The AGW Smoking Gun

American Thinker ^ | February 17, 2010 | Gary Thompson

[justa-hairyape]

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

[justa-hairyape]

Well, we even have it in the Land of the Free. Perhaps that is where I found the paper too.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent...

[onyx]

Hey, I like that man!

Seriously.

[onyx]

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

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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

[parsifal]

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

parsy

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[justa-hairyape]

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”.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[justa-hairyape]

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.

[raptor22]

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

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[justa-hairyape]

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 ?

[Marine_Uncle]

Reasonable suggestion, but easier said then done.

[justa-hairyape]

That is probably why is has not been done yet. Sometimes ignorance is not bliss, it is just practical.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[justa-hairyape]

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.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.