Guest post by WUWT moderator Mike Lorrey
One of the nice tools that alexa.com has is that it lets you compare multiple sites against each other. For those with competition of either economic or political nature, this is of high importance to gauge how well one is doing achieving one’s marketshare or mindshare goals, and how badly one’s competition is stumbling in delivering its message or attracting customers.
Today I did a four-way comparison between WUWT, Climate Progress and Real Climate, as well as Climateaudit.org, run by our good friend Steve McIntyre, going back through the entire traffic record that alexa has for these sites.
As you can see, there is a rather dramatic evolution over time.
Prior to the 2008 US Presidential election of Barack Obama, three of the four blogs were pretty well competitive (realclimate.org was always the least popular, indicating the general public got that this was an astroturfing site by climate alarmists who tolerated no dissent). Even though Steve McIntyre tended to be the most technical, he still attracted a competitive following. His television appearances and congressional testimony really helped his exposure even if the layman had difficulty avoiding the glaze-over on some of his blog content. After the election, when it became clear that climate change legislation was a top priority for this president, people clearly started educating themselves about it. Our Surfacestations.org project and the resulting report brought us additional attention in the major media. WUWT started clearly distinguishing itself as providing content that was understandable to the layman, did not talk down to the average bloke (like was typical at CP and RC) and did not regularly attack people based on their political leanings. Commentary from all directions was encouraged, with postings by non-skeptic scientists to provide a balanced view, and which only limited commentary when it came to personal attacks and off-topic thread hijacking (again, unlike CP and RC).
This resulted in our weblog award for 2008 as the number one science blog, beating out alarmist blogs, leading to much tooth gnashing by the warmist press.
Our popularity grew as we reported on the growing controversies over FOIA compliance, IPCC dissenting opinions, the dendro-wars, and the continuing spotlessness of the sun while arctic ice coverage recovered from its 2007 low, meeting our predictions and smashing the hopes of the AGW alarmists.
Then Climategate and the CRUtape Letters hit the blogosphere. The alexa stats clearly demonstrate who won the narrative with the public with a dramatic step change in the popularity of WUWT along with a crash of CP and RC after brief spurts. Similarly, climateaudit.org reached its highest ever rankings since the FOIA requests of Steve and friends were so central to the scandal. WUWT peaked several times into the top 10,000 websites globally.
As of this writing, WUWT is ranked #6 by Alexa in the world for Environmental websites, not just climate blog sites. We are higher ranked than the Environmental Working Group, WWF, National Wildlife Federation, Mother Earth News, The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy and The Environmental Defense Fund. We rank just behind The Oil Drum, the primary Peak Oil website.
While things have settled down a bit since climategate broke, we are seeing a recent spurt of activity due in part to Anthony’s speaking tour, where he has spoken to packed and enthusiastic crowds. As we add more reference pages on different topics, we expect to see more traffic grow as these references become additional traffic generators in their own right.
We should reach our 50 millionth website hit some time this coming week, a major milestone in the development of this site. Stay tuned for the announcement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By the way, I have absolutely no idea what this means:
“snip ask minus the ugly, or don’t ask at all.”
REPLY: don’t call people you disagree with “deniers”
I don’t generally comment but must add my congratulations to Mr Watts and crew. Especially thanks to the Watts family for allowing Anthony to continue this blog. Your sacrifice is very much appreciated.
I too went to some of the Warmist blogs when I began to research “climate change”. One of the first was the very inaptly named “Open Mind” of Tamino. I argued that he was wrong in saying another commenter was “cherry picking” data and then suggested that he would get better outcomes if he was civil to his readers. His reply was such that I have only been back since when following a link and what I have seen has not changed my opinion. I found a similar atmosphere at Real Climate.
Now I visit WUWT, Bishop Hill and CA regularly.
