This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
To a man, such people are completely ignorant of the basis of the global warming hypothesis, the errors of which arise originally from a misunderstanding of the quantum physics of the interaction between matter and radiation, compounded by a huge raft of other errors of logic and measurement.
Could you enlarge on this and explain in a little more detail John?
That, as the modern murderers of the English language like to say is a big ask. Most of it is buried somewhere within the Number Watch pages. The error in quantum physics is mainly concerned with the comparison of water vapour and carbon dioxide in relation to radiation. There is much less of the latter and its absorption/emission spectrum is relatively sparse. In addition the re-radiation occurs at a much lower temperature and therefore energy distribution. The main failure of logic is to try to overcome this by inventing positive feedback processes. If such processes of sufficient effect existed the climate would be considerably less stable than it is. The computer models can be dismissed for the reasons I have given in my essay on the subject. Finally, the measurement errors are now well known thanks to Watts & Co, while the evidence of tampering with experimental data continues to grow worldwide. There are, of course many other errors, such as ignoring the sole driver, the Sun.
It's the quantum radiation aspects to the subject which interest me. I have always felt it contentious that a trace gas in the atmosphere with so called 'greenhouse' properties can act in a similar way to a single layer of glass. Further it was proposed in the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper, that the 'greenhouse' warming effect had no perceptable cause in the energy absorbtion and re-radiation of the contents of a greenhouse as the re-radiated energy at altered wavelength was at far to low a level to matter.
Indeed a look at my old student copy of Enge, Wehr & Richards seems to confirm this, as Fig 36, the graph of energy distribution in the spectrum of the radiation from a black body at different temperatures
shows very low values at all wavelengths above the visible at 904K. Since the greenhouse contents (and the planet in general), is very far from a black body and at only somewhere between 240K and 325K, I have long felt the preposterousness of the greenhouse gas global warming theory.
Do my opinions fit in with the point I asked you about?
My simple-minded view was that, if one considered the atmosphere as a whole, more carbon dioxide in it would lower its albedo in certain IR wavelengths. Thus the atmosphere as a whole would, all else being unchanged, be in equilibrium at a slightly higher temperature than before. How big this increase would be, how it would be distributed and how feedback effects would modify it would be extremely difficult questions that the CRU and others have solved to their paymasters' satisfaction only by using Gorrowby's Algorithm ("That's gorrowby about right"). Thus, actual science is present in the AGW theory but at a very low concentration.
I gave a fairly lengthy and less than sanguine opinion on that paper in July 2007.
Yes, I read it with interest. Could you enlarge a little bit on your comment about the sparseness of the emission spectrum of CO2?
You will find considerable coverage by Googling it. There is a picture here, for example: