"Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition, and its concentration has been rising, and that's true, it isn't, necessarily, the cause of an observed increase in the Earth's surface temperature. "
Of course it is you bullshit artist. CO2 is the earth's most important long term greenhouse gas. Without it the earth would be 30 - 50 degrees colder. We have raised it's levels by 40%. That HAS to cause warming and it has and is. The level of CO2 is what controls the long term temperature of the earth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
"All scientists who have had any training in photochemistry or photophysics know that the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas will depend on its concentration profile, the absorbtivity at the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface, and the intensity of emission as a function of wavelength"
Yes, beneath all your layers of impressive sounding and superfluous horseshit you say something right. The effectiveness depends on concentration. We have increased by 40%. So the CO2 in the atmosphere has become more a more effective trapper of long wavelength radiation. Heat.
"To assume that a dilute gas being defined as a greenhouse gas is a sufficient condition for it to cause significant warming, in something as complex as our Earths atmosphere, is, frankly, ridiculous."
No it's not. It's a bedrock principle of climate science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you said it yourself. It's the very definition of "greenhouse gas", a dilute gas that that warms the atmosphere. Again, you are off the reservation and full of shit.
"Finally, let me say that your calling internationally recognized experts such as Professor Salby, who is one of the foremost experts in atmospheric physics, a fool and a fraud does your credibility no favor."
I really don't care what you say since you yourself has zero credibility after all the festering piles of impressive sounding, but ultimately absurdly wrong bullshit that you have piled on this topic. You have some set of balls. Are you Salby? Why else would you defend a man like this...
"The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying
"a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies" and a "consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit." It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.
[2]
After leaving Colorado, Salby joined the faculty of
Macquarie University in Australia, where he was appointed Professor of Climate Risk in 2008. In May 2011, Salby's research showing that
ozone levels over Antarctica had begun to recover since the
Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, was published in
Geophysical Research Letters.
[7][8] Salby's employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013. Macquarie University stated that
he was dismissed for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.
[3][9]"
So he's a liar and a thief.
In addition, his scientific statements and positions are a joke, completely ignoring that there are large annual fluctuations in carbon dioxide, as it is exchanged back-and-forth between the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and forests. This flux in and out of the biosphere and oceans is many times larger than man's annual contributions The resulting CO2 level changes thus are not expected to match human emissions. However, Salby wants us to believe that therefore man's CO2 emissions are not showing up in the atmosphere since they are not well correlated on short term time frames. However, over the course of many years the annual flux in and out of the biosphere and oceans evens out. Some years more is absorbed and others less. On decades long time scales the rising CO2 levels are very well correlated to man's emissions.
So then from this narrow mistaken view of it he then makes the absurd leap that therefore man's emissions are not causing the rise in CO2 and it is instead due to temperature changes. However the temp record does not fit with his theory so he basically just says the ice record is wrong and is not showing atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the ice was laid down. But indeed that is exactly what the ice record is. It is the trapped air of the time the ice was laid down.
On top of all this is the simple fact that man is dumping about 8 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. That quantity does not just disappear. Indeed the CO2 rise matches the increasing emissions as seen in this chart.
Far from being a foremost atmospheric expert, Salby is a liar, a thief, a fraud and a fool. He has zero respect among climate scientists dealing with AGW. His earlier work with the ozone layer being an exception. He used this early respect to earn him higher prostitution fees from the fossil fuel interests as an AGW denialist.
That you would defend such a person speaks volumes about you. You are just like him.
Apparently you have me confused with someone else. I mentioned the pause in passing, but did not say, nor suggest, that it is cause for rejection of Hansen's hypothesis, which it isn't. I mentioned it to be accurate regarding the temperature record from the late 19th century through today.
Let me add that you are fast losing credibility with me. Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition, and its concentration has been rising, and that's true, it isn't, necessarily, the cause of an observed increase in the Earth's surface temperature. All scientists who have had any training in photochemistry or photophysics know that the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas will depend on its concentration profile, the absorbtivity at the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface, and the intensity of emission as a function of wavelength. Furthermore, gases may play roles in addition to their greenhouse function -- CO2 certainly does. Some of these additional roles might even have the effect of cooling the atmosphere. For a gas that is quite soluble in water the gas-solute equilibrium, a function of temperature, affects it concentration measurement in humid air. Usually CO2 in dry air would be reported, but all scientists know that this is not necessarily the free concentration of CO2 gas in humid air. These are complex and dynamic relationships. To assume that a dilute gas being defined as a greenhouse gas is a sufficient condition for it to cause significant warming, in something as complex as our Earths atmosphere, is, frankly, ridiculous. Having the property of greater absorption in the infrared region than in the visible region, where it is transparent, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for CO2's greenhouse properties to show up in the overall scheme of things. It would be an understatement to say that your view of CO2's role in the atmosphere is extremely naive.
Finally, let me say that your calling internationally recognized experts such as Professor Salby, who is one of the foremost experts in atmospheric physics, a fool and a fraud does your credibility no favor. Even if I disagreed with him, I would never refer to him as a fool and a fraud, nor would I refer to James Hansen, someone I believe has made an honest mistake, as a fool and a fraud. Surely some degree of respect is due to those who know far more about this global climate issue then we.
.png)
