Comments

According to highly respected physicist (Prof. Emeritus, U. of CT, PhD) Howard C. Hayden (and many other scientists), the ability of atmospheric CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas is severely curtailed at today's levels of atmospheric CO2. There are three key pieces of scientific fact that lead to this inescapable conclusion: (1) the primary greenhouse agent (water vapor, clouds) is responsible for the vast majority of "greenhouse" heat retention by absorbing & reflecting heat radiation in a large portion (but not all) of the IR, (2) CO2 has heat retention capability that overlaps the portion of the IR that water vapor already traps (no additional heat can be trapped by adding more water vapor or CO2 to that portion of the IR), so very little of the IR is available for CO2 to retain more heat; (3) a property of CO2's heat retention capacity is that it diminishes logarithmically as quantity of atmospheric CO2 increases (i.e., it becomes less capable of affecting temperature). CO2's heat retention capacity with the first 20 ppm added to the atmosphere cannot be matched until another 400 ppm are added! In other words, adding more CO2 has severely diminishing returns. Coupled with the small portion of the IR over which CO2 is meaningful (given water vapor has already saturated the heat retention ability of the atmosphere over the remainder of CO2's IR potential), the belief that atmospheric CO2 is a significant climate change force is simply unfounded in scientific fact ... indeed, it is refuted by the facts. What prevents the Earth from overheating? Weather, principally precipitation. And guess what? The greatest flaw of the climate models is their inability to model water vapor, clouds, and precipitation properly. Yet these are the greatest factors (forces) that act to prevent both overheating and overcooling of the Earth's atmosphere! When climate science is as poorly understood as it is today, developing and using computer simulations is a worthless venture. Read the IPCC summary report and you're inundated with "likely" "very likely" "not likely" etc. These are all statisticians' terms for "we haven't a clue, but based on what we think we know, this is our best guess". Read Dr. Hayden's latest book, "A Primer on CO2 and Climate" if you want to learn more. Also, the best description for the uninformed about weather and how it acts to moderate climate is contained in Dr. Roy Spencer's new book, "Climate Confusion" ... Both books are readily available online. So let's not waste vast sums of money on schemes to reduce CO2 emissions when there is absolutely no evidence that doing so will have any detectible influence on global average temperature (despite the theories of Gore and the IPCC whose only evidence is the projections of seriously flawed climate models that omit tow significant sources of CO2 generation(!), volcanos and carbonate rock erosion! We are being led down a path that will be more costly than any venture undertaken in this nation's history ... on the basis of shoddy "science" (IPCC) and a false prophet (Gore) who stands to make millions (possibly billions) from a carbon trading scheme. Let's spend our money where it matters if we want to conserve our resources and improve our quality of life while protecting our enviornment. An educated public is needed to know the truth. Too much disinformation is being peddled about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It is a false theory that any one contradiction is sufficient to render it "bunk" ... yet despite a host of contradictions, the media and politicians (and die-hard government funded scientists) along with false prophet Gore, continue to mislead the public. Let's hope real "environmentalists" step forward to lead the way in exposing this scam. BobWebster