Zilla,
I don’t know where you get your characterizations of skeptics, but we certainly do not “refuse to actually look at the information”. Our big bugaboo has been that we DEMAND to see ALL the information. The typical warmist only wants to show his predetermined conclusions, not his methods, not the raw data. RealClimate only started posting data there after a number of years of getting raked over the coals on the issue, with scientists from other disciplines telling them that if they want to be taken seriously, they actually do need to put data up there. If it were not for us skeptics, RC wouldn’t have those data pages AT ALL. So you can thank us for them.
That is what our “agenda” is about. Many of us actually believe there is warming going on, some are doubtful. The poor state of the temperature record, from poorly sited stations, and how it has clearly been doctored, adjusted, and manipulated over the years, makes it very difficult to say one way or the other for sure. So there is a preliminary issue of the trustworthiness of the data. We want to see the raw data and the metadata, not just the processed crap produced by social scientists who barely passed their undergrad stats classes.
And no, models are actually demonstrated to be LESS accurate than just drawing a straight line. There isn’t a single model in existence that accurately simulates the prior data record without a lot of tweaks to the math that is left unexplained and unjustified by any physical science. It is nothing but arm waving.
As for my personal agenda: I make no money here. I am not paid by energy or chemical or other industries. I’m an IT guy who has gone back to university during the economic downturn. Like other concerned citizens, I am highly concerned that some green socialists are intent on pushing a gaia-cult-centered chiliastic catastrophist anthropogenic climate theory/theology that is poorly supported by any valid science in order to justify massive restructuring of the global economy and destruction of the American way of life.
If, in fact, properly conducted science that is open and transparent to the public is able to show that:
a) there is warming going on,
b) it is mostly the fault of human caused pollution and not natural causes
c) the amount of warming in the next century will have a significant negative impact on human society, economy, and the global environment,
then I am perfectly willing to consider a wide range of possible solutions, with a preference toward proactive free market oriented solutions, given history conclusively shows that free markets are far more effective at delivering solutions to problems than centrally planned socialist economies.
At the present time, the AGW camp hasn’t even demonstrated point (a) to any degree of certainty. They claim they have, but we have shown, repeatedly, that they are committing a number of serious errors and/or intentional manipulations, and they are intentionally corrupting the peer review process to prevent their errors and manipulations from being more widely criticized and examined. They actively suppress commentary on their blogs by anybody who points these facts out. They do not act like scientists.
bob says:
July 27, 2010 at 6:47 am
How often does WUWT link to peer reviewed journal articles as compared to RC?
The answer to that question will tell you which site does the better job of educating its visitors.
Considering that the definition of peer is “a person who is of equal standing with another in a group” then everything that is posted on here is “peer reviewed”.
The open review process that is permitted on this site is a much more critical peer review process than that which occurs in the established journals.
Plan to release Climategate “Raw” data as per New Scientist web site
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727710.101-climategate-data-sets-to-be-made-public.html
Add my pat on the back and pint and pack of peanuts to all at WUWT
@Bob
‘Latimer Alder says:
“And there is strong circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that the process within the small world of ‘climate science’ has fallen victim to groupthink.”
Even if the evidence is strong, it is still circumstantial and anecdotal, and not worth posting on any blog.
Oh wait, you didn’t post any evidence, just a mild assertation that there was.
You must be a groupthing groupie’
By your own assertion, your high moral principles wouldn’t allow you to read the evidence that I would present, since much of it is taken from the Climategate e-mails, and you are averse to looking at those. Which is a shame, because I’m sure that you care as much as I do about the integrity of Science and would be as shocked and disturbed as I was to see how badly it had been compromised by the ‘Hockey Team’.
You may choose to disbelieve me, but refusing to look at the evidence is not a position based on refusing to look at the evidence is not a strong, nor a scientific one.
Instead try reading Andrew Montford’s excellent book ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ (now available in the USA and Canada from many online suppliers and supported by rave reviews).
