Searcharticles.in More Resource For your sites…

The figures you quote are concerned with absorption properties of various gases in relationship to wavelength.

LOL… uh, yeah. That’s called the “greenhouse effect”.

Table 3 very, VERY clearly indicates that CO2 accounts for 29 W/m^2 of radiative forcing, or 26% of the total 125 W/m^2–it is a little less than 50% as impactful as H20.

I don’t see how you can misinterpret that. Since you, oddly, take pride in your ignorance, I’m only posting this so that other people might learn a little something.

Heh… don’t speak so soon. Maxx is a scientific illiterate. You’re too kind.

DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Yeah… yeah … and your a smug pseudo intellectual jackass.

And by the way, I looked your document today and as I suspected you got it all wrong. There is nothing in that document to support your bizarre claim that CO2 is responsible for 12% to 25% of atmospheric warmth. The figures you quote are concerned with absorption properties of various gases in relationship to wavelength.

You got it wrong… no big surprise there !!

Clearly you can make serious arguments countering the mainstream global warming theory without the need to deny the basic facts underlying the issue. I withdraw my description of you as a denier.

Heh… don’t speak so soon. Maxx is a scientific illiterate. You’re too kind.

I must say, though, that the fact that you can do this well makes it all the more frustrating that you posted message after message here that (to be as charitable as I can) could so easily be mistaken for denier nonsense. I was not alone in reading the words you wrote and seeing in them evidence of profound ignorance.

Rev Snow on September 17, 2007 at 12:01 AM

I hate to disappoint you Rev Snow, but I am indeed a man-made global warming denier and very pleased to be one. As such, I find myself in very good company. And I hope I did not post any comment that would lead anyone to believe otherwise. The theory of man-made global warming is nonsense from top to bottom.

And I don’t appreciate your “charity” in the slightest. If your going to snipe at my comments you should at least have the forthrightness to say with some specificity what it was that you believed to be in error.

If you did that, rather than hiding behind your vague accusations, I would be given the opportunity to explain further and show my sources. And who knows Rev Snow, you might even sway me to your point of view on some point, if you made an honest effort to do so. But please spare me your “Charity.”

Clearly you can make serious arguments countering the mainstream global warming theory without the need to deny the basic facts underlying the issue. I withdraw my description of you as a denier.

I must say, though, that the fact that you can do this well makes it all the more frustrating that you posted message after message here that (to be as charitable as I can) could so easily be mistaken for denier nonsense. I was not alone in reading the words you wrote and seeing in them evidence of profound ignorance. Too many people in the Al Gore movement already assume that anyone critical of them is a scientific ignoramus. It’s worth some effort not to look like one when speaking out on the matter.

I still find the “hoax” allegation to be unfair and unhelpful, but since we’re undoubtedly the only two left here, we’ll just agree to disagree on that point.

…the fact that CO2 LAGS warming and is thus NOT the cause of the warming.

Maxx on September 15, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Maxx, the only way I can interpret that comment is as a blanket denial that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere. So, please stop pussyfooting around. If you believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Rev Snow on September 16, 2007 at 11:41 AM

I’m impressed by your attempt to put words in my mouth, but of course I never said CO2 wasn’t a greenhouse gas. I certainty never said it or even implied such a thing and it’s nowhere to be found in the quote you referenced. But I did say this:

Yes… CO2’s role has been greatly exaggerated. Especially when you consider the role of the sun.

Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 3:50 PM

As for CO2′s role being insignificant in the warming process, look to what scientists have said:

If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gasses in the atmosphere, the oxygen, the nitrogen and argon and so on its .054% [.00054], its an incredibly small portion and then of course you’ve got to take that portion which supposedly humans are adding which is the focus of all the concern and it gets even smaller.

The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor, its the most important greenhouse gas.

The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here, they said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology University of Winnipeg

[There have been periods] in earth’s history when we had three times as much CO2 as we do today, times when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today, if CO2 has a large effect in climate then we should see it in the temperature reconstruction.

Professor Nir Shawiv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem

We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainty never did in the past.

CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, its a product of temperature, its following temperature changes.

Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.

Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, by far the most important greenhouse gas.

Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits, percentage wise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere.

Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Anyone that goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.

Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued until about 1975.

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center

You can view each of these scientists making the above statements HERE.

And finally we see that it is sunspot activity that is overwhelming responsible for the earth’s average changes in temperature:

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director, Danish National Space Centre

Conducted study, examining 400 years [1579 to 1988] of astronomical records to compare sun spot activity to earth temperatures and found variations in solar activity was intimately linked to temperature variations on earth. While sunspot data was not available for the “Maunder minimum,” a period otherwise known as “The Little Ice Age” [approximately 1610-1710] this period is generally recognized as one in which very few sunspots occurred and of course, a period of dramatically lower temperatures. For the 300 years of available sunspot data contained within Eigil Friis-Christensen original graph, tight correlation between sunspot activity and earth temperature is clearly demonstrated.

And yes, I am fully aware of the broken “Hockey Stick,” which was just more fraud by the “global warmers” Mann, Bradley and Hughes back in 1998. Fraud is the norm for the advocates of man-made global warming, we have come to realize that. But if you want to be a true believer in the “Hockey Stick” please be my guest.

And as for this comment:

If someone hangs their hopes in this debate on a discovery that warming is an illusion created by measurement error, then a significant number of non-measurement indicators (retreating glaciers, Arctic Ocean passages open for the first time ever, etc.) need explaining.

Rev Snow on September 16, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Arctic Ocean passage open for the first time ever ? Then why do you think it’s called a passage ? According to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, it was open in early 1900′s, and that was long before cars and planes and big industry as you might be aware.

As for retreating glaciers… hey, their build-up was largely due to the “Little Ice Age,” do you want to go back to the Little Ice Age just so the glaciers don’t retreat? Besides many glaciers are today adding ice, so there is nothing unusual about that either.

Just relax Rev Snow…. the earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is today, we are well within norms and we are not going to die, man-made global warming is just another hoax as the science and evidence has clearly shown. And this particular hoax has been tried several times before, this is nothing new.

…the fact that CO2 LAGS warming and is thus NOT the cause of the warming.

Maxx on September 15, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Maxx, the only way I can interpret that comment is as a blanket denial that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere warms the atmosphere. So, please stop pussyfooting around. If you believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. If you believe all the claims of the last century of atmospheric science saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas were all a deceitful plot in support of a movement that only sprang up in the last 20 years or so. If you truly believe such nonsense, then just come out and directly say that.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It warms the atmosphere. There’s now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was a century ago, almost entirely because people have been burning fossil fuels over that time. We can reasonably expect that an increase in the amount of a warming agent will lead to some increase in temperature. The last century of temperature records show a long term trend of temperature increase [*]. Assuming human activity keeps on as it is currently trending, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to grow, and again we can reasonably expect that continued increase of a warming agent will lead to some more increase of overall average temperature.

Accepting those facts does not imply an embrace of An Incovenient Truth or the associated movement. Rather, acceptance of those facts is the entry point to serious comment on the subject.

My own opinion is that the science purporting to demonstrate that some warming will in fact be a catastrophic amount of warming is far less certain than Al Gore believes. But that’s a debate over degree and over appropriate policy response, not a stance that rejects basic facts.

[*] If anything in these fundamentals is subject to attack, I think it would be flaws in the data collection and correction that establish these trends. Those criticisms are quite well covered in the links within in a previous Hot Air story and in the “hockey stick” discussions from a few years back (Google It!). There’s difficulty down that road, though. If someone hangs their hopes in this debate on a discovery that warming is an illusion created by measurement error, then a significant number of non-measurement indicators (retreating glaciers, Arctic Ocean passages open for the first time ever, etc.) need explaining.

And while CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, it represents as much as 25% of the “greenhouse” effect.

DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:50 AM

To which I replied:

I’ve seen this statement made time and time again by the “global warmers” but common since dictates that a substance that is less than 1% of the air cannot be responsible for 25% of the air’s warmth. If that were true then a breeze would feel like sparks from a metal grinder. The air would not be evenly warm, but of course the air is evenly warm. So this claim is just more bunk from the “global warmers” much like the polar bears are dying and the oceans are rising and the glaciers are melting. Just more nonsense from a crowd that has done nothing but lie from the outset.

Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 12:20 PM

In reply to the above Big S says common sense does not apply:

Sadly, common sense does not apply.

Big S on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Then Resolute chimes-in with: Please stop!

Please stop!

You don’t seem to understand your misplaced arguments are sabotaging people who actually have good arguments against global warming alarmism.

You might as well disprove Communism by producing a theorem that says all socialist eat babies and as soon as anyone agrees capitalism is better they will automatically win the lottery. Nonsense arguemnts hurt the cause not help it.

If you are right is coincidental at this point after statements like that. CO2 is uniformly dispearsed within the atmosphere you would not feel particles of it blowing at you.

Resolute on September 14, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Then Rev Snow says my reasoning is faulty:

Your reasoning is faulty. See if this analogy helps you see your error:

The outer surface of a house is made up of 10% windows with the other 90% walls, doors, roof, etc. Yet that 10% of window surface accounts for 100% of the sunlight seen inside the house.

Does that also defy common sense?

Rev Snow on September 15, 2007 at 1:49 AM

And thuja puts the icing on the cake by calling me an idiot:

I will restrict myself to gloating over the idiocy of the above statement. I suppose I could argue over the inaccuracy of categorically denying global warming, but it is more effort than I feel like exerting now.

thuja on September 16, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Gee… I got pinged-on by nearly every man-made global warming troll at HotAir, I had no idea the statement was that good or had such power to get under their collective skin !! I’ll have to put that one in my “KEEPER” file ! Thanks guys ! You honor me too much.

I’ve seen this statement made time and time again by the “global warmers” but common since dictates that a substance that is less than 1% of the air cannot be responsible for 25% of the air’s warmth. If that were true then a breeze would feel like sparks from a metal grinder. The air would not be evenly warm, but of course the air is evenly warm. So this claim is just more bunk from the “global warmers” much like the polar bears are dying and the oceans are rising and the glaciers are melting. Just more nonsense from a crowd that has done nothing but lie from the outset.

I will restrict myself to gloating over the idiocy of the above statement. I suppose I could argue over the inaccuracy of categorically denying global warming, but it is more effort than I feel like exerting now.

Therefore, one must look not at the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to understand why it’s a powerful greenhouse gas….

Big S on September 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM

You seem to be arguing against yourself, suddenly you are not concerned with the percentage of CO2 in the air. If that’s the case then what’s all the worry about rising CO2 ? Especially in light of the fact that CO2 LAGS warming and is thus NOT the cause of the warming.

Oy.. here it comes… non sequitur and strawman again …. right ?

What I doubt is that for any given volume of air that .038% of that air… which is the overall percentage of CO2 in the air according to WIKI, could trap 25% of the total heat of that given volume.

Maxx on September 15, 2007 at 3:01 AM

This is probably a dead thread, but I’ll post this response anyway, feeling comfortable that being overly technical will not scare away too many of the stragglers who may be left. The reason why CO2 and gases like methane and water absorb a heck of a lot more radiation than O2, N2, and argon, is that the latter are either atoms, or linear diatomic molecules, which are IR inactive, while CO2 is IR active. Thus, each CO2 molecule has a much higher probability of absorbing an incident IR photon than most of the rest of the atmosphere. Therefore, one must look not at the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to understand why it’s a powerful greenhouse gas, but rather the the percentage all greenhouse gases comprised by CO2 modified by the individual probabilities of absorption each of these gases possesses, which are determined by their molecular structures.

Your confusion suggests that you think that once the conversion to heat is complete, and we have heat energy, that somehow you expect that heat to remain “stuck” to the CO2 that converted it. Heat doesn’t do that. Heat flows from hot to cold through all substances. All that nitrogen that played no role in converting the reflected light into heat is quite happy to serve as something to be warmed by that heat, and to hold onto that energy.

Rev Snow on September 15, 2007 at 2:30 AM

I understand perfectly that once the light energy is absorbed by CO2 and converted to heat, that the heat will spread out to other molecules of oxygen, nitrogen and the other various gases that comprise air, via convection. What I doubt is that for any given volume of air that .038% of that air… which is the overall percentage of CO2 in the air according to WIKI, could trap 25% of the total heat of that given volume.

Think of it, when you invert .038% which is .00038, the result is 2,631 to 1. I do not believe that 1 part of 2,631 parts of any kind of gas, or any substance know to man has the ability to absorb heat at such an incredible rate as to be responsible for 25% of the overall heat of that volume. But I will look into it further.

And in that spirit, I’m disappointed
with the “hoax” language in the video.
Perhaps Michelle is just flattering
the Senator by quoting his words back
to him, but he’s equally wrong. There’s
too much indisputable fact at the
root of this debate to wave it all away
as a “hoax.” CO2 is a greenhouse
gas. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
has increased over the last century.
That increase is mostly due to our
burning of fossil fuels. And temperatures
are increasing.

Those pieces of the puzzle are real
and true. It may well be that Al Gore
and company are mistaken in the larger
picture they’ve assembled out of those
pieces. But being mistaken, even badly
mistaken, is not the same thing as
being a hoaxer.

Many here would agree it is both wrong
and unfair to conclude “Bush lied!”
when “Bush was mistaken” is good enough
to explain events. It’s likewise
wrong and unfair to conclude “Gore is
a hoaxer, or James Hansen is chasing
after money” when their words and actions
are equally well explained by their
honest (even if mistaken) assessment
of the evidence they see.

Back to the atmosphere. Some gasses
in the atmosphere, like nitrogen, are
really bad at converting reflected light
into heat. It doesn’t matter that
the great majority of the atmosphere
is nitrogen, it still plays almost
no role in the conversion of light
energy into heat energy.

CO2 on the other hand is really good
at converting reflected light to heat.
It doesn’t take
much of something really productive
to generate significant output.

Your confusion suggests that you
think that once the conversion to
heat is complete, and we have heat
energy, that somehow you expect that
heat to remain “stuck” to the CO2 that
converted it. Heat doesn’t do that.
Heat flows from hot to cold through
all substances. All that nitrogen
that played no role in converting
the reflected light into heat is
quite happy to serve as something
to be warmed by that heat, and to hold
onto that energy.

DaveS on September 15, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Get a good nights rest Dave and maybe you won’t be so grumpy.

The outer surface of a house is made up of 10% windows with the other 90% walls, doors, roof, etc. Yet that 10% of window surface accounts for 100% of the sunlight seen inside the house.

Does that also defy common sense?

Rev Snow on September 15, 2007 at 1:49 AM

Your reasoning is fine but I don’t see it as a valid analogy.

Consider this, how could a single grain of sand be responsible for 25% of the heat contained within 99 others? It seems to defy physics, but I’m unable to think of a perfect analogy.

The original statement made was:

And while CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, it represents as much as 25% of the “greenhouse” effect.

DaveS on September 14, 2007 at 11:50 AM

To me, that statement is not plausible. And I don’t know were he got that. I’ll have to look into it more.

…common [sense] dictates that a substance that is less than 1% of the air cannot be responsible for 25% of the air’s warmth.

Maxx on September 14, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Your reasoning is faulty. See if this analogy helps you see your error:

The outer surface of a house is made up of 10% windows with the other 90% walls, doors, roof, etc. Yet that 10% of window surface accounts for 100% of the sunlight seen inside the house.

Does that also defy common sense?

Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

THE SUN AND SUNSPOTS

Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age.

Since you clearly don’t read links, don’t remember things that we have just recently discussed, and–generally speaking–have no willingness to try to understand the issue, this is probably the last time I will respond to this thread. Just letting you know.

That’s contradicted by actual measured irradiance.

DaveS on September 15, 2007 at 12:55 AM

Where’s your link ?