Replies

Of course, what is the main difference between activity in the Northern and Southern hemispheres? Not carbon dioxide, but CONCRETE... cities. Is that the reason? I have no idea. And it seems implausible that any human activity could affect the global climate. But it is more plausible (not very) that the expansion of cities and construction absorbs heat than carbon dioxide is responsible (not at all plausible).

HOW exactly does CO2 supposedly trap heat? Does CO2 absorb heat? Well, then, what happens to hot gases? Gases that are heated RISE higher in the atmosphere. Once high up in the upper atmosphere, in the rarefied atmosphere and thin pressure, gases then RADIATE the heat into outer space.

So, does CO2 act as a CONVEYOR BELT... trapping heat in the lower atmosphere and MOVING the heat into the upper atmosphere, where it is radiated into space?

Have there been any repeatable, neutral experiments by unbiased researchers conducted under various conditions at various times and places to show that CO2 raises temperatures on a global scale? NO! Of coure not.

Does CO2 have only the *temporary* effect of trapping heat near the earth, only to radiate it to outer space at higher altitudes, for NO NET increaase?

I am theoretically working right now but there are a bunch of good questions in your post so let me respond off the cuff and I'll come back later.

>>Of course, what is the main difference between activity in the Northern and Southern hemispheres? Not carbon dioxide, but CONCRETE... cities.<<

Even before you consider the concrete (and asphalt) that man has added there is also a great deal of difference in land to water ratio - I think that only about a 20% of the Southern hemisphere is land compared to 40% in the northern hemisphere. BTW, my Grand daddy was a preacher/farmer but loved to fish - he used to say that since only a fourth of the world was land that meant the Lord wanted us to go fishing three times as much as we farmed. :) But anyway, good point about the paving - I'll try to see how much we've paved.

>>HOW exactly does CO2 supposedly trap heat? Does CO2 absorb heat? Well, then, what happens to hot gases? Gases that are heated RISE higher in the atmosphere. <<

I actually know this one - I'm weak in biology but half decent in physics - The sun is hot - it puts out all kinds of visible light and even ultraviolet. The earth is much cooler - it puts out only infrared. CO2 is transparent to visible light but absorbs infrared so the heat comes in but can't get out as easily. BTW, so does water vapor - a factor many people dont consider.

>>So, does CO2 act as a CONVEYOR BELT... trapping heat in the lower atmosphere and MOVING the heat into the upper atmosphere, where it is radiated into space?<<

Yes but that not specific to CO2. Thats convection. And thats how greenhouses actually stay warm - the walls and roof block convection while the clear glass or plastic lets in visible light.

>>Have there been any repeatable, neutral experiments by unbiased researchers conducted under various conditions at various times and places to show that CO2 raises temperatures on a global scale? NO! Of coure not.<<

Humans have biases so the answer to to this always "no" not just on CO2. That why things lie anonymous peer review and other checks and balances are so important. You can certainly find (and even do if you want) experiments where you measure how much infrared is absorbed by CO2 - that doesn't prove its the main factor in global warming.

BTW, we know the greenhouse effect works on a global scale by studying Venus. It about the size of the earth but further away. You can calculate how hot it ought to be. And we can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere. Venus has a lot of CO2 and its about 700 degrees or about 400 degrees hotter than it ought to be without the CO2.

The Greenhouse effect absolutely works. The question is whether its the main factor in the recent temperature rise - for that you need multiple disciplines of scientists working together - its beyond my ability, given the data I've seen so far.