Though this mainly tells the story of how Steve McIntyre tried to disentangle the statistical mess that Mann got into with the (in)famous hockey stick. it does touch on issue of the inadequacy of peer review.
You will find it instructive and it should not offend your principles since nearly all the copious references are to work written to be published and could in no way be described as private.
Once you have done that you may be able to judge the strength of my assertions. Until then, I fear, your morality will prevent you from seeing the truth. A bit like a religious person who would rather see their children die than allow them to have a blood transfusion. Your choice.
PS : Its ‘assertion’ not ‘assertation’ – unless you are an ex-President. Cheers
@Bob
‘Just check out any reference showing the vapor pressure of water and it’s relationship to temperature.
The higher the temperature, the more water that can exist in the atmosphere in form of water vapor, thus the less likely are clouds to form. Thus more water vapor in the atmosphere, more greenhouse gas heating to the atmosphere, or a positive feedback’
Wow..that’s quite some theory there. On that basis, the equator (hottest bit), should have few clouds and therefore less rain. Lets look and see if its true.
Gosh…here are things called Tropical Rain Forests at the equator..one of whose characteristics is that it rains a lot there (the really good clue is in the name, Bob).
Wow..perhaps we can conclude without even leaving our desks that Bob’s hypothesis that its as simple as a water vapour/temperature graph is insufficient to explain what we observe. Ain’t science great!
Bob – checking the theories by examining the data is called ‘an experiment’. You may come across this term again in your reading. Cheers
Interesting to watch the replies to my comment about coming here for a laugh:)
Even more interesting to see this statement from mikelorrey: “WUWT and ClimateAudit.org are a new form of science publishing.” Okey…. So when 99% of the comments on almost any topic are along the lines of “I knew it!”, “The data are manipulated!” etc., I guess that replaces the peer review process.
I will agree on one point, that there are some harsh replies at RC. The reason for this seems to be beyond you folks, so I’ll explain it to you: When you come into a techical discussion with preconceived misconseptions, and spout them as a gospel, you get shot down. Rightfully so. As a side note, most of the readers here are not educated enough to even follow the discussions there when they get above simple aritmethics (like counting pixels).
@enonym
‘Even more interesting to see this statement from mikelorrey: “WUWT and ClimateAudit.org are a new form of science publishing.” Okey…. So when 99% of the comments on almost any topic are along the lines of “I knew it!”, “The data are manipulated!” etc., I guess that replaces the peer review process. ‘
When the peer review process seems to consist of nothing more than Philboy saying to Mikey ‘Fred has a paper, should I approve it’ and Mikey saying ‘Fred’s an OK guy – he knows to say the right thing – let him through’, then I find it hard to see what you are complaining about.
And remember that, by his own admission in Parliament, no peer reviewer has ever asked to see Jones’ data or methods in detail. He is a prolific contributor with over 100 paper in the last 10 years. But nobody has ever verified his work. Or even asked to do so. Apart from Steve McIntyre.
If that is the best standard that peer review can provide then its replacement by a more modern system with wider access is long overdue.
Enonym says:
July 28, 2010 at 3:30 am
Interesting to watch the replies to my comment about coming here for a laugh:)
Even more interesting to see this statement from mikelorrey: “WUWT and ClimateAudit.org are a new form of science publishing.” Okey…. So when 99% of the comments on almost any topic are along the lines of “I knew it!”, “We are killing the world” etc., I guess that replaces any honest process.
I will agree on one point, that there are some harsh replies at RC. The reason for this seems to be beyond you Enonym, so I’ll explain it to you: When they create a techical discussion using preconceived misconseptions, and spout them as a gospel, you get shot down by the gatekeepers, if your contrary comment is allowed to echo within those hallowed halls in the first place. As a side note, most of the readers there are not honest enough to even join the discussions here.
There, fixed the grammatical errors for you. Please note that I did not extract any urine vis-a-vis your atroshus spelling as you may have arrived here from anywhere on the planet and that would not have been polite.
