Link to post.
A writer named Jonas responded with the following. I found it so interesting that I am posting it here where it will have a better chance of being read than as a comment to a post.
I confess that I am not a scientist, and didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do have an engineering background, once had a business card that said so, and have a great deal of respect for the various laws that govern our universe and am a skeptic on anything that is defined as a "model" or any "formula" that uses numbers that are "estimated." Color me biased but I cleaned up too many messes caused by "estimates" and "models."
Please feel free to comment.
1. Storage heaters are a better analogy than 'greenhouse' to describe such gases (Heat-Absorption-Retention-Emission) thus 'HARE' is more apposite term.
2. Only 'molecular gases' such as CO2, CH4, H2O (water vapour)have HARE capability (non-molecular ones such as oxygen and nitrogen reflect heat).
3. HARE gases only absorb heat in/from the infrared wavelength. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND SALIENT POINT.
4 Infrared heat/energy in the atmosphere comes from the Sun; the sum total of the energy emitted from the Earth's surface is miniscule compared to that beamed down by Sun; heat from the surface of the Earth will keep on rising until it is expended (oscillated away); the only contribution surface heat can make to the levels of HARE gases is if there is if there are any such gases given off by/in that heat.
5. HARE gases absorb [infrared] energy at differing efficiencies:carbon dioxide has a 8.5 per cent efficiency whereas water vapour's is 37.5 per cent (more than four times that of CO2).
6. Carbon dioxide presently exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of 387ppm; water vapour's is some 20,000ppm, more 50 times that of CO2.
7. The Greenhouse/HARE contribution of CO2 amount to less that half of one per cent of that of water vapour's; expressed as a 12" ruler, CO2 is about 1/16th of an inch whereas water vapour is 11 7/8".
8. Thus it won't make any noticeable difference to temperature of the atmosphere if the level of CO2 was halved, doubled or even trebled.
Confirmation of CO2's irrelevance in determining global temperatures is borne out by the fact than since 1998 - during which time the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by some 18ppm - temperatures have not only declined by 1 degree C but that since 2006 the rate of this cooling has been accelerating.
Anyone wanting more info/ confirmation/sources of data on the CO2 'marlarky' do please contact me.
September 20, 2008 2:05 PM