Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The AGW Smoking Gun
American Thinker ^ | February 17, 2010 | Gary Thompson

Posted on 02/16/2010 10:34:43 PM PST by neverdem

A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals.

Politicians and scientists still cling to the same hypothesis: Increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival. The reality of our global temperatures, the failure of these catastrophic predictions to materialize, and the IPCC scandals all continue to cast serious doubt on that hypothesis. 

The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science (i.e., unscrupulous behavior by a few don't negate the rock-solid science), so it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science. Climate science is very complex, and AGW proponents dismiss the scientific arguments unless the data are contained in journal papers that are "peer-reviewed."

Three peer-reviewed journal contain data contradicting the AGW hypothesis. But before the journal papers are reviewed, here is a little background on the science.

The Greenhouse Effect is real and necessary for life on Earth. Without it, our world would be a frozen ball that would not be hospitable for life as we know it. The harmful stuff (x-rays and gamma rays) is filtered out, but the light in the visible spectrum enters, and that light energy warms our Earth. The land and sea then respond to that warming energy by emitting light in the spectrum of the infrared (IR), and that energy takes the form of small packets of energy called photons. When those IR photons reach the atmosphere, some of them get absorbed by certain molecules, and that absorbed energy is transferred into the elements of the molecules. That energy causes the molecules to vibrate and heat the atmosphere, and finally, the atmosphere transfers some of that energy back to the Earth's surface. Again, this is necessary, because if we didn't have this blocking of IR wavelengths, our average temperatures on Earth would be about 32 degrees Celsius cooler (-18ºC instead of the current 14ºC). One of the greenhouse gases (GHG) that reflects these IR wavelengths is CO2, but there are others, such as water vapor, ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and CFCs. 

The science behind the AGW hypothesis is that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (that humans produce by burning fossil fuels) will block more outgoing long-wave IR radiation (OLR) from exiting the atmosphere and thereby warm the surface. It is well-known that IR radiation causes CO2 molecules to vibrate, but only at very specific wavelengths (wavelengths are the distances between peaks of each wave), and that wavelength is 15µm. (Fifteen µm means that each wavelength crests at a distance of 15 millionths of a meter.) As was discussed above, this vibration of the molecule causes it to heat and then radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. If the solar activity is taken to remain constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more of the OLR, and thus cause a net heating of the planet.    

So what type of experiment could be performed to test this AGW hypothesis? If there were satellites in orbit monitoring the emission of OLR over time at the same location, then OLR could be measured in a very controlled manner. If, over time, the emission of OLR in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs decreases over time, then that would prove the AGW hypothesis (i.e., that OLR is being absorbed by CO2 and heating the planet instead of being emitted from the atmosphere). But what if, over time (say, over thirty years), the emissions of OLR wavelengths that CO2 absorb remained constant? That would disprove the hypothesis and put the AGW argument to bed. 

As luck would have it, that experiment has actually been performed! Three journal papers report the data from three monitoring satellites that have measured the OLR of 1997 and 2006 and compared those measurements to 1970, and they are located here(pdf), here, and here(pdf). 

There were three different experiments performed in space to measure OLR emissions. The Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) was performed in 1970, the Interferometer Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) was performed in 1997, and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) was performed in 2006. All of these experiments were performed over the Pacific Ocean and confined to the same three-month period (April through June), and the data were limited to cloudless days. The variable measured was brightness temperature, which is given in degrees Kelvin (K). Higher brightness temperatures correlate to higher emissions (meaning that more OLR is emitted to the atmosphere and less is absorbed by GHG).  

The figure below (from the first link above) shows a comparison of OLR emission in 1997 vs. 1970. (Positive values indicate that more OLR emission was measured in 1997 vs. 1970, and negative values indicate that less OLR emission was measured in 1997 vs. 1970.) The top graph is taken over the East Pacific, and the bottom graph is taken over the West Pacific. The middle line is the actual measurements, and the other lines show the upper and lower uncertainty ranges. The x-axis of the graph is given in wave numbers per centimeter (cm), and the area that relates to CO2 is at the far left of the graph (700 wave numbers per cm). After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: There is actually an increase of OLR emissions in 1997 as compared to 1970!


