"So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear at first sight. Indeed, the more one examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal best-seller. It contains a grain of truth - and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet."
from Nigel Lawson's book 'An Appeal to Reason'
Jan,
The emitting part seems most important - as N2 and O2 form most of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, any variation of CO2, a radiating gas, would produce interesting results.
Everything else being equal, CO2 because of its radiative properties, will cool faster than a non radiative gas, (assuming there is a thermal gradient in the first place).
So how did Arrhenius come up with his idea of CO2 being a greenhouse factor?
gavin: "It concerns me that you may not have done an independent assessment of your hearing difficulties yet. Tinnitus can be due to a medical problem."
Yes thanks gavin but I do spend a lot of time with doctors ( funny that ). I also spend quit a bit of time with my GP with regular visits to him and various specialists etc some of the medication I'm on can also cause it so it has in fact been investigated posible causes like hypertension treated. There has been no significant change in about 40 odd years.
Most of the time I don't even notice it but for some strange reason I'm noticing it now.
On the topic of the thread an interesting cropped up when looking at something else: Richard Lindzen
"It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this blanket keeps the earth about 33 degrees Centigrade warmer than it would be in the absence of this blanket. The claim is a little inappropriate insofar as it requires getting rid of the greenhouse impact of clouds while retaining them to reflect sunlight. Getting rid of clouds as reflectors would reduce this difference substantially. "
A minor point he says, and,
"Greenhouse gases are those substances that are reasonably transparent in the visible but capable of absorbing and emitting in the infrared. The ‘emitting’ part, though conveniently ignored in some oversimplified treatments, will turn out to be very important.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/Lindzen07-EnE-warm-lindz07.pdf
enough of these little and relatively unimportant points can I suspect add up to some major problems.
For what it's worth, the weather in my part of the world has returned to normal. I wondered today about my lawn mower, long time no see. It stays under the house most of the year.
Mark said..."Here in central Canada the picture is similar"
That's interesting. I drove through central Canada on my way to Montreal somewhere around 2001. Hit some pretty good thunderstorms around Winnipeg and The Sioux. I know you get pretty hot and muggy over that way in the summer and it's interesting things are not as hot as normal.
Gordon,
Ah yes that is yet another point -- that the troposphere should get hotter faster according the models and it hasn't.
I agree with your point about anomalies ... it suggests there is such a thing as a 'correct' temperature.
Gordon: "The trend in Vancouver is definitely downward in 2008 and we are in the banana belt of Canada."
Here in central Canada the picture is similar. Quite cool and very wet with none of the 30 degree+ heatwaves you typically get here several times through the summer. I think the temperature has only topped 30 once so far thsi summer and given the long range forecast that may be it!