On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:48:32 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:51:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:45:49 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
om...

Lets look at an infrared photo from above the Boston area shall
we?
http://www.urbanheatislands.com/_/rs...urban_area.png

So tell me...which part of the photo has the correct overall
temperature? Hummm? Snicker....

http://www.urbanheatislands.com/\

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/1...-temperatures/


If you can follow it, this article explains how CO2 dominates the
heat
radiation lost to space from the upper atmosphere at certain
wavelengths, allowing us to measure its contribution to Earth's
energy
flow without the confusion from other sources that the maps show.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
"At these levels there is little water vapour and CO2 dominates
the
energy loss."

"Therefore the main physics arguement supporting enhanced global
warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 is the in height and
thereby lower temperature of the effective radiating level of the
atmosphere to space."

"As we rise up in the atmosphere so the density falls
exponentially
and only at heights of 8-9 kms does the atmosphere then become
transparent in the main CO2 bands allowing energy loss direct to
space."

"Feedback Effects" exposes the main weakness of AGW theory, the
unproven assumption that water will amplify the admittedly tiny
contribution of CO2 to global warming.

This is analogous to measuring rainfall by observing the water
flowing
over a dam. There are too many ways that water can enter the lake,
but
only one way for it to leave, and the output has to balance the
input;
the lake can't store much extra water because a small rise in its
level greatly increases the flow over the dam.

Similarly measuring CO2's radiative emission into space with
satellites bypasses the complication of all the ways CO2 receives
and -briefly- stores heat from the Earth. CO2 can't permanently
trap
heat, only modulate its release.

--jsw


Be that as it may, ice core studies virtually prove that increases
in
temperature and increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have been
occurring
at the same time for something like 400,000 years.

While this may not "prove" cause and effect they would certainly
make
one think that there might be a relationship.

--
cheers,

John B.

It certainly doesn't prove there was an industrial society filling
the
air with CO2 400,000 years ago. We can safely assume that the
temperature and CO2 variations were natural.
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jur...n-dioxide.html

I want to see the questions researched honestly and openly, instead
of
suppressing data that doesn't support prejudices.

The point was that the CO2 and higher temperatures did coincide. I
don't think that the ice core studies claimed any cause and
effect...
as I believe I said.

Quite obviously temperature and, or, CO2 changes some 400,000 years
ago were not the results of human endeavor :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

This shows one reason why the higher temperature could be a cause
rather than an effect.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ga...er-d_1148.html
Cold water can hold more gas than hot water. Also it can hold many
times as much CO2 as oxygen or nitrogen.


I suspect that the truth of the matter is that the temperature is
getting warmer and no one actually knows why nor whether this is
simply an anomaly or indicative of the beginning of a major
temperature cycle.
--
cheers,

John B.