Stating the obvious concerning global warming projections

[VOLatile]

global warming is bullcrap.. i would make up something like that too if i could make billions of $ from green products of it

So you would argue that solar, water, and wind power are not legitimate sources of energy? That recycling doesn't help anything? I've even gotten people that oppose the theory of global warming to agree that it is best to do these thing anyways, if only for conservation of resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utvolpj]

So you would argue that solar, water, and wind power are not legitimate sources of energy?

are solar and wind legit sources on a massive scale?

 

[BeecherVol]

So you would argue that solar, water, and wind power are not legitimate sources of energy? That recycling doesn't help anything? I've even gotten people that oppose the theory of global warming to agree that it is best to do these thing anyways, if only for conservation of resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

VOLatile or not, I agree with this post.

 

[BeecherVol]

are solar and wind legit sources on a massive scale?

IMO legit to dropping the need/conserving.

Massive scale? Not at this point IMO.

 

[Volst53]

So you would argue that solar, water, and wind power are not legitimate sources of energy? That recycling doesn't help anything? I've even gotten people that oppose the theory of global warming to agree that it is best to do these thing anyways, if only for conservation of resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Most of the time it doesn't. If they don't pay you for it then there is no need to recycle it. The reason they don't pay is because it doesn't save money. That means it doesn't save resources.

 

[gsvol]

And, he has a department full of colleagues, who are also among the foremost meteorologists, that disagree with him that reasonably significant warming is not expected. Lindzen offers a reasonable voice on questioning the input to the models. We should be. I, however, also think that he plays some games as well...such as when he says, with a smirk, that historically CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around. He knows he is right about that, but he also knows that its a moot point when you have unnatural CO2 sources.

Do these people have names and published articles based on scientific research other than computer weather modeling???

If they are basing their conclusions on UN IPCC data that has proven to have been manipulated and even falsified, then all they are going to get is 'stupid in, stupid out.'

Right, man isn't natural and should be eraticated.

The key is getting the equation right when considering CO2 levels vs other factors.

I completely disagree about that making the theory laughable. The theory is what it is. At a given solar radiance, a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. Whether the solar radiance goes up or down doesn't impact the validity of the theory. I think the more appropriate argument along that line of thought is that if we don't know what is going to happen to solar radiance, then how much should we care about the effect of CO2?

Huh??

You last question is valid, imo and the answer is very little, not something to take any sort of action as is being proposed and some (ethanol mandates) already having been implemented should be rescinded.

CO2 levels are going to always be less than 1% of the total equation.



Environmentalists Gone Wild? 8 Observations From The Cancun Climate Conference | NewsReal Blog

The attitude at the conference was different too. Where the delegates arrived at Copenhagen with dreams of sweeping change – dreams which, for the most part, turned into shattered illusions – they descended on Cancun with smaller expectations in mind. And yet, even with what seemed like less at stake, the UN delegations reached the end of the conference with no deal, which of course was a dire prospect going into the conference.
-----------------------------------------

It’s quite remarkable how predictable the radical environmentalists are. With their commitments to specious science, overdramatic predictions of disaster, all-or-nothing demands, and outright socialism (or at the very least, anti-capitalism), it stands to reason that they would fail to achieve any sort of consensus. Yet we can watch with an attitude bordering on cynicism as they lament the fact that they weren’t able to change the world yet again this year.
-------------------------------------------

Cancun “isn’t about climate change,” “It’s about redistributing the world’s wealth and taking further steps toward global governance … its aims are both unjust and dangerous.”
------------------------------------

Here are eight observations I’ve made studying the goings-on in Cancun. I’ve tried to write about them with the expected amount of snark, but I can’t help but believe that all of us can shake our heads in disgust at the rhetoric, the actions, and the sheer audacity of the ecological radicals that gathered in Cancun this year.

global warming is bullcrap.. i would make up something like that too if i could make billions of $ from green products of it

"If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it; and the bigger the lie, the better." — Joseph Goebbels
(Hitler's Minister of Propaganda)

“...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
— Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
- Mikhail Gorbachev

"When people are confronted with real facts, it transforms their opinions and opens their beliefs that were once marketed and manufactured by un-relative brainwashing!"
Michael Gladden

Don't mean to preach to the choir Swafford, just underscoring what you say!!

