Yep, Settled Science
SteveF

Global Warming and Settled Science

The AGW community would have you believe that the science in favor of AGW is settled. As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe. Atmospheric transmission measurements taken in the 1950s demonstrate conclusively that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming if global warming even exists.

RTWT. It’s a short essay, and no more technical than it has to be. (Which is to say, pretty technical. But not impenetrably so.)

Bottom line, 60-year-old science is settled and tells the tale of the effects of increased CO2 on global warming.

Which has no effect on the madness, of course. Global Cooling, Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, and Climate Disruption were never about the climate.


Comments

Yep, Settled Science — 3 Comments

  1. Argument: CO2 already absorbs 100% of the IR radiation at its most absorbant wavelength. So, increasing amounts of CO2 make no difference.

    But, respected GW skeptics report that a doubling of CO2 would indeed absorb more heat.

    CO2 does not now absorb all heat radiation at its less absorbant wavelengths. Doubling CO2 concentration would absorb more “off center”.

    For example, a 1/4″ thick sheet of glass will absorb all UV radiation and some visible light. A 4″ thick sheet will not absorb more UV, but it will look dark green as it absorbs much more of the visible light.

    EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

    • I have two responses to that, one serious, one semi-serious.

      The Navy “rubber handbook” results were calibrated for 300m distances at sea level. (Actually, my memory was that it was an even thousand feet, but close enough.) The atmosphere is more than 300m thick. Even taking into account thinning with altitude, it’s a hell of a lot more than 300m thick. I’d guess* that the absorption, in the frequencies which CO2 absorbs at all, is pretty close to 100% by the time you get to 50 miles up. Also, note that the “deniers” have been saying for years that CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas, which it is, and that it contributes at most ((some small percent)) to any warming that might be going on.

      * I have to guess because, while I did find The Infrared Handbook available for download, clicking the link got me a “this domain is pending ICANN blah blah blah” page.

      But the sciency discussion above misses the point. The point is that warmingists grab some fact or theory and wave it on a flag in isolation, claiming support for their pet theory. I demand the same courtesy be extended to me. Thus: the CO2 we had sixty years ago was already absorbing all of the heat. Quadrupling it won’t make any difference.

      • The point is that warmingists grab some fact or theory and wave it on a flag in isolation, claiming support for their pet theory.

        My favorite example of that is the “only calories matter” crowd keep waving the First Law of Thermodynamics as “proof,” neglecting that this law only pertains to closed systems, which the human body is not. Even a lot of “scientist” MDs push that bit of ignorance.

Leave a Reply