From the very first quote in your original post, where you deliberately quote the article's first paragraph out of context to establish your point, then quickly gloss over the rest to bring in extraneous information, you have deliberately misquoted and misinterpreted the man while leaving out his entire chain of reasoning. And in your last paragraph in this post, you again deliberately distort his remarks to try to slide another one past us " I agree. It has always been known that CO2 has been a minor greenhouse gas." That is not what he said at all, and you are not agreeing with him, you are contradicting him. As far as the minor role water vapor plays, I recall you not particularly believing that yourself not all that long ago.
The physics of radiative transfer in rarefied gases, and its strong dependence on opacities at specific wavelengths, is very well understood, and has been known by astronomers since the days of Saha and Chandrasekhar. I'm familiar with it myself from my undergraduate astrophysics courses, the only difference being that ionization plays a major role in the stars. This is not cutting edge science.
Greenhouse gases operate to increase opacity in an environment where convection plays little role, they prevent radiation from radiating away, just like in the stars. At lower levels, convection is the primary means of thermal transport, just like in the stars. The whole point of this man's article is to explain why this works the way it does, and why it's happening at extreme altitudes on earth.
If you believe he, and the model makers, have got the physics all wrong, fine, just say so, but don't try to twist his words to use as evidence to legitimize your case against him.
I am not going to attempt to pick apart the rest of your turgid prose, the link is there for anyone to read who is interested and they can make up their own minds. As for myself, I will not take seriously anything you say further on this topic, and I will view with extreme suspicion anything you claim on any other. You've been busted, bucko.
Flame » in reply to re: A Saturated flatulent Argument
re: A Saturated flatulent Argument
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
- A Saturated Gassy Argument
- Please select one of the following options
- re:one AND five are correct
- What was the atmospheric pressure at sealevel in 1940. What is it today?
- Nooooooooooooooooo
- Yes Tony.... Search your feelings.... you know it to be true...
- re: Yes Tony and brothers L. I will start my research on the subject if
- re: Yes Tony and brothers L. I will start my research on the subject if
- Because your memory of a book you read long ago...
- re: Yes Tony and brothers L. I will start my research on the subject if
- Yes Tony.... Search your feelings.... you know it to be true...
- Nooooooooooooooooo
- What was the atmospheric pressure at sealevel in 1940. What is it today?
- re: Please select one of the following options
- re: options
- re: Please select one of the following options
- re:one AND five are correct
