Again, you are taking a minority view.
Which majority? IPCC's? I wasn't aware that the experimental science was subject to democratic rule.
The more I investigate, the more I find that there may be something significantly wrong with the theoretical basis of the "Greenhouse Effect", as it had been proposed first to argue for high surface temperatures of Venus, much higher than measurement has since show Venus to actually have, and now to argue a potential rise in earths global temperatures in much the same manner as the original greenhouse debate regarding the surface temperature of Venus.
Are Hansen's radiative forcings wrong for CO2?
Hansen is merely repeating IPCC on that forcing he hasn't justified it by an experimental showing and there is strong experimental evidence against it.
No one seems to know where or how IPCC came up with the 4w/m2 per 300ppm change in CO2 comes from. It appears to be one of those numbers everyone points to someone else as saying, but no one seems to nail down the source and experimental or theorectical verification of it.
I'll stand by :
Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?
Hug & Barret,
DECHEMA colloquium, Frankfurt on 11th Oct, 2001
Effects of Doubling CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm
Carbon dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition
by Sherwood Idso, 1989 (ref. Idso S.B., IBR Press), section 4.2 fig 4.1:"Based upon the resulting solid-line relationship, it would appear that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of Earth's atmospheric CO2 content could only increase the planet's mean surface air temperature by about 0.4 degrees C ...".
"The more we found out the less we understood," said Donald Turcotte, a geophysicist at Cornell University in New York.
Among Venus' remaining mysteries is why it's not hotter. Although Venus is slightly closer to the sun than Earth, orbits more slowly and has a thicker layer of clouds trapping heat in, the planet's atmosphere also reflects about 75 percent of the sun's radiation. (Earth's atmosphere reflects about 30 percent.) According to current climate models, these factors should make Venus even hotter than it is.
"The climate on its surface is completely out of line if you extrapolated the conditions as if they were Earth," said Fred Taylor, a planetary physicist at the University of Oxford, England. "There's something very wrong with our modeling."
Until such time as Hug's experimental result is shown to be wrong by actual measurements in the atmosphere or that the experiment itself was unquestionably flawed by being unable to reproduce his results.
Seeing as the experiment was carried out with the same mixture of gases as that found in the atmosphere that should be the least that is necessary to controvert his findings.
Does Hug suggest that the radiation absorption characteristics of CO2 be ignored?
Because of the overlap of water vapor IR absorption spectum and heat transferred to N2 & O2 by kinetic collision, yes. Read the article.
If so, are CH4 and CFCs not significant either (they are described in the literature as much more potent GHGs, but their radiative forcing contribution is less than CO2 because their concentrations are so much lower.)
Their IR spectums are overlapped by water vapor as well, heat transport is still dominanted by kinetic collisions with N2 & O2 and water vapor, rather than IR re-radiation and re-absorption by those molecules. Same effect as was demonstrated by the Hug experiment, can apply to the CH4 & CFCs as well. Their admitted lower effects simply do not require us to carry out that experiment in order to establish a problem in the basic theory applied by the global warming theorists as represented by the IPCC and their apologists.
Does this consider longwave radiation? Doesn't seem to.
IR radiation is the longwave radiation on which all this debate is about, DUH!
Note the lower left of this graph H20 overlaps the longwave 15cm spectral emmission of CO2 & dominates 8micron radiation and above to the right.
The bottom line of Hug & Barret, is that IR(i.e. longwave) absorption is saturated within the 1st hundred feet of the surface, the energy absorbed is passed on to N2 & O2 molecules in kinetic collisions and re-radation to the broader band absorption of water vapor, rather than the re-radiation of IR at re-absorbable (CO2, CH4, CFC) wavelengths envisioned in the IPCC models.
GHG contributions are minimal because there is very little energy transported by re-radiation of IR from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere, the IR energy absorbed at the surface is predominately and in fact overwhealmingly transferred to N2 & O2 through kinetic collisions, and transported as latent heat and the broad IR absorption of watervapor.
Radiant transport of CO2, CH4, & CFC IR especially, (upon which the GCM model theory rests,) is virtually nil above 100 feet or less of the atmosphere. The greatest tranport of heat is by convection of , and as latent heat of water vapor.
Blackbody radiation, and radiation from latent heat of water vapor is lost to space in the highest levels of the upper atmosphere where mean free path is sufficient to allow it, where the condensation and freezing of watervapor allows latent heat loss as radiation. Because of atmospheric IR saturation, re-radiation return to the surface in the efficient manner the greenhouse effect requires, is virtually non existant. That heat is predominately trapped in the atmosphere as kinetic motion of molecules or as latent heat of vaporization in re-evaporation of atmospheric water.
The experiment to disprove Hug & Barret is very simple.
Measure 15micron radiant flux (from CO2 absorption spectum) at the surface, then measure it 300 feet up in the atmosphere. If the flux is substantially the same, IPCC & the GCMs are vindicated as IR reradiation would be the dominant mode of heat transfer on which the GCMs stand.
If the 15micron flux at 300ft above ground is substantially different, then Hug & Barret are vindicated.
This contention is disputed by the observed cooling of the stratosphere in satellite data, you know.
The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is to thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of watervapor transported to the upper atmosphere.
You are basically saying that radiative transfer is negligible (as far as I can tell).
In the troposhere, like in transport from the surface.
But the transfer of heat into and out of the stratosphere is only radiative, there are no significant convective processes.
When I speak of the atmosphere in the context of heat transport from the surface, I am speaking of the troposphere.
The stratosphere is indeed radiative transfer, simply because it does not impede the transmission of IR by absorption, the mean free path of molecules is too high, not many molecules in the way to absorb the outgoing IR radiation. The is very little in the stratosphere to "transport" heat.
The heat in the troposphere is transported predominately by convection and transport of latent heat in watervapor carried by hot air to the upper troposphere.
Please do not confuse the issues with symantics. My statements have been clear. The Stratosphere is not anywhere near the 1st hundred feet of the surface of the earth where IR from the surface is absorbed and dissapated into molecular motion rather than radiant energy.
So I think there's a problem with what you're saying, unless I'm misinterpreting it.
You are misinterpreting it.