>What a pity, I was hoping you could look at this objectively, apparently not.
>
>If everyone is concerned about the spectral absorption properties of CO2, I think they should look at water, it makes CO2 fail into insignificance with it's broad spectrum absorption rates was well as it's varying specific heats, do we try to reduce the levels of it also.
>
>What about Nitrogen it's IR absorption is about 1/4 of CO2, but there is 100's times more of it, do we reduce it also.
>
>What they talk about works in a closed system, but in an open system different rules apply. i.e.
>
>1. if you heat air it becomes less dense and rises.
>
>2. once the air rises to sufficient height the water in it condenses or freezes (latent heat of condensation or latent heat of fusion) where the heat is radiated back out into space.
>These latent heats vastly overwhelm anything that CO2 can do.
>
>3. the heat has to be radiated into space for the following reasons:-
>a) if it stayed in the present local there would be no change of state in the water.
>b) the CO2 has already absorbed the maximum that it can.
>c) if there were no cooling the air could not descend to lower altitudes, which it does.
>
>These models can't even predict the weather as it is now, let allown 50 years in the future, and you want me to believe in that, give me a break.
>
>You wanted facts, so please disprove them.
>
Neil, thanks for the informative dissertation. It bolsters my opinion, which is merely based on common sense and observation. One of your points about the air rising hits home. Doesn't it cool at a rate of something like 2 degrees farenheit per 1000 ft above sea level? I've seen this when travelling to the mountains and my airplane pilot buddies have told me about that for years.