The next figure (from the second link above) shows the actual measurements of OLR emission in 1997 vs. 1970. The dark line is the IMG data (from 1997), and the gray line is the IRIS line (from (1970). After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: The 1997 OLR associated with CO2 is identical to that in 1970.

The next figure (from the third link above) shows the OLR emission from TES (in 2006). The black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between the actual and model data. 


The final figure (from the third link above) shows the OLR emission from IMG (1997). Just like the previous figure, the black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between actual and model data.

The last two graphs can be placed on top of each other, and the black lines (actual measured data) are basically copies of each other. That means that there was no difference in OLR between 1970 and 2006.

All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise -- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. Computer-simulated results based on climate models are never a replacement for actual measured data, and they should never be used to draw conclusions when actual measured data contradicts those models. 

So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven. 

It should be noted that another paper written by Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (both work at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences -- Lindzen is a professor and Choi is a postdoctoral fellow) reveals the differences between the measured OLR and its impact on temperatures vs. climate models. In the paper, the data showed that OLR increased when sea surface temperatures increased, so this is in direct contradiction to the AGW hypothesis that less OLR should be emitted since more CO2 is absorbing it and warming the planet. Furthermore, in contradiction to the climate models, these results show that OLR is acting like a negative feedback (cooling the surface) instead of a positive feedback (radiative forcing). The Lindzen and Choi paper dealt in general with all OLR wavelengths and didn't show granularity with respect to specific wavelengths that were related to various GHG absorption, but the fact that the entire OLR emission spectrum didn't behave like the eleven climate models' predictions means that "the science isn't settled."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agw; amazongate; carbontrade; climatechange; climatechangedata; glaciergate; globalwarming; globalwarmingscandal; globqalwarminghoax; ipcc; olr; pachauri; pachaurigate; scandinaviagate

1 posted on 02/16/2010 10:34:44 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump


2 posted on 02/16/2010 10:36:16 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No matter what the data says, 200 years of current records plus various snapshots of conditions throughout history simply aren’t enough to say what is or is not happening.


3 posted on 02/16/2010 10:38:08 PM PST by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

mark


4 posted on 02/16/2010 10:42:10 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Freeper, cobra64, nailed it with this pic: parsy
5 posted on 02/16/2010 10:42:52 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A return to an Ice Age is a Bad Thing. We are apparently overdue to do so.


6 posted on 02/16/2010 10:57:12 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic; Carlucci; Desdemona; meyer; Para-Ord.45; Normandy; mmanager; FreedomPoster; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

7 posted on 02/16/2010 10:57:18 PM PST by steelyourfaith (FReepers were opposed to Obama even before it was cool to be against Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: neverdem

Great one!

So, is somebody going to email this to the Chamber of Commerce (just in case they don’t see it) getting ready for the what’s got to be the most interesting trial of the century? CofC v EPA?

Ha ha!


9 posted on 02/16/2010 11:04:56 PM PST by Bhoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So why’s the stratosphere cooling off?


10 posted on 02/16/2010 11:15:10 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
This CO2 Cap and Trade tax is not dead. It's in the Energy Bill. This Tax will make payroll tax look like child's play.
The CEO of AEP on CNBC stated CO2 Cap and Trade will increase of cost of electric from $.04 to $.07 per KWH and that is only “if” the government gives the permits away for free.
Here the kicker. If someone wanted to start a new business that will use a lot of energy, they would need to get CO2 permit from the government. What happens when all the CO2 permits are already allocated? If you are a widget maker, all your future competition has been eliminated inside our borders. Under Co2 Cap and Trade, the existing widget maker is hoping to eliminate competition from out side our borders. CO2 Cap and Trade Tax must not pass.
11 posted on 02/17/2010 12:01:27 AM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab

Interesting thesis. Worth further examination.


12 posted on 02/17/2010 12:26:47 AM PST by dannyboy72a (The President of the United States should not be selling me insurance or lightbulbs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
So why’s the stratosphere cooling off?

We're having global cooling.

Dear Al Gore: Please Send Us Some More of That “Global Warming”

The severe winter weather over the last several years is due to global cooling, not warming.

New Sunspots Could Produce Space Storms

The sun has been relatively quiet the past two years. It's at the low point in a known 11-year cycle of activity. The next peak of activity is expected sometime in 2013. The ability to predict how strong the next peak will be, or when any given storm will strike as activity ramps up in the coming months, remains iffy.

