On Jul 22, 7:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

But you make no attempt to elaborate on this good science! you
repeatedly accept it as a mere article of faith.

What have we got?

We have a mathematical statistical correlation between assessed global
temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. That stark fact leads open the
possibililty of the common confusion between correlation and cause.
However, even here there is room for controversy as to whether CO2
level changes preceed or lag behind temperature changes. There are
resepctable theories that support both sides of the controversy but
that's what they are and must remain, theories.

Over and above that we have satellite data which at the very least
lends itself to the suspicion that it undergoes a "correction" process
in order to fit in with the AGW theory. Once we start accepting
corrected data the stright away we have to look at the assumptions
under which that correction process have been applied. In short we
apply a validity to a theory that has not been substantiated.

We do similar when we use computer models to predict future climate
patterns. We make assumptions regarding the validity of the AGW theory
in order to arrive at complex mathematical functions that I don't even
pretend to follow and then "tweak" these models using pre-historical
interpreted data.

There is however things we do know very well.

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking. The only difference that increased CO2
levels will make is that extinction will occur at lower levels. The
natural distance of ~99% extinction is a mere ~10m.

You can believe in unsubstantiated theories as much as you like but
you can't believe away this particular piece of "good science" If the
current AGW theory is to stand then these facts have to be accomodated
within it.

I leave you with the work of Heinz Hug in this area.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm