Re: Al Gore and Winston Churchill. No, really.

"Con Reeder" <constance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument"
against global warming, here's all you need to say: (a) You'd still
get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were
saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere
(which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the
atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2,
(c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's
little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared
escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like
a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it
not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by
physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all
climate models.

Now you run into the other end of the double whammy which has disproven
CO2-based global warming according to Lindzen et al. This is indeed the
prediction of the IPCC model. But it is theoretical and the behavior of
water vapor there is really unknown. If the behavior described existed
you would see the "smoking hotspot" in the mid-equatorial region of the
upper troposhpere. It's not there. There is no strong positive feedback.

If the behavior of other natural forces like the AMO and sunspot minimum
overwhelm the effect of CO2 and the earth cools, as it appears might be
happening, it will become more and more clear that it is nowhere near
as sensitive as the IPCC stated. And if your model can't predict, as this
model has failed to do, you have to throw it out and start all over. They
haven't done that.

I go back to Lord Keynes -- "When the facts change, I change my mind. What
do *you* do?"

The only thing that's been disproved is the amount of global warming.
AGW itself is still a very real thing.

It is real for a total warming of 0.5 degrees C. *Everyone* agrees about
that. It is non-controversial. But the type of runaway global warming
that the AGW proponents have been talking about is different. If it's
a half-degree centigrade, who cares?

Just because it isn't run away doesn't mean it won't increase further.
The saturation argument was shredded.

I don't particularly care if their run away model was wrong.

--Tedward


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats Really Heating Up the Planet?
    ... "Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume," ... CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first ... said he doesn't even consider global warming among the Top 10 ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Whats Really Heating Up the Planet?
    ... "Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume," ... CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first ... said he doesn't even consider global warming among the Top 10 ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Pat Buchanan: Hoax of the century
    ... problem that eventually re-reached its equilibrium in the atmosphere ... greenhouse gases *and* that you are clueless about greenhouses and how ... read as indicating "global warming". ... snows this year were evidence that global warming is not true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Surge is working!
    ... Well, if Rush is so out of it in global warming, I wonder if anyone ... sulphur into the upper atmosphere, and orbiting power satellites to ... they would absolutely work whether the source of the warming is CO2 ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT~Global Warming Questions
    ... "Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume," ... Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the ... said he doesn't even consider global warming among the Top 10 ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)