few quick points, and then hopefully I’m done with this subject (in this forum):
1) climate prediction does not equal weather prediction. They are completely different. Climate seeks to define the average weather for different regions on the earth in different seasons in the future. The phrase “April showers bring May flowers” is essentially a climate prediction, as is a farmer’s crop planting schedule. Climate prediction is possible because we can infer the effects on the mean weather given our knowledge of various parameters: solar insolation + albedo + greenhouse gas concentrations + topography = mean weather. Of course, that is a simplification and there are uncertainties, but climate scientists go to great lengths to define those uncertainties and put conservative estimates on those uncertainties. So, take home message: stop confusing weather prediction with climate prediction.
2) Yes, the yearly fluxes of anthropogenic CO2 are small compared with the natural fluxes, but natural fluxes are remarkably well balanced (CO2 output = CO2 input). In otherwords, the latest longterm rise in CO2 (to levels not seen for many hundreds of thousands of years) is not due to natural fluctuations. We know this with near absolute certainty because of the radiocarbon signature of atmospheric CO2. This is not a subject for debate among real scientists.
3) The real pupose of Kyoto is not to reduce the CO2 that we have already put into the atmosphere, it is to prevent the uncontrolled additional input of CO2. That being said, Kyoto does not go far enough. The 0.6C rise has already damaged our planet because the actual warming has been much greater in the Arctic (remember 0.6 is an average). Leave out for the moment that the arctic ice cap has thinned 40%, and that polar bears are going extinct as a consequence. And forget that the greenland ice sheet melting is accelerating every year. The big danger is that the decreased albedo and the warming of the permafrost can trigger a runaway greenhouse effect that is about to dump a whole lot more carbon into the atmosphere. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire by continually increasing our CO2 emissions every year. It is foolhardy.
4) The junkscience.com site you reference is aptly named. There are too many misrepresentaions and inaccuracies for me to rebut them all for now. For example consider:
Greenhouse gases, therefore, do not “trap heat,” but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. “Trapping heat” implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever — this is a false notion. Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.
[Of course greenhouse gases don’t trap heat forever and ever. Just like a blanket doesn’t trap heat forever and ever. If you put a hot rock under a blanket it will eventually cool to the same temperature as the surrounding environment. The heat loss is slowed by the blanket, not stopped. The reason we stay warm under a blanket is that the heat added to the system by our body is slowed in leaving the system because of the blanket. The earth’s atmosphere does the same thing.]
Do greenhouse gases ‘reradiate’ the infrared radiation they absorb?
This is an unfortunate expression that is all too common. Absorbed radiation is transformed to either kinetic or potential energy and, as such, no longer exists in its original form — hence, it cannot be “reradiated.” When molecules absorb infrared radiation they are said to become excited (“hot”). Such molecules can release energy usually in one of three ways: by chemical reaction (uncommon, since greenhouse gases are pretty stable and non-reactive); quenching (transferring energy to cooler molecules, increasing their temperature) and; emission (usually at lower energy [longer wavelength] radiation than the energy previously absorbed). Once more, since the absorbed energy has been transformed it cannot be said to be “reradiated”.
[The third method of energy release he mentions (“emission”) is the definition of re-radiation. Yes, CO2 molecules emit IR radiation at less energy than the IR that was absorbed (second law of thermodynamics), but it does still re-radiate IR energy back into the system. This is why your blanket works.]
And it goes on and on. Instead of rebuting each of his points, which would take days, let me just say that this site is quite possibly funded by oil money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy). The guy sounds like a real low-life to me.
Why are you so eager to dismiss the opinion of 2000+ hard working climate scientists whose scientific reputations are on the line, and rather spout the pseudo-science of a registered lobbyist for the oil industry? And, in general, isn’t it interesting that the same people who claim that AGW is a hoax are largely the same people that claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer, that DDT was not a problem, that asbestos did not cause cancer, that we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq and the war would pay for itself, etc etc? My supposition is that there are two kinds of people who continually flog the corportist line that is spouted by AEI, Heritage Foundation, etc. There are the misguided that don’t realize they are being played for fools to protect the profits of truly immoral corporations, and there are the cynics who realize they are misrepresenting the facts, but believe it is in their own economic self-interest to distort the issues, consequences to the planet be damned. Think about it.
Again, the very strong consensus of professional climate scientists is that we are facing a major crisis. Why would you try to dismiss that or downplay that?
