How hot it is going to get due to co2 greenhouse forcing?....miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.
Which fails to explain the continued trend to hottest years on record -- 15 of the last 16?
If less low level cloud cover caused the temperature increase from 1970 to 1998, why could it not also explain the warming of the last 16 years which was puny in comparison to the aforementioned years?
If the earth is still warming and the cloud cover is less than before then energy available for warming is greater than the cooling effect of reflected energy that was lost due to cloud cover changes ... yes?
You mean greater shortwave radiation available for later entrapment by the greenhouse effect? Yes, but I'm not sure that is what you meant. If so, then that only strengthens my point. I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration. The amplification of the energy from extra sunlight without the clouds is neglible compared to the extra energy being amplified.
The science is supposedly settled right? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade carbon dioxide is the by far the biggest causal factor in the atmospheric warming since 1970? Case closed, debate over right? Do we know how much sunlight has been reflected into space prior to 1970 and from 1970 onward? If there is as much as a 4% decrease in reflected sunlight since 1970 compared to a similar amount of time before 1970, the amount of energy supposedly being trapped by greenhouse gasses is small in comparison. If that is the case, the debate is far from over. I don't save every paper I read. Sometimes it is hard to find the same paper again if you haven't looked at it in awhile. Next post will list one paper and highlight the portion that states what I just said. Here is one of the papers..http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VOK3GqAo7qB
You can download the PDF after you pull up the link. I will pull up other papers as I have time to find them and quote the portions that I paraphrased from distant memory in my prior two posts.
Is carbon dioxide really warming the planet? How much energy does co2 absorb in infrared radiation from the earth over a period of a day? How much energy is absorbed by the earth from incident ultraviolet radiation that reached the earth because of ozone depletion of the last 50 years over the course of a day? If you measure the energy of infrared radiation by multiplying planks constant by the frequency of the infrared radiation, and doing the same for mid level ultraviolet radiation, you will find the energy of the latter to be 48 times greater than that of the former.
This completely rules out co2 as the culprit behind global warming since 1950. The reason consensus scientists disregard this is because they measure the energy of radiation by its wavelength as if it were a wave.
The corroborating evidence for this is the nearly flat rate of increase in global temperatures since 1998 when compared to the rate of increase from 1970 to 1998.
What bearing does the disfavored release of UV radiation from black bodies have on my point? Are you saying the intensity of UV photons striking the earths surface is small in comparison to that of infrared radiation being absorbed by co2?
You say there is no difference between using wavelength or frequency when calculating energy. The following from Geophysicist Peter Langdon Ward will explain the difference.
"The primary problem with greenhouse gas theory is that it is based on the pervasive assumption that electromagnetic radiation propagates through space and through Earth's atmosphere in a manner similar to waves in matter so that radiant energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the waves and is thus summable across some finite bandwidth. From this perspective, the total infrared energy absorbed by carbon dioxide over the broad band of wavelengths from 13,100 to 17,300 nanometers (blue circle in the figure to the right) is much larger than the total ultraviolet-B energy that reaches Earth when ozone is depleted in the very narrow wavelength band from 300 to 330 nanometers (red circle)."
Give me some time to understand what exactly ward is saying is erroneous about the current way of calculating radiant energy. It just seemed obvious to me cfcs were responsible for late twentieth century warming since its mechanism used radiation 48 times stronger than infrared and the cfcs high concentration tracked the period of warming exactly whereas co2 has been roughly increasing at the same rate before and after this period of time.
Nucitelli and Cook have two papers purporting to debunk CFC theory as proposed by Lu of University of Waterloo in Ontario Canada. The objections were lightweight in my estimation and Lu published another paper debunking the objections. He just made better sense than Cook and Nucitelli who appear to be emotionally driven and obsessed with the Koch brothers.
Ward is saying that waves only exist in matter and the matter must have bonds between them as we see in solids and liquids. There are no such bonds between molecules of gas and exist only fleetingly as gas molecules pass each other at great speeds. Therefore, according to Ward, it is erroneous to make calculations of energy assuming radiation exists as waves. Ward says radiation exists purely as frequency in free space and within gases and the only correct way to calculate its energy is through Plank's equation. This makes UV radiation much more energetic than infrared. As you pointed out however, for UV to take prominence over infrared in causing global warming, it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ?
Perhaps the accepted physics is erroneous? Do you believe that radiation exists as waves in space? Do you believe waves don't need a medium to travel in? I know I wasn't specific but I assumed nonnukes would understand I was referring to infrared emitted from earth's surface.
Electromagnetic radiation in space is a field. It is not a wave. Changes in that radiation propagate as a wave in that field but the radiation itself is not a wave. Anyone care to tell me why I'm wrong?