Nic Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%E2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/ Not usually a fan of websites that seem politically motivated or bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I liked this comment. Martin_Lack 09/23/2011 at 6:48 AM Can I first congratulate you on such a well-presented and entertaining blog. However, secondly, can I ask you why you want AGW to be a hoax, fraud, scam etc? Why does it have to be a scientific conspiracy to keep the research funding coming in? Or, why does it have to be a political conspiracy to achieve worldwide authoritarian government? Why can’t it just be a consequence of the Earth’s [atmosphere/ocean] finite capacity to assimilate human waste products, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy, and the observations of Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago? No, actually, I’ll tell you why… Because people really do believe that “greed is good“, because they worship at the shopping mall temples to our new god of Consumption, and because of the arrogance of human beings who think they can have mastery over the environment; and treat the Earth as if “it is a business in liquidation” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 http://co2insanity.c...use-gas-theory/ Not usually a fan of websites that seem politically motivated or bias. No there is not any truth to it. That site is serving up crap and calling it fudge. I thought about writing a detailed debunking - but there are so many lies, half-truths, logical fallacies, and distortions in that blog post that it would take all day and I have better uses for my time. Sadly, I'm sure that there are some readers who will read that garbage and believe every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yes the article makes sense. It is designed to make sense, but it is factually wrong on just about every level. Just two main points... CO2 is heavier than "air". Yes it is. It also has a very long atmospheric residence time and becomes well mixed. Gaseous H2O is lighter than air. It is not well mixed because it has a very short residence time. Long resident N2 and O2 are well mixed even though they have different molecular "weights". Atmospheric turbulence "mixes" all these long residence time gases in the lower atmosphere. Back radiation..... The article seems to deny the existence of a greenhouse effect. The atmosphere irradiates the surface with energy because it has a temperature. All composite matter above absolute zero temperature radiates away energy in all directions, including the atmosphere. The Earth's surface actually receives greater energy over time than it does directly from the Sun! Point a radiometer at the sky and you will find it registers energy being received from above, 24/7/365..... If the atmosphere did not radiate downward (back radiation) the sky would would register 2.7K degrees at night time, the background temperature of the dark sky Universe. The article is garbage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 The author does a heroic job trying to transform fiction into reality. However, that's an impossible task and, all too predictably, he fails. The laws of physics are what they are. CO2 has heat-trapping properties and no smoke and mirrors can make those properties disappear. In the end, the article contributes nothing to science, much less the climate change issue. It only detracts from informed discussion by taking readers along irrelevant paths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.