Hope you see the funny side of this retort (the “return like for like”, rather than the closed lab vessel with an outlet tube).
Zilla writes:
“Now, this is a great deal of complicated information here. I certainly can’t understand it all. But if you do not have the time or patience or wherewithal to go through it all before accusing scientists of not having “hypothesis” then you probably should not accuse scientists of not having “hypothesis.” ”
You should have started with this thought. You do not have a clue about the hypotheses that I asked for and you should have said so at the beginning rather than wasting my time. Also, you fundamentally-fundamentally-fundamentally misunderstand scientific method, just like all other climategaters. The scientist has the responsibility of presenting hypotheses and evidence, including evidence of a reasonable number of confirmed tests of the hypotheses. The presentation must be clear enough that other scientists, who are not his colleagues or friends, can replicate all the data and the experimental tests. If there are models involved, the models must be presented, though they add nothing to confirmation. No one owes the scientist anything. It is the scientist’s duty to get up off his fat butt and stop navel-gazing long enough to do a presentation of his hypotheses and evidence that is SATISFYING TO THE REST OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, WHO ACT AS JUDGES. A scientist who fails to do these things is a scientist who has earned his failure. Name one scientist who is a proponent of AGW who has not failed in these matters. The closest thing you have is Michael Mann but he has the very great failing that he invents his own statistical methods and then compounds his error by arguing that he has no responsibility to explain them. BALDERDASH!!!
Listen, Kid, do you have no idea how offensive it is for you to give me a homework assignment? Find one of your parents and ask them about it.
Henry@the believers in AGW
I don’t know what you people are still on about. I have been on all these climate sites and could not find the proof (in the right SI dimensions) that CO2 is a green house gas, i.e. that its cooling properties by re-radiating sunshine are smaller then its warming properties (by trapping earthshine).
It seems nobody did the right kind of testing!!!!
Here is a good reaction from Craig Goodrich at a post on this site, oh yes, it could have been me who wrote this!! I think it is so approproate here now, especially for me here in Africa:
….(about the so-called climate scientists and climate science)……
I am sick to death of their rote yapping about “peer review,” when they have perhaps irremediably corrupted the process, and when the point of science was never “peer review” per se but complete openness as to methods and data — which they have steadfastly, almost neurotically, refused to allow. I am nauseated when I hear their “oil funding” chorus, when Greenpeace and the WWF have each received more than two orders of magnitude more funding from corporations than all the free-market think tanks combined — let alone the skeptical science community.
But what makes me really sick is the realization that the $100 billion or so wasted on “climate science” — not quite yet an oxymoron, thanks only to Lindzen, Christy, our own Willis, and a small brave band of real scientists — could have bought an insecticide-impregnated mosquito net for every bed in Africa and South Asia, plus enough DDT to control mosquitoes in swamps near populated areas, with enough left over to keep NASA’s Mars program viable.
But instead of eliminating malaria and keeping mankind’s restless ambition alive, thanks to the warm-mongers we spent the money gazing at our global navel hoping to find the Global Warming Fairy, while at the same time utterly devastating millions of acres of wildlife habitat and peaceful countryside with useless industrial wind turbine phalanxes — which generate no actual power but lots of tax breaks and subsidies — in the quest for some delusional “renewable energy,” clearcutting rainforests for palm oil and fraudulent “carbon sinks,” and doubling world food prices by supporting ethanol production.
So having worked as hard as ever they can to destroy what natural environment remains in the developed world, and to murder as many as possible through starvation and disease in the undeveloped world, these wonderful people preen themselves and vaunt their moral superiority as “humanitarians” and “environmentalists.”
—
Sorry, I had to go get my barf bag.
—
I realize that WUWT, CA, and the rest of the climate realist blogosphere attempt to maintain a civilized level of objective scientific discourse, free from the diatribes that pervade warmist rhetoric. But sometimes it is necessary to vent, and my infrared iris opens up…….”
