Quote:
"Quote:
In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared."
If you noticed the press and the scientific community have grown largely silent about this latest revelation? Wonder why? Why didn't the March Meeting in New York produce screaming headlines? Could it be that these alarmist bozos are embarrassed?
|
It could be that. It could also be that the paper is mostly wrong. And it could be that the March meeting in New York was nothing but a PR event hosted by an ultra-conservative think tank.
I haven't read Monckton's paper, but based on reading his previous work I'm highly skeptical of it.
Quote:
"Quote:
Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more properly "diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact."
Read this article and let us know what you think? Does it answer my repeated question..why if CO2 is so influentual(and increasing) do satellite measurments show it is cooling?
|
Not at all. The above analogy would be fine
if the atmosphere acted like a single pane of glass. But it doesn't. Here's a better analogy. Take several sheets of glass and paint random patterns of small dots on them (because adding CO2 isn't like making a large brush stroke across the radiative "window" of the atmosphere). Stack two on top of each other and you should still be able to see through them just fine. Stack five or six on top of each other and your view through them should be somewhat obscured, but you'll still be able to see through them just fine. Now imagine that in order to completely block your view through the planes of glass, you had to stack hundreds of millions of layers on top of each other. That's far closer to how the actual atmosphere behaves.
Yes, it's technically possible to "saturate" the effect of adding more CO2 into the atmosphere, but we aren't anywhere close to doing it. Not by a long shot.