 

[Brog]

So you would argue that solar, water, and wind power are not legitimate sources of energy? That recycling doesn't help anything? I've even gotten people that oppose the theory of global warming to agree that it is best to do these thing anyways, if only for conservation of resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Recycling for the most part is a waste of energy and money other than aluminum.

 

[TennTradition]

Do these people have names and published articles based on scientific research other than computer weather modeling???

If they are basing their conclusions on UN IPCC data that has proven to have been manipulated and even falsified, then all they are going to get is 'stupid in, stupid out.'

Ron Prinn is a good starting point. He has plenty of published work, though like most dynamic climatologists, most of it pertains to climate models.

The UN IPCC data is taken from published articles based on scientific research, so I would argue that the basing your opinion on the IPCC data is basing it largely on the published literature. There have been a few aspects that weren't, such as the rate of glacial melting, and that has already been pointed out / discredited (as you note).

Huh??

Are you saying huh because you didn't understand what I was saying or because you disagree with it?

 

[VOLatile]

Darryl Cunningham Investigates: Climate Change

 

[MG1968]

Darryl Cunningham Investigates: Climate Change

I freely admit that MSNBC is inherently and blatantly biased. I don't watch TV, let alone MSNBC (or CNN or FOX News). It's a travesty what journalism has come to. Even more that people believe the fact-omitting crap that the blogosphere puts out to get page views.

you said it

 

[NEO]

You wipe out the trees and you wipe out mankind.

You leave the trees or plant more trees and you can pretty much much do whatever you want and the planet is fine.

It all comes down to the filtering system.

 

[TennTradition]

You wipe out the trees and you wipe out mankind.

You leave the trees or plant more trees and you can pretty much much do whatever you want and the planet is fine.

It all comes down to the filtering system.

I agree with the premise about the filtering system, that's absolutely true. And, trees aren't the only component of that filtering system. However, I would argue the problem is what are the realistic capabilities of the filtering system (even if you plant more trees) and can "doing whatever you want" overcome that limit? We are seeing right now that our CO2 output is exceeding the capability of the filtering system (or natural sequestration systems), thus why wee are seeing CO2 levels climb.

 

[gsvol]

Ron Prinn is a good starting point. He has plenty of published work, though like most dynamic climatologists, most of it pertains to climate models.

The UN IPCC data is taken from published articles based on scientific research, so I would argue that the basing your opinion on the IPCC data is basing it largely on the published literature. There have been a few aspects that weren't, such as the rate of glacial melting, and that has already been pointed out / discredited (as you note).

But the IPCC has cherry picked its data to support it's thesis and even falsified and used misleading data.

Then too the method of compiling the basic data has huge problesm.

Russia and China have been particularly adept at submitting data with egregious errors.

There is no point in going to the computer with a flawed formula, especially one that has so many erroneous entries.

On top of that many scientific publications have been pressured to publish what the AGW crowd wants everyone to read and not publish those who disagree.

Are you saying huh because you didn't understand what I was saying or because you disagree with it?

I'm saying that your statement seems like a huge nonsequitur since the validity of the theory seems rather immaterial if it affects reality only very slightly.

Whether the solar radiance goes up or down doesn't impact the validity of the theory.

From a purely academic standpoint your statement is true but what we are talking about is predictions of future global temperature and solar radiance (and other cosmic activity, some of which we have very little knowledge,) has far far more to do with those temperatures than CO2 levels.

Did you watch the cosmic showers last night, it's an annual event.

 

[TennTradition]

I'm saying that your statement seems like a huge nonsequitur since the validity of the theory seems rather immaterial if it affects reality only very slightly.


From a purely academic standpoint your statement is true but what we are talking about is predictions of future global temperature and solar radiance (and other cosmic activity, some of which we have very little knowledge,) has far far more to do with those temperatures than CO2 levels.

Did you watch the cosmic showers last night, it's an annual event.

It wasn't a non sequitur at all. You said that the other factors outweighed CO2 so much to make the theory laughable. To me, you were arguing that even if the theory is accurate, the other factors could change temperature much more. If that is what you were arguing, then I disagree that this makes the theory laughable. If your argument is that the other factors will indeed make a bigger difference, then this could make *caring* about the theory laughable, but it doesn't affect the validity of the theory.

