Blair MacdonaldJune 29, 2014 at 7:19 AM
I’ll take up your challenge. But I don’t want your money, I want good science. It will be a three pronged approach: (1) changing climate is not evidence: evidence is found in the repetition of the claim – heat trapping CO2 does not repeat (at least to be special or measurable); (2) oddities in carbon climate science – it is not at all like other science; and (3) a refutation of the 1859 Tyndall experiment and the derived special GHG’s – it is the instrument that is special not he gases. All gases are.
1. For heat trapping CO2 to have any credibility it would have to stand as a similar law of science, that is be repetitive – like all the other laws of science. This is what makes science science.
If it weren’t for telescopes we’d (likely) still be in the geocentric paradigm as it is very difficult to prove without the aid of a telescope that we are not at the centre. The telescope reveals the repetition of a (Copernican) theory. Even with the telescope, Galileo had to prove extra the the world rotated and that a geocentric universe is an illusion. I argue that CO2 or for that matter manmade climate change is a similar illusion to geo-centricity.
If CO2 traps heat as it is said to do it should co-explain the likes of:
• plate tectonics, CO2 is there in both high concentrations and high temperatures – it doesn’t, water does;
• respiration, why our breath is warm, again water does, but CO2 is there at around 45,000 ppmv. No animal uses CO2 to warm its breath ;
• why meteorologists don’t measure CO2 to make predictions or explain cloud formation, and no one does, not pilots whose lives would depend on such knowledge – but they do measure and understand the physics of water;
• avalanche (continuing from the above) and general snow pack stability. It doesn’t figure in any literature I have. We measure all other variables that effect temperature change in the snow pack, but not CO2. Not even on volcanos – it sinks, it’s heavy, it must be there. Our lives would depend on this!
• utility: no one, nothing uses it for its said claim of trapping heat. I don’t buy CO2; there is not market for it. Wouldn’t it be used to trap heat in my house – as we do water? It should be in between our double glazed windows, and be part of the solution to the problem it is said to cause – as a heat trapper? No, it is not.
This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html
2. Carbon climate science is odd, not at all like other areas of science.
• Where is the complexity – the deep physics? It’s all too simple! It is explained to school children in school books as it is to adults in adult university science books. It not hard to understand and this is odd. Science is hard! It gets harder. We can all read about quantum weirdness in popular science, but to study quantum mechanics in depth is extremely challenging – this goes for all science, but not CO2 climate change.
• Where are the experiments, the research, and the multibillion dollar budgets? The Kepler and Hubble telescope / LHC like experiments. All it has it computer models. That is not science.
• Where are the PhD’s on understanding the physics of CO2 – this extreme threat? If have found none! This is not like the stuff of viruses, asteroids or volcanos or any other areas of science. The PhD’s are going to studying future effects and engineering green tech. They are parasitic on other areas of knowledge, and this is fallacy.
• Where are the typical science statements from scientists at the top of their field: ‘We still have much to learn’; ‘we don’t yet have a full understanding....’;’.. the more we dig, the more questions we discover..’?
• Carbon climate scientist’s claim to know – to have consensus – and this is odd. Other sciences never say such things, and if they do, it is not for long.
Response:
This submission is very odd and without any clear form. In fact, I am not at all sure what this person is trying to say. The best I can get out of this is that he is saying CO2 does not trap heat and, therefore, cannot cause global warming.
Here is a website that explains the science of CO2 absorbing IR radiation. The website is from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), which is affiliated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, CO.
Here is an article from Scientific American that discusses the relationship between CO2 and the climate.
A simple search will give you lots more. This was just a sample.
We have an abundance of science in the form of experimental results that shows CO2 absorbs IR radiation. If you dispute that established bit of science, please provide experimental evidence to support your claims.
I don't see how it is relevant to your claim, but you stated that no one uses CO2 for trapping heat. Your basis was that you don't purchase CO2 for that purpose, therefore no one does. Actually, CO2 is widely used in industry and is used in some processes for its thermodynamic properties.
Basically, if you want to say that all of science is wrong, you must present extraordinary proof. You presented no proof at all, just wild claims.
This submission is not only extremely weird, but it does nothing to prove man made global warming is not real.
.
