The source of the IR is irrelevant.
I'd like to get back to this and the IR stuff, but first....
I suppose my last post should have been greatly revised.
I was talking as if your graph was something else, and I went on and on about heat flow, IR absorbancy and emissivity.
I'd like to get back to that, but first please let me know where that graph came from. Other than MikeChurch writing,
David Archibald of LaVoisier breaks this down even further for us (Figure X). You see, each gas has it's own heat retention factor"
Well, let's google: "David Archibald" LaVoisier
Oh, good source! [said sarcastically]
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html"The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhereFeb 1, 2007 ... a fellow by the name of David Archibald popped up, ... Now, Lavoisier is a crazed denialist group based in Australia so the fact that ..."
&
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/"Lavoisier Society’s own programme says “David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science and oil ..."
&
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/09/americas-biggest-belchers/"David Archibald is perhaps the most discredited voice in the world of climate science.
The Lavoisier Group, with which Archibald is closely associated, and to which he presented the paper to which Franko refers, defines the purpose of its existence in terms of its ideological opposition to the Kyoto Treaty and the Howard government’s embrace of the principles of that treaty; the group identifies no positive purpose for its own existence. Like the American Enterprise Institute, The Lavoisier Group appears to derive its funding primarily from the coal and oil industries, making its credibility dubious, at best.
Archibald’s presentation is, on its face, a tissue of statistical sophistry. He proposes no coherent explanation for the data he cherry-picks to tenuously support the conclusions from which he appears to have tried to work backwards.
[/quote]
Hey! That's just what I was saying about the graph; someone's taken a graph of the extinction coefficient in an absorbing medium and relabeled it to suite their agenda or "theory."This all makes sense if you assume that after the IR is absorbed, it is "sequestered" and doesn't heat the atmosphere further. Based on that "theory," one could assume a graph of the extinction coefficient was proportional to the "warming effect."
Unless you can point me to some authoritative source for that graph, I have to say it's worthless.
Worse than worthless, it is leading intelligent folks to draw the conclusions that so obviously emerge from the data in that graph; but erroneous conclusions, based on a falsified document.
To repeat, someone's taken a graph of an IR extinction coefficient in an absorbing medium (CO2) and relabelled it, IMHO.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....Found the graph in Archibald's actual paper.
It was originally submitted at a "conference" as:
[PPT] The Past and Future of ClimateFile Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
David Archibald. Lavoisier Conference, Melbourne ..... By my calculations, every day’s delay in the onset of solar cycle 24 will lower the average ...
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Past_and_Future_of_Climate_May_2007.pps The Past and Future of Climate; [graph on p.16]; Lavoisier Conference, Melbourne
The Warming Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
...and it seems as if he submitted it later for publication in the International Journal of Oncology. Perhaps that's still pending, but it didn't make it into the March, 2008 issue, as the link might indicate.
[PDF] Int J Oncol File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States. David Archibald. International Conference on Climate Change. March, 2008 ...
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdfErroneously cited as if from the:
International Journal of Oncology 1019-6439
"Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States"
[graph on: p.22].
But look at the science in this Archibald paper.
While the blogosphere is almost exclusively full of praise for ClimateAudit, the fact that he uses Archibald and that "bio-cab" site as sources of basic information does not lend more credibility to Steve McIntyre's blogAudit site.
It seems that ClimateAudit has helped uncover mistakes, falsifications, new ideas and hypotheses, and conspiracies. These are all great functions of the blogosphere; but his site shouldn't be taken as a final word, any more than any other site or source can ever be a final word.
While alarmist sites regale us with a lot of elitist handwaving at the discovery of any more supportive information, hopefully inching up the "certainty" factor; the denialist blogs seem to take a more plebian glee in falsifying an idea, putting the final nail in the coffin, while it's back to the drawing board, ...that is swinging in the wind, overturning the whole GW conspiracy, ...and so achieve some presumed finality.
Revision, refinement, and reviling are a part of the normal scientific process. These things are not indications of some final triumph.
===
What does Archibald report about his graph, ...and stuff in general?
"David Archibald
International Conference on Climate Change
March, 2008"
...
Do we live in a special time in which the laws of physics and nature are suspended? No,
we do not. Can we expect relationships between the Sun’s activity and climate, that we can
see in data going back several hundred years, to continue for at least another 20 years?
With absolute certainty.
In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that
demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that
differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.
...
...about that graph
Confirming the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide is possible using the MODTRAN
facility hosted by the University of Chicago.
AGW Proponents are Exactly Wrong
1. The Earth is getting colder and this will accelerate.
2. Carbon dioxide has a minuscule warming effect.
3. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will
increase agricultural productivity.
4. The ideal atmospheric carbon dioxide level is a
minimum of 1,000 ppm
Dr Hansen’s statement that the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
350 ppm begs the question of what the actual ideal level is. I have taken the 1,000 ppm
figure from the level that commercial greenhouse operators prefer to run their greenhouses
at. The ability to grow food is going to be the overriding concern next decade.
Stopping coal-fired power generation due to carbon dioxide emissions is exactly wrong in
science. The more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are helping
all living things on the planet and of course that makes you a better person.
A further big dimension to this debate is US fuel supply security. The oil price is now well
above the level at which coal to liquid fuels plants are profitable. With a breakeven price
of US$40/bbl, they have become quite profitable.
The US has very large coal reserves and the conversion of this coal to liquid fuels could
provide the US with fuel security. If the building of conversion plants is delayed by
notions of supposedly harmful carbon dioxide emissions associated with the conversion
process, those notions are unnecessarily harmful to US national security.
This is my message.
David Archibald
david.archibald@westnet.com.au
===
...oh, I thought this was a scientific paper. Never mind.
p.s. "...what the actual ideal [CO2] level is. I have taken the 1,000 ppm figure from the level that commercial greenhouse operators prefer to run their greenhouses at."
...well there's my best laugh of the day....~