I did not write this but I am sure Craig would not mind seeing his words quoted here…
Latimer Alder writes:
“Bob – checking the theories by examining the data is called ‘an experiment’. You may come across this term again in your reading. Cheers”
Isn’t it amazing that AGW proponents not only fail to have a clue about scientific method but seem to have acquired a kind of “mental block” for scientific method? Their minds just can’t go there. Is this a result of teaching by professors such as Jones, Briffa, and Mann?
Enonym says “As a side note, most of the readers here are not educated enough to even follow the discussions there when they get above simple aritmethics (like counting pixels).”.
Speaking of education, first of all learn to spell, or at least use a spell checker. Then you can be the mouthpiece of your masters’, as words do have some importance. Perhaps you could enlighten the ignorant with your vast knowledge (i.e. thermal heat transfer, fluid mechanics, math, etc.), # of degrees, years of experience in science, math and engineering, number of international papers (please state subject) and patents.
Remember this site is not censored like your “handlers”, so you might find some opposing views. Hope you can handle it.
Enonym says:
July 28, 2010 at 3:30 am
Your response to the responses offers a fascinating look at the cognitive dissonance so rampant among Alarmists these days. Thanks for playing, and get help. Your precious CAGW/CC Belief system, the S.S. Climatanic is going down fast. The smarter rats have already jumped ship.
For those of you who have still not accepted water (vapor) and carbon dioxide as their real mother and father here is a link that may help you see the light. I am saying: more carbon dioxide is Ok, ok?
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Theo Goodwin posts:
“That’s a scream, Bob. Warmists do work at the level of a high-school chem lab.”
It doesn’t matter what level the science is, if it is repeatable.
I did thin-layer chromatography in kindergarten and I still do it professionally, so what’s your point?
I was just trying to remind folks that there is a positive feedback with respect to clouds as well as the negative feedbacks due to their reflectivity.
And to answer your question about a plausible hypothesis for the amplification of any warming caused by the increase in CO2.
If CO2 causes warming and warming causes an increase the atmospheric concentration of H2o (a greenhouse gas), then we get increased temperature or an amplification of the CO2 effect. Pretty simple isn’t it.
And Latimer Alder posts:
“Wow..that’s quite some theory there. On that basis, the equator (hottest bit), should have few clouds and therefore less rain. Lets look and see if its true.
Gosh…here are things called Tropical Rain Forests at the equator..one of whose characteristics is that it rains a lot there (the really good clue is in the name, Bob).
Wow..perhaps we can conclude without even leaving our desks that Bob’s hypothesis that its as simple as a water vapour/temperature graph is insufficient to explain what we observe. Ain’t science great!
Bob – checking the theories by examining the data is called ‘an experiment’. You may come across this term again in your reading. Cheers”
My point is that warmer air holds more water vapor, your conclusion that I mean that there is therefore less clouds and rain in the tropics just doesn’t follow.
I post simple scientific facts.
Like CO2 absorbs IR, water vapor absorbs IR, and the higher the temperature, the higher the likelyhood that water exists as a gas.
Climate is simple isn’t it.
Excerpt from: Enonym on July 27, 2010 at 5:14 am
Yeah, well, some people like the strict schoolmistresses, others go for French maids, nurses, cops, or schoolgirls in their uniforms. Takes all kinds, I guess. But stay away from the mean nun with the ruler, you’ll burn for that.
😉
Enonym says:
July 28, 2010 at 3:30 am (Edit)
“Even more interesting to see this statement from mikelorrey: “WUWT and ClimateAudit.org are a new form of science publishing.” Okey…. So when 99% of the comments on almost any topic are along the lines of “I knew it!”, “The data are manipulated!” etc., I guess that replaces the peer review process.”
