On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:42 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Stan and Dawlish
You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing,
to do with global warming.
Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the
world has warmed?
Of course not. No one is claiming that climate never changes. It's
the contribution of CO2 that's in question. You need to show a
credible mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the
presence of an excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.
So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.
You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an
effect but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years;
implications that temperature rises since the last ice age have
something to do with present GW; I have to give in with you Peter.
CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?
Lucrative grants?
Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last
century would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory
by now, so I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat
that takes longer to disperse!

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true.
CO2 has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of
IR radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that
condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both
are almost certainly untrue, as is this

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations
in global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts
far greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is
not the main driver of global temperature increases.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly
unconvincing - and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's
point of view about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable,
but there are so many scientists working in this field that I cannot
believe that the physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The
"Lucrative grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.


It isn't very smart to deny that GHGs cool
the atmosphere, only GHGs cool the atmosphere.

While most scientists are conscientious and
honest they may be intimidated enough not to rock the boat, but that
isn't really an issue, a number of factors could be both causing some
warming, and UHI may be a bigger factor in raw data than admitted by
the three major units.

I would guess sulfur emissions may be an
issue, I tried to find recent history, but no luck.

I just hope the AGW activists are enjoying
temperatures like I am (15 degrees below normal).



Look, Ive been trying to track down what this CO2 cooling stuff is
you're talking about, and it seems most likely what you are referring to
is the theory that CO2 cools the STRATOSPHERE. Get it? Nothing to do
with global warming or the greenhouse effect, which takes place in the
TROPOSPHERE.

Do you even know what the difference is between the stratosphere and the
troposphere? Try doing just a little elementary reading on the makeup of
the earth's atmosphere and why the physical processes are different.

Of course you know the stratosphere is still part of the atmosphere, so
the statement "CO2 cools the atmosphere" is correct.

But you're basically right that CO2 has little effect in the troposphere,
as it's overwhelmed by the WV and clouds there. All you need to do is
raise the dewpoint by a couple degrees, and the increased BB emissions
from clouds easily swamp out the effect of CO2.