Wednesday, November 26, 2008
20 Year Old Science
The sole support for AGW is the climate models, and the sole support for the climate models with respect to CO2 is the forcing parameter. There is no actual physical rational for the forcing parameter, because it was simply contrived from the assumption that observed warming of 0.6 C was due entirely to a 100 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. There was never any verification of this parameter either by theory or observation. There is no justification for this parameter based on the physical properties of CO2...
There is only a single vibration mode of CO2 that resonates within the thermal spectrum radiated by the Earth (and Mars). This bend vibration resonates with a band of energy centred on a wavelength of 14.77 microns (wavenumber 677 cm-1) and the width of this band is quite narrow as depicted on the spectra from Earth and Mars.
It only takes a minute amount of CO2 to fully “capture” the energy at the resonant wavelength, and additional CO2 progressively captures energy that is further and further from the peak wavelength. At the 280 ppmv CO2 preindustrial level used as reference in the forcing parameter, about 95% of the energy bandwidth that could possibly be captured by CO2 has already been captured. There is only 5% of this limited energy available within the confines of this potential “capture” band left to be captured. The greenhouse effect from CO2 is generally stated as 3 C, so an additional 100 ppmv above the 280 ppmv level is only capable of generating a maximum 5% increase or 0.15 C. Furthermore if this 0.15 C increase has used up the full 5% of the remaining possible energy as the concentration reached 380 ppmv, there is zero warming possible from further increases in CO2.
Unless all these points can adequately be addressed, the climate models based on this forcing parameter must be declared invalid, and all work based on these models as a reference for global warming mitigation must also be declared invalid.
Has any scientist supporting AGW addressed these issues? Anyone at all?
It amazes me that a lot of the same people who dismiss the jihadi threat as non-existent go for this claptrap hook, line and sinker.