Actually, given the peer review process being corrupted by the hockey team is absolutely worthless at this point, our comment based peer review is much more “robust” since we have far more people commenting here than the typical 3-5 persons who sit on peer review referee panels (over 194 comments on this post alone proves my point). Our comment based peer review allows anyone to challenge authors on the science, the data and methods, with scientific arguments. A number of articles here at WUWT have been updated and corrected as a result of this process, and we don’t judge the message based on the messenger. This is obvious to anybody who actually spends any time here. That it is not obvious to you, Enonym, only means you are a hockey team sock puppet hiding behind a fake name and email, which is par for the course for you blokes.
“I will agree on one point, that there are some harsh replies at RC. The reason for this seems to be beyond you folks, so I’ll explain it to you: When you come into a techical discussion with preconceived misconseptions, and spout them as a gospel, you get shot down. Rightfully so. As a side note, most of the readers here are not educated enough to even follow the discussions there when they get above simple aritmethics (like counting pixels).”
So, where in the scientific method does it say you can incessantly ad hom people you think you are better than? Only an elitist prat would make such an absurd justification for supposed adult scientists being utter gits to people. Moreso in that you have absolutely no idea what the education levels are of WUWT readers. Alexa stats show that our readership actually leans pretty heavily with post-graduate degrees. So, the real data blows your utterly baseless and obnoxious claim out of the water.
Thus, you have been peer reviewed off the island by a critical examination of your claims that found them utterly devoid of factual support. Goodbye.
bob says:
July 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I post simple scientific facts.
Like CO2 absorbs IR, water vapor absorbs IR, and the higher the temperature, the higher the likelyhood that water exists as a gas.
Climate is simple isn’t it.
Trouble is, Bob, without context, your “facts” are meaningless. The real question is, where is your evidence that our 3% contribution to atmospheric C02 is having a significant, or indeed much of any impact on climate change? Go ahead and look, Bob.
If you find any, by all means report back. You’d be the first.
Climate is far from simple, but by far the biggest players are the sun, (the big Kahuna) and the oceans. Co2 plays only a minor bit part in climate, rising as a result of warming, and on average, some 800 years afterward. Some 110 k years ago, after about a 20 k year warm period called the Eemian interglacial, our climate shifted from much warmer conditions than today to ice age conditions in perhaps 400 years. Not only was C02 not able to stop it, it might as well have been a flea trying to stop an elephant.
From RC on their “Happy 35th birthday, global warming!” thread. A portion of #10 comment:
#10 ……. “[Response: Hmm. I just got back from central British Columbia, which has warmed about 3 C in the last 50 years… Last time I checked, BC was in North America.–eric]”
The above is a response by a “gatekeeper” at RC, about how central B.C. has warmed over the last 50 years. Now go to http://www.Rimfrost.no and check the 100 year history of Prince George in central B.C. Overall that curve looks pretty flat, with about a 50 year oscillation in it. Talking about “cherry picking”, or maybe it was peer reviewed by a committee of one?
@Bob
‘Climate is simple isn’t it’.
Someting round here is ‘simple’, and I don’t think it is the climate.
‘Simple’ = expression comon in Wales (among other places) = ‘not quite the sharpest knife in the drawer’ when referrring to a person’s intellectual capability.
J. Bob:
Forgive my misspelling. I’m norwegian, so English is not my native language. Even so, I actually knew how to spell “Arithmetic”, it was just a glimpse. I guess you never do that. Also, I normally don’t write comments in a text editor with a spell checker before pasting….
Your inquiry: “Speaking of education, first of all learn to spell, or at least use a spell checker. Then you can be the mouthpiece of your masters’, as words do have some importance. Perhaps you could enlighten the ignorant with your vast knowledge (i.e. thermal heat transfer, fluid mechanics, math, etc.), # of degrees, years of experience in science, math and engineering, number of international papers (please state subject) and patents.”
