Ok, there are several things we need to mutually agree to continue conversation. Otherwise we are staying on the different view platforms; even we use familiar words like "facts" or "IR", their meaning is different to you, and to me.
For instance, "facts" as we consider them applying to the global warming, for me "facts" are things that we may explain or derive in numbers, quantatively, from the physical theory, scientifically, not philosophically. "IR" for me is a broad spectrum of electromagnetic waves in the micrometer range of wavelength; any heated body emits the light with the wavelength maximum related to the body temperature. So first we need to understand what are IR wavelength emitted by Earth, whether those particular wavelengths are absorbed by NO2 molecule or CO2 molecule differently, etc.
There are publications in Physics Today that I follow, and I believe you will find appropriate explanation there too. Here are some of them:
http://www.physicsnow.net/history/pubs/staffpubs.htm, see the list of publications there on the global warming
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-8/p30.html http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.htmlGood luck
>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.
>
>
>>I like your persistence and respect your philosophy. But I do not share your view because I want facts, not just beliefs. And the fact is that the main cause of the global warming is the constant change in fashion of women swimsuits.
>>They started to use the less and less clothes, and the warm of their bodies
>>started to heat the Earth.
>>
>>
http://www.neatorama.com/2006/05/31/positive-proof-of-global-warming/>>
