contrails

On Jan 10, 2:11*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:56 am, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27 am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

Of course CO2 is a selective IR filter. *That's basic physics.

The more interesting question is: what is the effect of changing the
atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Most of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is so strong that at these
wavelengths, the little CO2 in the atmosphere is optically dense, and
increasing (or decreasing) its concentration has only tertiary and
probably unmeasurable effects on climate. *There are weaker absorption
bands that may make a difference, but some/most(?) of these are in
areas of the spectrum where water vapor dominates completely as long
as water vapor is present.

If this explanation made sense, we'd be as hot as Venus;

Eric, that's nonsense worthy of Al Gore.

in fact, heat
does work it's way up to the top of the atmosphere, and radiate into
space. It is up there, where the heat is actually escaping the planet

Yes, that's part of the story.

that the concentration of CO2 is important, and the concentration of
water vapor is very low by comparison. Increasing the CO2 in the upper
levels of the atmosphere does significantly effect how easily heat
leaves the planet.

In theory. But that theory predicts temperature changes in the upper
atmosphere that aren't observed, yes? I'll admit to be being a good
deal less than current here, but I think this is the nut of Lindzen's
recent work compiling satellite measurements. If this 'problem' has
been resolved, good for the scientists that did it (but let's
carefully check the results, please), possibly rather bad for the
human race. It's something I've been meaning to look into a little
further. This is hugely important. Very much more so than any number
of computer models invoking huge amounts of positive feedback.

This site has a pretty good explanation:

http://skepticalscience.com/link_to_...?Argument0=133

Link isn't working. Previous trips to that site were somewhat
unsatisfying -- too much hot air -- but I'll try to hunt this down.

-Evan Ludeman / T8