Is Global Warming a Crisis?

Stubborn refusal to face the facts.

Stubborn refusal to face the facts.
Looked at your so-called “essays” on global warming . Boy, are you brainwashed! I have seen most of this stuff before which makes me suspect someone’s talking points behind it. Facts cited out of context, not an ounce of science in it, just special pleading. You know nothing about the science of planetary atmospheres but think that you can impress someone by pretending that you do. Trying to relate Venus or Mercury to global warming here and now is a disconnect and unreal. It is not simply stupid but fraudulent to imply that this has any connection with our climate today. Your ignorance of the physics of gases is best demonstrated by your demand to produce “experimental evidence that carbon dioxide [CO2] has no heat retaining properties.” It is impossible to meet this demand because of the nonsensical way it is stated. I am forced to become technical here because of your stubborn refusal to accept simple facts. The “heat” that is “retained” by molecules consists of the kinetic energy of molecular motions. There are three kinds of motions to consider: translational, vibrational, and rotational motions. The energy of an average molecule is equal to kT, where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T the absolute temperature. Equipartition of energy requires that at thermal equilibrium the energy contained in each mode of molecular motion is the same, meaning that molecules gain and lose energy from one another by collisions until each of the modes – translational, vibrational, and rotational – carries about the same amount of kinetic energy as the others do. In your confused way you have been led to think of carbon dioxide as different in some way from other gases, which it is not. What you should know is that the motions involving molecular vibrations and rotations are associated with absorption and emission of infrared radiation. When infrared radiation is absorbed it increases the energy associated with that particular mode of molecular motion. Because of equipartition kT, the average energy of a molecule is raised as gas temperature T goes up. This is what happens when a greenhouse gas like CO2 absorbs infrared radiation emanating from the ground. But absorption is only possible if the gas possesses a vibration-rotation band in the infrared that matches the frequency of outgoing radiation. These absorption bands vary with molecular structure which is why not all gases can act this way. The energy absorbed will eventually distribute itself according to the temperature of its surroundings. And this is all there is to it. There are no other “heat retaining properties” that carbon dioxide or any other gas may have. Now about Hansen. You did not pay close attention to what I said. I said that his claim that the observed warming was caused by carbon dioxide was equivalent to saying that carbon dioxide started his warming career in 1977 when his warming started. Since there was no warming before that time but carbon dioxide was already in the air it follows that it was not warming the air then. What is so hard to understand here? I’ll tell what is hard to understand - it is why all the “climate scientists” have accepted this unfounded, non-sensical, unscientific statement as revealed wisdom from the climate guru of NASA. I will not even talk about the NOAA temperature curve itself which is doctored and bears only an accidental resemblance to real world temperatures.