Mark & Juanita writes:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:49:02 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, given that everything observed is evidence of global warming, the
thing to ask the proponents of this theory, is "what evidence would be
required to refute this theory?" When everything is cited as evidence
of a theory and nothing as evidence to dispute it, then one needs to
start questioning the person postulating the theory.


Facts:

1. CO2 reflects infrared radiation.

OK

Actually CO2 _absorbs_ IR radiation, which can then be re-emitted
(again as IR radiation). Not quite the same as reflection.

2. The earth gives off infrared radiation.

Well, sort of

Well, yes. It is the ONLY way that the earth can lose energy to space
in any significant quantity. After all, we absorb an average of about 240
W/m^2 globally (from the sun), and we need to get rid of the same amount
if we want to stay in a balance. Increasing atmopsheric CO2 upsets that
balance, and requires some sort of adjustment in the earth-atmosphere
system.

3. When infrared radiation reflects back to earth, the global temperature
rises

4. Human produced CO2 can be distinguished from that produced by other
sources.
How so?

Someone pointed out the realclimate.org page. Another place to look is:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/

There is a FAQ on the atmospheric CO2 source equstion, as well as some
more general information on climate change.


5. Humans are not necessarily the sole cause of global warming.

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop.

Please define what you mean by "open loop".

Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.

There are limits to increased plant productivity due to increased
atmospheric CO2. There are two simple facts that are observed:

1) burning fossil fuels releases CO2 to the atmosphere. The carbon is
from a source that was originally removed millions of years ago, and we
know how much this relase is (i.e., we know the rate of fuel use, and
simple chemistry tells us how much CO2 will be produced).

2) the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about half the rate of
release from fossil fuels. Thus, increased uptake from the biosphere or
oceans is NOT succeeding in removing all the extra CO2.


The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.

The many oceanographers and carbon cycle scientists that study oceanic
carbon uptake would probably diagree with you.

Or are you just refering to YOUR knowledge?

So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture. What this appears to be is eco-religion with
dogma (global warming caused by human activity, any and all meteorological
events are, by definition, evidence of this dogma), sin (CO2 production),
penance (drastic reduction of industrial capabilities), and indulgences
(carbon trading). And the high priests of this religion are able to
control the lives of the peasants over whom they hold sway.


And there you have it. You've made up your mind, and it's all a plot
against you.

Gotta go: the black helicopter is here to pick me up. Don't forget to
put your tin foil hat back on!