Figure in Milankovitch Cycles and assorted oceanic perturbations like the PDO, etc. The precautionary principle is a recipe for economic ruin, IMHO, especially when the climate models are so deficient.

13 posted on 02/17/2010 12:52:58 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Greenhouse Effect is real and necessary for life on Earth. Without it, our world would be a frozen ball that would not be hospitable for life as we know it.

Nothing to do with a greenhouse. It is due to having an atmosphere. If the density of the atmosphere is too great, you get Venus. If the density is too weak, you get Mars. Good article otherwise.

14 posted on 02/17/2010 2:06:35 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
A return to an Ice Age is a Bad Thing. We are apparently overdue to do so.

You are absolutely correct. Sad to say, the normal state of the earth is, indeed, an ice-age of various degree. I've seen glacial striations in north Texas. A couple of winters like this with a few "years of no summer" and there we would be.

15 posted on 02/17/2010 3:31:15 AM PST by Huebolt (Democrat = (national socialist) = NAZI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Nothing to do with a greenhouse. It is due to having an atmosphere. If the density of the atmosphere is too great, you get Venus. If the density is too weak, you get Mars.

I like your answer. Is it intuition, or do you have a source or two?

16 posted on 02/17/2010 10:36:34 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dannyboy72a
Here's a real life example.
In my heck of the woods, the city will only allow x amount of liquor permits for y population density. If you want one and all the permits have been issued, your SOL.
The other part of CO2 Cap and trade would be like all the liquor permit holders getting together (with the government getting their cut) agreeing to pay the city down the road to remain dry.
17 posted on 02/17/2010 12:17:23 PM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
18 posted on 02/17/2010 12:26:24 PM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

Thanks for the link.


19 posted on 02/17/2010 1:07:20 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No problem. I thought even just the “executive summary” was pretty in depth and informative. I haven’t waded into the full paper yet. Probably a little above my pay grade.


20 posted on 02/17/2010 4:04:46 PM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That is the facts. Venus has a very dense atmosphere compared to Earth. Mars has a weak one. Venus is very hot and its atmosphere has a very high relative heat content. Mars is very cold at night and hot during the day with a low relative heat content. And what happens in Earths atmosphere is not even remotely similar to what happens in a green house. The green house myth has been shattered for decades, but the settled science cannot seem to get over it. The glass in a green house absorbs infrared light, which is why the glass gets hot. That heated glass is cooled by the outside wind. So very little infrared light energy from the sun enters the green house. It is primarily all visible light. That is not what happens on the Earths surface. Our atmosphere absorbs some infrared and our oceans receive large amounts of infrared, which is primarily absorbed. So infrared light from the sun is a significant factor on Earth. What heats a greenhouse is energy from the visible light spectrum traveling through the glass which eventually warms surface that absorb the light. These surfaces give off heat that heats the internal atmosphere. That warm air cannot escape. There was an old experiment where they painted the internal surfaces of a green house white. It did not significantly warm because the white surfaces reflected and did not absorb the visible light. So if you do not want your green house to warm significantly, paint the inside surfaces white and use clear glass. Infrared has nothing to do with a green house. To show how how wrong the settled science is, infrared light is all that matters with respect the CO2 green house gas. So CO2 is not a green house gas, because infrared light is not a factor in a green house. CO2 is an atmospheric gas, just like water vapor. Now the more water vapor or the higher density of the atmosphere (Venus), and the atmosphere can hold and store a lot more heat. Mars atmosphere is very thin and it retains very little heat. The most important factor on Earth for heat content is the density of the atmosphere. You can see that at sea level where atmosphere is more dense compared to mountain tops where atmosphere is thin.

So now perhaps you can understand why all the predictions based on green house gas concentration in Earth's atmosphere have not panned out to be correct. Reality has bit them in the behind. You cannot make accurate predictions with inaccurate science. The above paragraph is just the basic explanation for how they got it wrong. If you want the explanation from a physics perspective, you can download a paper from the link below.

Falsifcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

21 posted on 02/17/2010 4:43:14 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
Well, we even have it in the Land of the Free. Perhaps that is where I found the paper too.
22 posted on 02/17/2010 4:44:40 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science

No, they are still repeating that the last decade is the "hottest in history."

