In the post:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26570#Post26570...JMR provides a link to a "physicist's" blog.
===
John, are you kidding?
Try googling this "physicist."
http://alanburkhart.blogspot.com/2007/04/extinction-is-only-answer.htmlConsider this bit from scientist Gary Novak, who has created a wonderful website dealing with politically tainted science and its consequences:
"Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation. The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2. Supposedly, in some obfuscated way, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no real logic to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through obfuscation of complexities. "
A ringing endorsement from an unbiased denialist, perhaps protesting too loudly!
Not ...an "obfuscation of complexities."
Does he mean science with that phrase?
...
Drummerworld: Gary Novak: Born and raised in Chicago, Gary Novak was practically born with drum sticks in hand. Coming from parents of great musical talent, it is no wonder that Gary ...
drummerworld.com/drummers/Gary_Novak.html - 83k -
...hmmmm. Maybe not the correct Gary Novak....
...
Midweek Cuckoo: Gary Novak « moonflakeNov 10, 2006 ... I have mentioned
mushroom scientists Gary Novak before, but it was prior to the inception of the Midweek Cuckoo, and I did not do him the ...
moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/midweek-cuckoogary-novak/ - 22k -
...
Gary Novak. About the Author. Independent Scientist, Mushroom ...In studying the morel mushroom I found unprecedented evolution including phenotypic variation as an adaptation mechanism.
nov55.com/abt.html - 15k -
"...including phenotypic variation as an adaptation mechanism." ...What?
...
Science is Broken. Propaganda Replaces Rationality Based on ...The carbon dioxide debate supposedly ended when a fake majority represented by sham authority hath spoken. Propagandists. Gary Novak Independent Scientist ...
nov55.com/ - 13k
...
EARTH Sciences - by Gary Novak Ice age cycles explain climate changes when viewed from a model of oceans heating due to hot spots in the earth core. Humans cannot create global warming.
world-mysteries.com/gnovak.htm - 35k -
...
Cancer and Evolution - by Gary Novak Other Articles by Gary Novak (this site); Related Links. Cancer is caused by nanobacteria or viruses which look to the mutation rate of a particular gene to ...
world-mysteries.com/gnovak_cancer.htm - 15k -
...
Why is the greenhouse effect logarithmic?
Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org is trying to locate the provenance ;-) of the logarithmic formula for the greenhouse effect. Instead of joining him, let me post my explanation why I
personally think that the idealized greenhouse warming is a logarithmic function of the concentration under semi-realistic idealized assumptions....
Clearly, the law is not completely universal....
However, the asymptotic logarithmic behavior for large C is more than a convention. It can be derived as a result of an idealized calculation that is relatively realistic....
So if you combine all these things, you see that a geometric increase of the total CO2 volume - and I could have divided the e-folding into several smaller fixed percentage increases....
With the assumptions listed above, and they are kind of - although not perfectly....
Let us try to end up with the 1 °C sensitivity. First of all, as we have already suggested....
Although the derivation above is a caricature primarily designed to understand some qualitative features of the greenhouse effect and make some order-of-magnitude estimates, I am convinced that the contemporary climate models should be able to get the right results for the flow of radiation and its absorption and emission by CO2 at different altitudes (unless all of their creators are doing something really silly).
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html Well now here's another "new physics" explanation!
Does anybody understand this?
WTF is Gary talking about?
