MtnClimber (Just doing laps around the sun and shaking my head that progressives can believe what they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
Their response to this information? “I wouldn’t want to be in that green house.”

Meanwhile, if he's in a building, the internal CO2 level is probably 1,000 ppm or higher, as compared to 400 ppm outside.

7 posted on 04/24/2014 10:03:20 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Facts, shmacts. Don’t try to confuse them with logic. The green religion rejects logic.


8 posted on 04/24/2014 10:05:22 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
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.

For the same reason they think "heat" from global warming can sink below cold and hide in the deep ocean

or

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 aren’t we? So shouldn’t 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

9 posted on 04/24/2014 10:37:46 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

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.


10 posted on 04/24/2014 10:43:21 AM PDT by Go_Raiders (Freedom doesn't give you the right to take from others, no matter how innocent your program sounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
Photons don’t bounce

Photons are certainly reflected and scattered, besides being absorbed and re-emitted.
Admittedly, shorter wavelength are scattered more than the IR wavelength we are discussing.

11 posted on 04/24/2014 11:02:28 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

The equation for photosynthesis is 6H2O + 6CO2 -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Is this in their model? more c02, then more photosynthesis, the more water removed (and h20 is the real issue if there is one, but it appears to be a complex self regulating system))

AND IT IS GREEN...................................


12 posted on 04/24/2014 11:18:19 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

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).


13 posted on 04/24/2014 11:56:27 AM PDT by RowdyYates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

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.


14 posted on 04/24/2014 12:17:25 PM PDT by Go_Raiders (Freedom doesn't give you the right to take from others, no matter how innocent your program sounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
1 to 2 degrees per century.

Why would the increase go on and on?
Even assuming CO2 warms the Earth, I would expect the average temperature to reach a new equilibrium and plateau relatively quickly, within days even.

15 posted on 04/24/2014 12:23:03 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
t is a well demonstrated physical phenomenon that increased CO2 slows the net flow of heat through the atmosphere.

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.

16 posted on 04/24/2014 5:11:56 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: expat2

Bookmark


17 posted on 04/25/2014 6:33:27 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: expat2

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


18 posted on 04/25/2014 8:14:16 AM PDT by Democrat_media (Obama ordered IRS to rig 2012 election and must resign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Did you post this in chat?


19 posted on 04/25/2014 11:28:58 AM PDT by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes, I posted in General/Chat. Wasn’t really a breaking news article so I thought it was the most appropriate category.


20 posted on 04/25/2014 6:12:48 PM PDT by MtnClimber (Just doing laps around the sun and shaking my head that progressives can believe what they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber; Admin Moderator
Wasn’t really a breaking news article so I thought it was the most appropriate category.

It's a regular essay by a physicist with 40 years experience explaing why increased CO2 poses no threat. One of the reasons the left calls the right anti-science is they doubt global warming.

I would have posted it in News/Activism so I coulg hang it in the editorial sidebar, IMHO.

21 posted on 04/26/2014 9:40:03 AM PDT by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks neverdem for the link-ping.


22 posted on 04/28/2014 7:54:47 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Liberals always think they’re ideas are ‘settled’... because they’re figgin’ closed minded idiots.


23 posted on 04/28/2014 9:11:16 AM PDT by GOPJ (Democrats are waging war on the middle class...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric mixture of gasses present in the 1950s by burning fossil fuels or by bovine flatulence will not increase the measured absorption in the CO2 LWIR band above the 100% level that was measured and reported in The Infrared Handbook. You cannot get more than 100% absorption. It is not physically possible. And yet that appears to be the basis of the theory of “man made” global warming

Thanks for posting MtClimber....

24 posted on 04/28/2014 9:15:16 AM PDT by GOPJ (Democrats are waging war on the middle class...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson