Replies

The entire idea must be defeated. I think it can only be defeated by the physicists. Not by he fact that the warmers were lying. The AGW Smoking Gun By Gary Thompson 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, here, and here. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 27, 2008 (what historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet destroying toxin.) http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions.html "GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES” Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, 2007 (Any imbalance our CO2 emissions caused [is] effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. His calculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth's greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.) Summaries of the paper: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d31-Einstein-like-breakthrough-in-Climate-Science http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Einsteinlike-breakthrough-in-Climate-Science-Part-2 THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD (Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.) http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html The Great Global Warming Hoax? James A. Peden (Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.) http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html Greenhouse Misconceptions by Tom Kondis November 2008 (speculators blame IR absorption by carbon dioxide, approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere, for changing our climate. They haven't verified their unique viewpoint by utilizing IR radiation, synthetic gas mixtures and temperature measurements independent from the influences of poorly understood and incompletely considered natural forces that do control earth's climate and weather. Their arguments lack substance and veracity.) http://www.junkscience.com/nov08/greenhouse_misconceptions.html Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies by Tom Kondis May 21, 2008 (advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth's surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed.) http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner (Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4)) Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.