(October 29, 2012.)
Fellow Skeptics we need a unified acporaph focussed on what we can prove. As it is we all leave ourselves open to criticism because of the fact that we all say different things. It's next to useless arguing about past and present temperature trends, whether we should use short or long term, or whatever. Whatever we choose we will all choose different periods and different data and thus be accused of cherry-picking.I have studied (and suggested on my websites) several areas of possible problems with AGW, but it has only been recently that the light has really shone brightly so to speak and pointed to just two major points which are quite sufficient in themselves to debunk the AGW hypothesis. And these are based on physics which has been well established since the days of Einstein roughly the same time they think their theory has been established so let's start on an even keel.OK. Well the two points are the very ones which I find also among the ones the Slayers have mentioned in their book Slaying the Sky Dragon (note it's Sky not Green1. There is plenty of infra-red in the incident solar radiation and so about half of what they show as being absorbed by the atmosphere is actually infra-red being absorbed by so-called greenhouse gases. Half of what is absorbed high in the atmosphere goes straight to space. The rest gets a Get out of Jail' card soon afterwards, because it cannot enter and warm the surface after all.2. And that's the second and most important point. It's easy to prove thermal energy (don't call it heat) iis not captured and held in the atmosphere. It gets radiated out again in a very small fraction of a second. But the important point is that it comes out with equal or less energy, never more. And it probably takes numerous (like millions) of iterations of being absorbed and emitted before some may happen to acporaph close to the surface. But the surface is radiating higher energy photons which push the others away before they get in the door. Read and see links in my earlier post and also my email to Dr Roy Spencer. Hopefully you all understand how critical this issue is because it means all that back radiation is ineffective. There is even doubt that it has been measured correctly because of the way the thermometers work. We would expect plenty of radiation bouncing around anyway, so there's no point in arguing about exact quantities.So let's all focus on these two points which are not refuted correctly on SkS and never will be because they are factual and supported by Physics.