HOW GREENHOUSE GASES WORK
Basic Greenhouse theory is that humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning and this causes the planet to overheat.
Nuclear fusion energy from the Sun is re-radiated, in balance, into space by Earth as infrared radiation. A greenhouse gas molecule can absorb infrared radiation from the earth surface when the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space.
EIGHT FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE ALARM
ONE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a significant greenhouse gas (GHG). The Earth’s GHG is water vapour. Water Vapour is the more potent GHG and it is extremely more abundant. Water vapour is about 40,000ppm (parts per million) over the oceans (70% of Earth) and averages 10,000ppm over land (Ref.). CO2 is much less potent and is a trivial 400ppm (ref.). Carbon dioxide and methane are only effective to a small extent where their absorption effects extent outside the overwhelming effect of water vapour (ref.), the absorption-emission-absorption cycle of CO2 almost saturated already (ref.) – you could multiply the present level of CO2 by 10 times and still only produce about 1 degree of warming.
CO2 is Logarithmic Explained – http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/ Postscript – this gets into some very highbrow physics as the world’s foremost climatologist points out here – ( ref. ) – a debate that proves the point that it is extremely difficult to model the greenhouse gas effect.
Also here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/#more-114325
CO2 is a GHG in name only – CO2 is trivial in both effect and abundance.
TWO We cannot predict the Greenhouse effect – A computer model is just a model – it has zero predictive value because it relies on so many assumptions.
WRONG assumption #1 (in all modelling) – that the small rise in temperature from human fossil fuels will cause global humidity to rise permanently thus amplifying the heating effect. This assumes that the Earth is sensitive to minor perturbations in temperature, an assumption contradicted by the records. The Earth’s temperature is remarkably stable and self regulating. We have never seen the assumed instability due to water vapour in the global temperature record in the past or the present. One theory is that an increase in temperature increases cloud which cools the temperature back down and vice versa.
WRONG assumption #2 (in all modelling) – that “natural forcings” of Earth’s temperature are so slow and so long term that they can be ignored. It is impossible to say that human fuel burning will heat the planet when the planet may be going into a “little ice age” or even a big ice age. We do not know what the “natural forcings” will be over the next hundred years and we cannot assume that they will be irrelevant. We did see a global “Medieval Warm Period” and we did see a global “Little Ice Age” recently, all on the “Global Warming” time scale.
THREE Either “natural forcings” are neutralising human global warming or it just isn’t happening. World War II can be taken as the starting point for global “carbon emissions” (ref.). That was when population jumped and fuel burning increased almost exponentially with it. Since then, over 60 years ago now, we are burning almost 10 times as much fuel per annum and we have burnt 337Gt, adding 1200 gigatonnes to the aprox. 3000 gigatonnes of CO2 in the air, (ref. ref. ) and yet we have seen no unusual temperature rise and, in fact, global temperatures have not risen for well over 10 years now (ref.)
See this excellent CO2 reference page on WUWT – here
FOUR “Global Warming”, now “Climate Change”, only produces bad effects. When was the last time we heard of a good effect? How can we assess the good effects verses the bad effects when we only ever get the bad effects and we never get all the good effects?
FIVE Human carbon dioxide will not accumulate dangerously. The atmosphere has become denuded of carbon dioxide over the millennia and plant life has had to adapt to ever shrinking amounts of it. The biosphere is hungry for the gas and absorbs it greedily into the carbon cycle (ref.). Most fossil fuels are being absorbed into increased plant growth in the short term and all life on the planet is prospering as a result. The small rise in the atmospheric trace gas CO2 is just the increase in the carbon cycle from burning fossil fuels and does not reflect the huge amount that humans have already harmlessly emitted.
SIX Sea Level rise is not problematic. (ref. ) It rises so slowly that buildings and infrastructure get old and decay and new building activity can easily keep pace with it. Arctic sea ice is floating ice so it does not effect sea level. There is virtually no albedo (white reflective effect) because there is so little sunlight to reflect. Polar ice will not suddenly melt and absorb more heat because there is no heat to absorb at that latitude (The Poles are the Earth’s radiator). If you do the physics, i.e. how much time so much ice will take to melt per degree of temperature rise, assuming the poles will warm the same amount as the rest of us, you will discover that it will physically take many hundreds of years to produce any noticable rise at all (ref.). Also, sea level cannot be defined easily. Mass thermal expansion and contraction distorts it. Continents move and tilt all the time, islands rise and fall, oceans slosh around with weather systems, ice sheets depress the crust beneath them with their own weight (this is also why they cannot suddenly break up and slide into the sea). ( See here for a definitive study on sea level rise )
SEVEN The Green philosophy itself is flawed. It believes that the Earth today is perfect and unchanging and everything must be preserved as is at all costs. The Earth actually has rapidly changing and dynamic geo-systems and eco-systems and mankind is just the latest of these. We adapt to the Earth and the Earth adapts to us. Get used to it.
EIGHT Climate Change is not science. Science needs debate, argument and discussion. Climate Change will brook no denial. It is a dogma like Creationism. It is a superstitious spiritual belief dressed up as science and it sniggers and sneers at its opponents, rather than debate them. ( ref )
BTW – The whole thing is also a misnomer. Greenhouses actually work by restricting convectional cooling, not radiative cooling, and climate, of course, always constantly changes – death, taxes, and climate changes!