Oh dear at least we got one post without ad hom in it today muso...  well done.  Any improvement is welcome.

Now how about proving that CO2 increases... increase temperature.  How about proving that all the other "Greenhouse" gases don't have the same effect or more of an effect on temperature.

So far all you've managed to do is point out that green house gases..  sorry CO2... increases marginally within the overall atmospheric makeup as a reaction to increased temperature.

So - I think you understand, (more or less) that heat drives the weather. How much radiation we receive, and it's retained. That heat is transported around the globe by various mechanisms. That air masses move according to differentials in heat. How various pressure regimes occur. How these determine winds, directions, velocities. All that comes into play when we consider atmospheric general circulation models, but in the meantime, let's stick to radiation balance.

Using the Radiation Balance Equation, we can determine what the average received solar insolation is:

[(K + k)(1 - a)]

K = Shortwave Direct Radiation
k = Shortwave Indirect Radiation
a = Reflectivity of the Surface or Surface Albedo

That's only a partial answer though. To gain a better picture of what's happening, we look at the Global Shortwave Energy Cascade, which takes into account all insolation that ultimately reaches the surface and is absorbed, reemitted, or reflected:

The Global Shortwave Radiation Cascade describes the relative amounts (based on 100 units available at the top of the atmosphere) of shortwave radiation partitioned out to various atmospheric processes as it passes through the atmosphere. 19 units of insolation are absorbed (and therefore transferred into heat energy and longwave radiation) in the atmosphere by the following two processes:

- Stratospheric Absorption of the Ultraviolet Radiation by Ozone 2 units; and

- Tropospheric Absorption of Insolation by Clouds and Aerosols 17 units.

23 units of solar radiation are scattered in the atmosphere subsequently absorbed at the surface as diffused insolation. 28 units of the incoming solar radiation are absorbed at the surface as direct insolation. Total amount of solar insolation absorbed at the surface equals 51 units. The total amount of shortwave radiation absorbed at the surface and in the atmosphere is 70 units.

Three main losses of solar radiation back to space occur in the Earth's shortwave radiation cascade. 4 units of sunlight are returned to space from surface reflection. Cloud reflection returns another 20 units of solar radiation. Back scattering of sunlight returns 6 units to space. The total loss of shortwave radiation from these processes is 30 units. The term used to describe the combined effect of all of these shortwave losses is Earth albedo.

Global Shortwave Energy Cascade:

K' = (K + k)(1 - a)

L' = (LD - LU)

Q' = (K + k)(1 - a) -LU + LD

Q' is surface net radiation (global annual values of Q' = 0 , because input equals output, local values can be positive or negative),

K' is surface net shortwave radiation,

K is surface direct shortwave radiation,

k is diffused shortwave radiation (scattered insolation) at the surface,

a is the albedo of surface,

L' is net longwave radiation at the surface,

LD is atmospheric counter-radiation (see Greenhouse Effect) directed to the Earth's surface, and

LU is longwave radiation lost from the Earth's surface.

Having seen where and in what percentages we receive our daily incoming solar energy, then the question arises, "what does it do once it's been absorbed?"

Well, obviously, once received, it is re-emitted as longer wavelengths, or held as latent energy in the atmosphere, oceans, or ice.

Let's forget the semantics around the word proof just for a moment.

Do you honestly think that the highly conservative and vaulted echelons of the Nobel Foundation would have awarded the 2007 Nobel Prize to the IPCC (and some American Politician with a mouth) for for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change if there was any doubt about the matter?

It's cut and dried guys. It's far more certain than decisions that are taken on a day to day basis by large businesses.

Even Oil Companies and Coal Miners have issued public statements that acknowledge the certainty of AGW.

Now there might be a few flies left in the ointment, but they are very scary guys and girls.

Grendel wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 11:13am:


FD - can we get Al Gore added to the list of bad words? Substitute anything you like. The blue Tellietubby might be appropriate given his political affiliation.


Quote:


The question is - what is the cause of the temperature increases of the last (say) 50 years? We know pretty well what factors determine atmospheric temperature. There is a close relationship between temperature and CO2, although I think you're saying that it only goes one way ? Is that correct, or do you have to nip over to Climate Audit to check what you think?

do you think it could be, given the data we've seen for solar irradiance? Do you reject the fundamental basis of atmospheric physics? Do you think it's Satan (alias the red tellietubby) ?

Do you think that my last couple of posts were just BS?

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:18am:


Didn't the Nobel mob give Mandela an award? And Al Gore?

Mandela was a communist terrorist. Al Gore is just a wanker who lies and deceives.

As far as I am concerned, they're a bunch of tossers.

ROTFLMAO....

More ad hom...
 more lack of proof...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

Environmentology is just another religion.