Edit: BTW, I think that we could have reason to care about three or so Celsius degrees of temperature increase on the time scale of about 100 years. While we could have orbital shifts or sustained changes in the sun's output (not just the 11 year cycles) that could cause greater variation, would that happen on that timescale or within the next 100 years? These are the questions that we have to answer as we decide whether or not we care about GW.

I didn't watch the cosmic showers.....is it a meteor shower? The Leonid showers?

 

[utgibbs]

Because relying on questionable information is only bad when Bush does it. When Al Gore does it he wins a Nobel Prize.

Again, facts would help you, kpt. Get some!

2010 is the hottest year since instrumental records began. GISS has the data in publication as we speak.

The "information" is not questionable. It's the real world outside your front door.

 

[utgibbs]

The debate on the science in this thread is so ridiculous it beggars the imagination, btw.

Solar irradiance is measured very precisely now, so you can find the real data on it. However, I'm sure you won't look hard because, WHOOPS, it doesn't support the contrarian position.

The link between CO2 and water vapor is well-known. The simple fact is more CO2 puts more water vapor in the atmosphere. There is no magic "Lindzhen Cyclone" cooling the planet. 2010 is the hottest year since instrumental records began.

The paleoclimate record is detailed and supported by numerous overlapping proxies.

This is truly childish and infantile. No wonder we have a culture in terminal freefall - more interested in Photoshopping while on the dole than addressing important questions like reasonable adults.

 

[gsvol]

It wasn't a non sequitur at all. You said that the other factors outweighed CO2 so much to make the theory laughable. To me, you were arguing that even if the theory is accurate, the other factors could change temperature much more. If that is what you were arguing, then I disagree that this makes the theory laughable. If your argument is that the other factors will indeed make a bigger difference, then this could make *caring* about the theory laughable, but it doesn't affect the validity of the theory.

Edit: BTW, I think that we could have reason to care about three or so Celsius degrees of temperature increase on the time scale of about 100 years. While we could have orbital shifts or sustained changes in the sun's output (not just the 11 year cycles), that could cause greater variation, would that happen on that timescale or within the next 100 years? These are the questions that we have to answer as we decide whether or not we care about GW.

I didn't watch the cosmic showers.....is it a meteor shower? The Leonid showers?

I forgot the name of the ones last night, not Leonid though, it was in the single digits outside here so I thought, 'seen one seen 'em all.'

When you have a government that supposes because something that has a factor of less than 1%, (ie Co2) and you are implemented the shutting down of all coal fired electrical plants, then that is worse than laughable.

I think that a rise of two to three degrees Celsius over the next century would be far preferable to a fall of two to three degrees C.

CO2 has been hammered to death, what begs for answers are some of the other questions which in fact are far more important.

 

[gsvol]

The debate on the science in this thread is so ridiculous it beggars the imagination, btw.

Solar irradiance is measured very precisely now, so you can find the real data on it. However, I'm sure you won't look hard because, WHOOPS, it doesn't support the contrarian position.

The link between CO2 and water vapor is well-known. The simple fact is more CO2 puts more water vapor in the atmosphere. There is no magic "Lindzhen Cyclone" cooling the planet. 2010 is the hottest year since instrumental records began.

The paleoclimate record is detailed and supported by numerous overlapping proxies.

This is truly childish and infantile. No wonder we have a culture in terminal freefall - more interested in Photoshopping while on the dole than addressing important questions like reasonable adults.

The reason they shut down the Chicago carbon trading exchange was because you can't fool all the people all the time but you demonstrate that some of the people can be fooled all of the time.

Oh, and this year isn't over yet unless you are on the moslem lunar calender which may be the case.

 

[gsvol]

Yankton Press & Dakotan > Opinion > Editorials > The Death Of A Myth

The disintegration of this political juggernaut known as global warming is as imminent now as it is remarkable. The heights from which these scientists’ credibility has plunged is equaled only by the speed at which it has done so.

