DIYbanter - View Single Post

Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
(Peter Ashby) writes:

For what reasons? What about the physics of greenhouse gases is wrong?

No one's managed to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the main greenhouse
gas, and methane comes a poor second. If CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, it is way less significant than either
of these. Secondly, no one can find any evidence that
the greenhouse effect is playing any part in global
warming -- the atmosphere at what scientists think would
be the top of the greenhouse cycle hasn't got warmer
since we've been measuring it.

What about the computer models is wrong?

We barely have a tiny fraction of the data necessary
to do any modelling. Given most of the data has to be
made up to run any model, you can make the models say
whatever you like.

Noting that the more detail is
put in the closer they get to the observed situation (always a good sign
when modelling). What about the historical correlations of CO2 levels
with temperature going back a long way now?

That's the easiest thing of all to explain. The largest
resoviour of mobile CO2 is the sea. When you warm the sea,
the solubility of CO2 reduces raising the partial pressure
in the sea, which forces CO2 out into the atmosphere to
maintain equilibrium. When the sea cools, the reverse
happens. You would absolutely expect the CO2 levels to
correlate with temperature. More recently with more
accurate dating, there's some evidence that the CO2 level
correlation lags the temperature changes by some hundreds
of years, which also ties up with how long the sea is
expected to take to warm and cool under the influence of
atmospheric temperature changes. This would also point to
the CO2 level change being an effect of temperature change,
and not the cause.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]