A major victory for the blogosphere
The ‘obsession with discussing the science basis’ deserves comment. I wish the IPCC were more obsessed with the science basis. But I agree that fatigue is justified regarding skydragon type arguments about the greenhouse effect and second law of thermodynamics. But that kind of discussion seems to have pretty much disappeared from the main stream skeptical blogs? In the recent thread Skeptics: make your best case. Part II, I don’t recall seeing any greenhouse effect refutations, mainly there were discussions about solar, ocean oscillations, sea level rise and other impacts. Is it possible that the blogospheric discussions on the greenhouse effect (at Climate Etc, Science of Doom, etc) have actually slain the skydragons And John O’Sullivan’s threats of legal action that resulted in my removing the skydragon threads from Climate Etc. – has this resulted in the burial of the skydragons and arguments that there is no warming of the earth and atmosphere from CO2? If so, this is a major victory for the blogosphere.
- Judith Curry
At STP, one cubic meter of pure, dry air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains 0.00078 kg of carbon dioxide. How can such a small amount of carbon dioxide absorb enough OLR to cause any heating of this large mass of gas?
100000000000000000000000 is 393 ppm, correct? So for each CO2 molecule you have 500 oxygen and 1900 nitrogen molecules, and the oscillations of those CO2 molecules due to the fractional IR spectrum absorption at 2,4, and 15um is not only trapping all the heat, but a very slight change in the molecular ratio to 2:500 and 2:1900 (Co2 doubling) is supposed be the driving force in this system?
Back radiation is a complete BS. Atmospheric CO2 has no physical property to cause any warming. CO2 does not retain heat content. CO2 is one of the best ingredients that earth living things have to change the sun’s energy into stored chemical energy. Thanks to CO2.
AGW appears the result of political dogma corrupting proper scientific thought. Convenient misinterpretations of basic science in combination with large amounts of confirmation bias have obscured the scientific method. The scientific foundations of the “greenhouse effect” and “radiative forcing” appear baseless.
All real physics basics have been changed to fit in with this imaginary The Greenhouse Effect. It is impossible in the REAL WORLD.
I get about 500 comments per day here. I couldn’t answer even 10% if I spent all day doing so. The number of insupportable statements on this blog is quite large (a statement regarding runaway greenhouse on Venus is far from the worst). I leave it to the denizens to discuss and sort out.
- Judith Curry