Consider that it was only last year when the scientific and political world was held spellbound by the deliberations of the UN Climate Change summit held in Copenhagen. Nearly 45,000 attendees anxiously anticipated a global climate agreement that could spare us all from the imminent planetary incineration that was about to befall us thanks to the unholy alliance of SUVs, deforestation, and belching cows. American taxpayers alone shelled out nearly $400,000 for Nancy Pelosi to lead a cadre of liberal congressmen and staffers to attend the Warmer deliberations.

Yet now, just one year later, political leaders are staying as far away from the annual climate summit (this year held in Cancun) as possible. Even the Congressional Warmer triumvirate of Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer skipped the festivities. Remember it was Boxer who proclaimed not so long ago that global warming was her “signature issue.” Yet when it came time for this year’s convention, Boxer merely murmured, “I’m sending a statement to Cancun.”

Wonder what Babs has to say about Assange since she wanted to lynch the e-mail hackers that exposed the conspiracy among the global warming drum beaters? :loco:

This most inconvenient truth is why, despite millions of dollars of propaganda and free marketing offered by a totally duped American media, Al Gore’s climate heist machinery is dismantling before our eyes. The defeat of climate legislation in Congress has prompted Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection to whittle its resources from 25 states down to 7 states, acknowledging, “the situation in Congress has changed.”

Indeed it has. As the Democratic Party’s death grip on Congress dies in January, Nancy Pelosi’s House Select Committee on Global Warming will be dying with it. Republicans have announced that they have no desire to continue wasting taxpayer dollars on a committee whose only contribution was a proposed energy tax that would have destroyed millions of jobs in an already stagnant economy.

For its swan song, the committee held a final hearing — one so boring that according to the Washington Times, the chairman never returned from lunch break.

lol:lol:lol:

Ever notice that snake oil salemen usually own a snake farm???

In the end, that is what has hastened the demise of Warmerism. This makes the climate changers’ prayer to Ixchel the jaguar goddess so very appropriate ... one myth perpetuated on humanity deserves another.

“When a thing defies physical law, there’s usually politics involved.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

 

[hndog609]

The biggest problem I have with the GISS "hottest" anything is that it's James Hansen at the helm and he's a devout and long-time AGW true believer. (Even a cursory glance at his history would reveal this) I'm talking about calling for oil company execs to be put on trial for crimes against humanity crazy. GISS data has often been rather contrary to other sources such as UAH, RSS & HadCrut. If there's more agreement across the data sources to support this I'll lend the premise more credibility.

As for the rest of it I've given up trying to believe anybody knows that much. When credentialed people can be so far apart on agreement I consider that healthy reason for skepticism regardless of topic. When politics become involved my default isn't merely to be skeptical but to arm myself and dig a foxhole. Politics and money are absolutely lethal to science and I don't think anybody, on either side of this argument, is going to actually claim politics and money aren't deeply involved at this point in the AGW discussion.

 

[gsvol]

Again, facts would help you, kpt. Get some!

2010 is the hottest year since instrumental records began. GISS has the data in publication as we speak.

The "information" is not questionable. It's the real world outside your front door.

Global Warming

Anyone who tries to understand how a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes climate
change will soon find out that the entire global warming argument is nothing more than empirical speculation.

No cause and effect linking CO2 and global warming has ever been demonstrated because none exists.
----------------------

As the surface cools and the surface thermal gradient decreases, less heat is transferred from the surface and atmospheric cooling starts at lower altitudes. An increase in water vapor concentration will increase the atmospheric cooling rate. A 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration has no measurable effect on overall atmospheric energy transfer rates.

Concerning the computer modeling used to predict a possibility of a 2 to 3 degee celsius rise in temperatures over the next 100 years.