23 posted on 02/17/2010 6:03:12 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Pat Caddell: Democrats are drinking kool-aid in a political Jonestown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; SunkenCiv; Marine_Uncle; Fred Nerks; NormsRevenge; onyx; BOBTHENAILER; ...

Excellent...


24 posted on 02/18/2010 1:43:36 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal; clintonh8r

Hey, I like that man!

Seriously.


25 posted on 02/18/2010 1:45:49 PM PST by onyx (BE A MONTHLY DONOR - I AM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thanks for the ping.
I’m saving all articles.


26 posted on 02/18/2010 1:48:24 PM PST by onyx (BE A MONTHLY DONOR - I AM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onyx
How Big are you Hard Drives...?

I just bought one of these the other day...still trying to get it working on my Linux network:

LG N2R1DD1 1TB 1TB Super Multi NAS with DVD Re-Writer

27 posted on 02/18/2010 2:11:29 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: onyx

A freeper named “cobra64” did it. I think it is great,too.

parsy


28 posted on 02/18/2010 2:32:32 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; justa-hairyape; Ernest_at_the_Beach; steelyourfaith
I might as well throw in another issue that must be better understood. Key points. Shrinking ionosphere and magnetic flux density changes within the earth at Watts Up With That?

As some at this site (FR) are aware some solid studies indicate perhaps the primary driver in the whole earth heating/cooling is due to the formation of clouds in the higher levels where increased cloud formation in the upper levels reflect more sunlight verse when lower cloud density in the upper levels prevail more sunlight can enter the lower atmosphere as well as strike the earth's land masses.
This stuff is very complicated. But surely the issue of CO2 somehow being responsible for earth heating surely can be shown to be pure rubbish.
29 posted on 02/18/2010 5:03:52 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
To show you how absurd the CO2 argument is, you know those massive cooling towers at nuclear power plants. The kinda power plant Obama wants to build to decrease the CO2 “greenhouse emissions”. They are emitting large amounts of warm water vapor. The major “greenhouse gas”.
30 posted on 02/18/2010 5:28:25 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
I know. Long before global warming issues targeting CO2 as a prime culprit where being elucidated, I knew this crap was simply that crap. And for the most part every petrochemical plant, oil refinery, coal, oil, natural gas electrical generation plant etc., in the USA who have stacks fit into the same scenario, harmless water vapor being emitted.
Let me just add, if one considers how much water vapor rises each day world wide across the huge expanse of oceans, all the man made generation of water vapor is a drop in the bucket.
31 posted on 02/18/2010 5:36:39 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
Let me just add, if one considers how much water vapor rises each day world wide across the huge expanse of oceans, all the man made generation of water vapor is a drop in the bucket.

No doubt, but it is the irony that is amazing to behold. Wonder if anybody has quantified the amount of water vapor we have be adding over the years ? We could be slowly making our atmosphere more dense. Our politicians are certainly becoming more dense.

32 posted on 02/18/2010 6:17:32 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

Pachauri must resign or be fired so he can go back to writing porn novels full time.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2438939/posts


33 posted on 02/18/2010 6:59:04 PM PST by raptor22 (The truth will set us free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
The oceans represnt over 70% surface of our planet. Think of the huge amount of surface area of our planet that is water. 99% percent of it being salt water oceans. The amount of water being emitted into the lower atmosphere by humans is a small percentage world wide that each day is attributed to surface evaporation.
It is that simple. Let the reader absorb that concept.
I would be simply surprise if I had someone counter this basic fact. They would be among the idiots and morons that populate this earth.
I probably will not even respond to any challenges on this comment. For I do not deal with idiots.
Mankind contributes very little to the emission of water vapor verse the huge body of surface water this planet represents. It really is that simple.
Let the morons try to dispute such an elementary fact.
34 posted on 02/18/2010 11:05:17 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
Agree with it being a small percentage compared to total atmospheric gases. However, the amount of human generated CO2 gas is also a small percentage of the total atmospheric gases. Measured as ppm. What first needs to be addressed is the following - Is the amount of water vapor being released into the atmosphere by human activity, as significant with respect to atmospheric warming, as the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by human activity. If human generated water vapor turns out to be far more significant, CO2 regulation will be a grossly inefficient mechanism to prevent AGW.

