-----
"Comment on "The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the Earth's troposphere" " John Houghton Spectrochimica Acta v.51A, p.1391-1392 ( 1995 )
Sir John very politely, and carefully points out the problems, and goes on to explain that as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so too does the average height (about 6km) from which CO2 emits radiation in space. Since atmospheric temperature in the lower atmosphere falls with altitude, if nothing changes other than the amount of CO2, the amount of radiation to space is reduced. For atmospheric CO2, this reduction is about 4Wm^-2. To restore the Earth's energy balance the temperature thoughout the lower atmosphere has to increase - hence the enhanced greenhouse effect.
-----
That's where the argument rests. My time is limited, but I also admit that it would be impossible for me to go into any greater detail about Hug and Barrett's results. Apparently there are lengthy "Open Reviews" on Daly's Web site, for anyone that really wants to dive in.
I find it interesting that out of all the range provided, the GW folks never present or even apparently consider the possibility that global climate temperatures can fall as well as rise. This is a telling note. They appear to be totally dedicated to demonstrating rising global temperture inspite of historical evidence that climates tempertures make excursions downward even with atmospheric CO2 concentrations much higher than even those assumed doublings of IPCCs GCM story lines.
But you need a mechanism for cooling. The only one that I can think of is volcanism (sulfur aerosols, as demonstrated by El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo). What else could occur that would result in cooling? (It now occurs to me that there has been some question about the sign of forcing for black soot aerosols, i.e., do they shade more = cooling, or do they absorb more = warming? Hansen thinks that absorption outweighs shading.
Sorry that I can't continue for about 12 days. Not to be mysterious about it, I'm going on vacation.
But you need a mechanism for cooling.
Albedo(clouds & dust),
IR irradiation from surface absorbed in 1st hundred feet of atmosphere where it is predominately dissipated as kinetic energy.
Transport of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere by convection dominated by
released radiant energy to stratosphere and on into space.
downward directed re-radiant IR is absorbed in the upper region of the atmosphere dissappated as kinetic energy not returning to the surface except by convection of cold air.
The role of CO2 is minimal by virtue of the near total absorption of IR in a very short path of troposphere. Adding more CO2 does not increase the capacity of air to absorb more IR at CO2 wavelengths, its just more molecules in the mass, same is true of NH4 & CFC's. Watervapor(latent heat), N2 & O2 kinetic energy are the dominant and overwhealming factors transporting heat from the surface to the statosphere where re-radiative loss becomes the dominant transport to space.
Shine a light an opaque sheet of paper, it is all absorbed. Add a second sheet behind it, no additional effect. the 1st hundered feet of atmosphere extinguishes IR absorbable by atmospheric CO2. There is nothing left to render an effect on global temperature by increasing the level of CO2 or other minority GHG gases.
Hansen thinks that absorption outweighs shading.
And therein lay the problem. Others of the same and even greater stature in the fields applicable to the study global climate and the impact of the "Greenhouse Theory" have a concern about "thinking" something as opposed to establishing it in a scientifically convincing manner.
Personally I am merely a retired programmer with computer sciences & physical chemistry background, long long ago and in a galaxy far far away, as some might put it.
For me the issue is not merely one of a proposed theory or a projection of possibilities for academic consideration. The issue has been made one having substantial political and global economic consequence out of political decisions based on belief in the validity of unproven models and the basis on which they are founded.
When world economies, national sovereignty and personal standard of living are at stake it behooves us to stand back and take a critical and closer look at concepts pushing for major political changes on the basis of the UN/IPCC global warming premises.
All sides of the issue need to presented and evaluated, there is scientific opinion other than that of the IPCC, their modelers and enviro-proponents in this. Thus far the counterpoint has been virtually drowned out by IPCC proponents. It is time for experimental verification and a full and open evaluation of the IPCC's GCMs which thus far has not be forth coming.
From a conservative view I see a strong and substantive dissent to the storyline projections and models from which they have been derived. Frankly, the dissent's objections are fully warranted as far as my abilities to determine such is concerned. I am all too familiar with physical modeling to be snookered in by the IPCC's variety upon which the global warming assessments rest. Such models may be wonderful tools for learning, but like an rms curve fit of a polynomial to a dataset. They cannot be relied upon the beyond the dataset they mimic, they make great interpolators and unreliable predictors.
The dissent's objections, at the least, deserve a full and open scientific hearing and debate, not the blowoff I have seen come from too many quarters with a finger in the political and money pots. It is that latter the concerns me deeply, and raises many red flags when I see the dissenting opinion virtually washed out in a deluge of media blather on global warming.
I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the IPCC's Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.
ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT:
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
***
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
And what did they sign?
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
You have claimed I take a minority view:
"Again, you are taking a minority view."
I would submit there has been a majority view that has be silenced for all practical purposes by endangerment of funding and career when one is too vocal in their dissent touching environmental topics in academic circles today.