« How Labour MPs really view their constituents | Main | BBC - rotten penis acceptable - splicing the mainbrace not. »

CO2 - the physics behind the scare


....Next, let's take a look CO2 from an Atmospheric Physicist's view - straightforward physics that we hope most of you will be able to follow:...

Yep, I did. I suggest you read it as well...

Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit.....

Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of so-called "climate scientists", and likely know more than almost all of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject.

And for sure, you now know a lot more than Al Gore.


"Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily 'global'."

Actually that was one of the early agruments used by Mann when these periods were pointed out. But then the same type of proxies he used turned up in South America and South Africa showing them. And also written Chinese and Japanese records showing the same temperature flucuations at the same times. And then Antarctic ice cores. And, of course, the demonstration that random numbers could generate the "Hockey Stick."

Throughout Mann (but not his co-authors) insisted all this was irrelevant: he also refused to release the math, computer code, or much of the data - which is all necessary to have such work considered science, except by political/social-engineering deep pockets.

Oh, and the IPCC?
``Here's the IPCC's mission statement: "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation"

So, the mission of the IPCC is to investigate and promote the idea that human activities are the main cause of global warming. The IPCC promotes itself to the public as a fully scientific, unbiased source of information on climate change, when, in fact, as anyone who carefully reads its mission statement (few, apparently, have bothered) would know, it is not. Since the IPCC's mission isn't to investigate possible natural causes of climate change, but to determine the role of "human-induced" climate change, it's not surprising that the IPCC finds what it seeks.``

Post a comment