At any rate, the sad state of affairs is the following. We have not quantified how much of the most significant atmospheric warming gas we humans are releasing into the atmosphere, yet we think we know enough now to prevent atmospheric gas warming of the planet. So just how is that possible if we consider ourselves to be smart ?

35 posted on 02/19/2010 1:50:30 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Reasonable suggestion, but easier said then done.


36 posted on 02/19/2010 9:34:18 AM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
That is probably why is has not been done yet. Sometimes ignorance is not bliss, it is just practical.
37 posted on 02/19/2010 6:40:23 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Not really. I mean no disrespect, but it is not easy to quantify the CO2 total output from all forms of living things not only humans but the tens of thousands of living things both of the animal and plant kingdoms that live on land as well as in the sea. Both industrial in nature, as well as the biological. And so what. The underlining understanding is CO2 has no effect in the over all heating or warming of the earth's surface and atmosphere.

38 posted on 02/19/2010 9:46:10 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

Agree with your CO2 statement. Was referring to quantifying water vapor changes. The AGW crowd claims to have the carbon cycle fairly well figured out. The hydrogen cycle however is less known. And hydrogen in the gaseous form of water vapor is the dominate “greenhouse” gas. Without a doubt the hydrogen cycle has a much more significant affect on atmospheric warming then does the carbon cycle. The AGW types even acknowledge this with their Water Vapor Feedback Mechanism. According to them, more CO2 atmospheric warming apparently leads to more water vapor creation. It is the water vapor that makes their CO2 so dangerous. Actually the only way CO2 could be dangerous, if you do the math. Funny how they worry about human action causing the minor atmospheric gas having an affect on the major atmospheric gas. Duh ? What about human activity affecting the Major Atmospheric gas. They are such dupes.


39 posted on 02/19/2010 10:14:07 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Let me just add. There are things such as concentrations of carbon (carbon black) that are exhumed into our atmosphere that may have a more profound effect on the over all surface reflectance of IR into the lower atmosphere levels, that some claim might have some effect on the over all warming.
This suggestion is not fully explored. The issue regarding the extremely low level by total content of various gases as argon, CO2, methane, ozone, etc., should soon be a closed case. They do not in any way contributed to this so called greenhouse effect, that supposedly warms the earths surface and oceans.
It is simply a lie to buy into based on very poor science.
What we need to do is to start from the United States view point, seek measures that will silence such horse shit in the future. There is plenty of room for honest scientific investigations into the many by products of industrialization that really do poison our atmosphere, ground waters and land, to be addressed within the confines of rational and fair future scientific study and perhaps where required regulations.
With that being said. Perhaps you should carefully read the few papers that have been introduced within these many posts as how Carbon Dioxide is not even a issue in the very complicated studies regarding potential global warming, or quite frankly the opposite, global cooling.
I rest my case.
40 posted on 02/19/2010 10:31:35 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
Perhaps you should carefully read the few papers that have been introduced within these many posts as how Carbon Dioxide is not even a issue in the very complicated studies regarding potential global warming, or quite frankly the opposite, global cooling.

Dude, you are not even reading what I am typing. What is the first sentence in my previous post ? Drop the carbon crap. I agree with you. My point is water vapor is more important and they have been ignoring it. Good day and good night.

41 posted on 02/20/2010 12:00:19 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

Just noticed you were responding to a previous post. Sorry about that. At any rate, we seem to be having a communication problem. Best to just drop it. Go ahead, last word is all yours. Have fun.


42 posted on 02/20/2010 12:29:00 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
My eyes where closing as I wrote. Some days I must get up at 3:30AM to start work at 5AM, some days I have to work till 11PM. Some times I end up working six, seven days in this mode, without a day off.
I should had been sound asleep long before we started to communicate. So the "sorry about that" works both ways this time around.
Today I have to work till 11PM. Tomorrow I have to work a mid shift then be back in for a two hour meeting that will end 10PM. Then have to get up early to be in at 8AM.
There are times it takes a lot out of me to try to respectfully address the many pings I get from folks on various subjects.
Shortly after I do a load of cloths washing I will head off to work. I am sure we all shall continue these discussions as more comes out against the AGW establishment. Do have a great day.
43 posted on 02/20/2010 9:19:17 AM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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