Most of the large scale climate models used to predict global warming ignore the energy transfer physics at the Earth’s surface and use an approach known as radiative forcing. This was first proposed by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967 to simplify climate change calculations so that they could be performed using the limited computer capabilities available at that time.
-----------
Although the mathematical derivation is correct and may even appear elegant, the underlying physical assumptions are incorrect and the results have no physical meaning.
-----

The temperatures in the upper troposphere are near 220 K. The assumption that small changes in LWIR flux in the upper troposphere or stratosphere can influence surface temperatures of 288 K requires a flagrant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat does not flow from a cooler to a warmer body. The calculated ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ produced by radiative forcing calculations is not even a physically measurable climate variable.
------------------------------

However, in the mid 1980’s, a slight increase in the ‘average’ meteorological surface air temperature was found [Jones et al, 1994]. This was immediately linked by empirical speculation to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 concentration. It was decreed by the order of the divine hockey stick that a 1 Watt per square meter increase in downward LWIR flux due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration produced an increase in meteorological surface air temperature of 2/3 C.

This was almost four times larger than the blackbody value. However, instead of admitting that the assumptions were incorrect, mysterious water vapor
feedback effects were invoked to explain model ‘inaccuracies’. These have now been disproved by Lindzen and Choi, [2009]. The Kirchoff exchange energy then was converted into an empirical ‘radiative forcing constant’. This ‘calibration factor’ was then applied to other greenhouse gases such as methane and even to aerosols. The ‘radiative forcing constants’ used in climate simulation models are devoid of physical meaning. This approach is empirical pseudoscience that belongs to the realm of climate astrology. The results derived from climate simulations that use the radiative forcing approach may be of limited academic interest in assessing model performance.

However, such results are computational science fiction that have no relationship to the reality of the Earth’s climate.

It is impossible for the observed 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to have caused any kind of climate change.

This follows directly from the application of the basic Laws of Physics to the energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s air-ocean and air-land interfaces.

 

[gsvol]

The biggest problem I have with the GISS "hottest" anything is that it's James Hansen at the helm and he's a devout and long-time AGW true believer. (Even a cursory glance at his history would reveal this) I'm talking about calling for oil company execs to be put on trial for crimes against humanity crazy. GISS data has often been rather contrary to other sources such as UAH, RSS & HadCrut. If there's more agreement across the data sources to support this I'll lend the premise more credibility.

As for the rest of it I've given up trying to believe anybody knows that much. When credentialed people can be so far apart on agreement I consider that healthy reason for skepticism regardless of topic. When politics become involved my default isn't merely to be skeptical but to arm myself and dig a foxhole. Politics and money are absolutely lethal to science and I don't think anybody, on either side of this argument, is going to actually claim politics and money aren't deeply involved at this point in the AGW discussion.

Hansen has been shown to bend the facts to suit his purpose on more than one occasion.

"When a thing defies physical law, there's usually politics involved." P J O'Rourke

 

[utgibbs]

The biggest problem I have with the GISS "hottest" anything is that it's James Hansen at the helm and he's a devout and long-time AGW true believer. (Even a cursory glance at his history would reveal this) I'm talking about calling for oil company execs to be put on trial for crimes against humanity crazy. GISS data has often been rather contrary to other sources such as UAH, RSS & HadCrut. If there's more agreement across the data sources to support this I'll lend the premise more credibility.

As for the rest of it I've given up trying to believe anybody knows that much. When credentialed people can be so far apart on agreement I consider that healthy reason for skepticism regardless of topic. When politics become involved my default isn't merely to be skeptical but to arm myself and dig a foxhole. Politics and money are absolutely lethal to science and I don't think anybody, on either side of this argument, is going to actually claim politics and money aren't deeply involved at this point in the AGW discussion.

It's good to be skeptical and dig a foxhole. Be skeptical about Hansen, absolutely. The scientific method demands it.

However, you can't stay in your foxhole. Learn more. Use your own instincts; think critically.

The fact is, Hansen has been proven right as rain since 1988. He is shy, retiring, a committed scientist through and through. He has had every opportunity, especially since 1988, to grab cameras, and, until recently has shunned the lens. He was more than happy to let Michael Oppenheimer take the camera lens until he reached a sober, mature, and one of the most well-informed opinions on 350 ppm being the threshold before crossing into dangerous anthropogenic interference.

 

[utgibbs]

Hansen has been shown to bend the facts to suit his purpose on more than one occasion.
"When a thing defies physical law, there's usually politics involved." P J O'Rourke

When?

Specifics, please.

No jpgs.

Let's see if you can.

 

[gsvol]

When?

Specifics, please.

No jpgs.

Let's see if you can.

