On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:49:01 +0100, Tom P wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
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.

Bill, the reason why the statement is so popular with denialists is
because they misuse it to conclude that more CO2 causes more cooling.

Look at this defective logic in more detail:
- CO2 cools the stratosphere
- the stratosphere is part of the atmosphere - therefore CO2 cools the
atmosphere

This is like saying
- Lincoln was human
- some humans are Japanese
- therefore Lincoln was Japanese

Looks like a strawman to me. There are better analogies:

The surface of the ocean is part of the ocean;
Evaporation cools the surface of the ocean;
therefo Evaporation cools the ocean.

Evaporation may not be the only thing that cools the ocean, but the
statement as given is true.

It's obvious that Lincoln was not Japanese, but this is the kind of
bull**** argumentation we get from denialists non-stop.

But you're basically right that CO2 has little effect in the
troposphere, as it's overwhelmed by the WV and clouds there.

No, you are basically wrong. The vast majority of clouds are below the
6km equilibrium level.

Right you are. The clouds condense at lower altitudes, higher
temperatures when the surface warms. Higher temperature radiates more
broadband power (by T^4) to space, cooling the surface and restoring the
energy balance. That negative feedback is what swamps (regulates out)
any CO2 change. As you point out, CO2 radiates from a higher, colder
altitude, in a narrower band, so doesn't have much effect on the
troposphere.

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.