Here's a start for you.

American Thinker: Dissing Hansen

But then this is far from the first time Hansen has been caught ‘fiddling' the climate figures.

In October, two independent monitors at Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, performed their own detailed analysis of Hansen's reported data. What they found should disturb us all. They discovered that the GISS readings from across a swathe of Russia that appeared to reveal a warming of 10 degrees above average were not readings for October at all. They were a repeat of September's readings.

A highly embarrassed GISS was forced to own up. GISS retracted the figures - and then immediately set about obfuscating its original error claiming they had discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic. This caused even more confusion. Intriguing as the new vacation prospect opened up by the GISS report might be, satellite indicators throughout the Fall consistently revealed the Arctic sea ice had undergone a remarkably fast, post-summer recovery with 30 percent more ice than for the same period in 2007.

A GISS spokesman sought to explain the false Russian temperature figures by shuffling off blame to "other bodies" on whom GISS rely and over whom they have no means of "quality control". The problem is it's NASA's GISS published figures that are mostly quoted precisely because they are regularly higher than those reported by other monitoring bodies.

Think of James Hansen as Al Gore with a day job.

By 2007 Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.

So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much:

Is Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen a Shill for George Soros? | NewsBusters.org



Let's get to the real science of the matter.

http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf
(pdf file)

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified.
----------------------------------------

If CO2 exhibited such an extreme effect, however, this would show up as a thermal conductivity anomaly even in an elementary laboratory experiment. Carbon dioxide would manifest itself as a new kind of 'super-insulation,' wildly violating the conventional heat-conductivity equation.

Such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed in CO2, of course. The influence of CO2 on climate was discussed thoroughly in a number of publications that appeared between 1909 and 1980, mainly in Germany. The most influential authors were Möller, who also wrote a textbook on meteorology, and Manabe. It seems that the combined work of Möller and Manabe has had a significant influence on the formulation of modern atmospheric CO2 greenhouse conjectures. In a very comprehensive report from the US Department of Energy (DOE), which appeared in 1985, the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis was cast into its final form and became the cornerstone in all subsequent IPCC publications.
-------------------------------------------

The main objective of our paper is not to draw the line between error and fraud, only to find out whether the greenhouse effect appears or disappears within the frame of physics. Therefore, in Section 3.3 several different variations of the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses are examined and disproved. The authors restrict themselves to statements that appeared after a publication by Lee in the well-known Journal of Applied Meteorology 1973, see Ref. [109] and references therein.

Lee's 1973 paper is a milestone. In the beginning Lee writes: The so-called radiation `greenhouse' effect is a misnomer. Ironically, while the concept is useful in describing what occurs in the earth's atmosphere, it is invalid for crypto-climates created when space is enclosed with glass, e.g. in greenhouses and solar energy collectors. Specifically, elevated temperatures observed under glass cannot be traced to the spectral absorptivity of glass. The misconception was demonstrated experimentally by R. W. Wood more than 60 years ago and recently in an analytical manner by Businger.

Fleagle and Businger devoted a section of their text to the point, and suggested that radiation trapping by the earth's atmosphere should be called `atmosphere effect' to discourage use of the misnomer. In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the false notion that `heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what happens in a greenhouse' (Miller, 1966).
--------------------------------------

The conclusion of the US Department of Energy All fictitious greenhouse effects have in common one and only one cause: A rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere leading to higher air temperatures near the ground. Lee's 1973 result that the warming phenomenon in a glass house does not compare to the supposed atmospheric greenhouse effect was confirmed in the 1985 report of the United States Department of Energy “Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide".

In this comprehensive pre-IPCC publication MacCracken explicitly states that the terms “greenhouse gas" and “greenhouse effect" are misnomers.
-------------------------------------


“The natural greenhouse effect is a myth, not a physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however, is a manufactured mirage.

Horrific visions of a rising sea level, melting pole caps and spreading deserts in North America and Europe are fictitious consequences of a fictitious physical mechanism which cannot be seen even in computer climate models.

More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to physics training.

The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis. It does not.

In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.

It is therefore illegitimate to use this fictitious phenomenon to extrapolate predictions as consulting solutions for economics and intergovernmental policy.”