My answer:
-Thermal heat transfer knowledge: Basic (BSc level) courses in thermodynamics and an advanced course in statistical mechanics. Course in classical transport theory (didn’t understand all of it at the time, must admit)
-Fluid mechanics: PhD
-Math: All compulsory and most elective courses. Was needed for my theoretical physics MSc.
-# of degrees:
–BSc: petroleum engineering
–MSc: Theoretical physics
–PhD: Math/Fluid mechanics
-Years working within research: 6
-Number of publications (depends upon criteria, but all are international (as is most science)): 3-7. All within the field of theoretical/experimental fluid dynamics (several shot down by peer review, one in for review at the moment).
I realize that this will disqualify me from participating in most discussions here, since this means that I’m part of a larger socialist conspiracy and I’m also one of these idiot “scientists” that can not see the wood for all the trees.
Henry@Enonym
It seems you are well qualified.
Please bear with me to hear my story, and see if you can perhaps provide an answer to the questions that I have.
A few months before Climategate broke, I started my own investigations to see if my carbon footprint (CO2) really causes global warming, as claimed. To start off with, I found Svante Arrhenius’ formula completely wrong and since then I could not find any correctly conducted experiments (tests & measurements) that would somehow prove to me that the warming properties of CO2 (by trapping earth’s radiation between the wavelengths 14-15 um) are greater than its cooling properties (by deflecting sunlight at various wavelengths between 0 – 5 um). Even more disconcerting to me was finding that pupils at school and college are shown experiments with 100% carbon dioxide (representing earth’s atmosphere of only 0.04% or 380 ppms CO2!) and a light bulb as an energy source (representing the sun!). Obviously such crude experimentation can only lead to incorrect results and completely incorrect conclusions…e.g. what about the IR and near IR absorptions of CO2 and the UV absorptions of CO2 that have only been discovered recently and that also deflect sunlight?
I also found untruths in Al Gore’s story (An Inconvenient Truth). A lot of CO2 is dissolved in cold water and comes out when the oceans get warmer. Any chemistry student knows that the first smoke from the (warmed) water in a kettle is the CO2 being released. So, quite a number of scientists have reported that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past lagged the warming periods by quite a few hundred years… Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer but cancer does not cause smoking. But Al made it look from the past that our CO2 output must be the cause of global warming.
Just to put the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere into the right perspective: it has increased by about 0.01% in the past 50 years from ca. 0.03% to 0.04%. This compares with an average of about 1 % for water vapor in the air. Note that most scientists agree that water vapor is a very strong green house gas, and a much stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide… (if indeed carbon dioxide is a green house gas, which, like I said before, has yet to be proven to me). It is also logical for me to suspect that as a result of human activities relating to burning, bathing, cooking, boiling, countless cooling processes (including that for nuclear energy), erection of dams and shallow pools, etc. a lot more water vapor than carbon dioxide is put up in the air.
The paper that confirmed to me that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine is this one:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
they measured this radiation as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction of the radiation was:sun-earth-moon-earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um.
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours). I am also doubtful of just doing analysis (determining surface areas) of the spectral data, as some of the UV absorptions of CO2 have only been discovered recently. Also, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 maybe underestimated, e.g. the amount of radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 maybe small but how many Watts does it cause? Here in Africa you can not stand in the sun for longer that 10 minutes, just because of the heat of the sun on your skin.
Anyway, with so much at stake, surely, someone actually has to come up with some empirical testing?
If this research has not been done, why don’t we just sue the oil companies to do this?? It is their product afterall.
I am going to state it here quite categorically again that if no one has got these results, then how do we know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Maybe the cooling properties are equal to the warming properties?
I have also been thinking of the ozone concentration in the air: Assuming that its cooling properties are higher than its warming properties (did anyone test that?), then lower concentrations, as in the past, before CFC’s were banned, can be a cause for global warming; increasing levels, as noted in the past 10 years can be a cause of global cooling?
So the net effect of the increases in CO2 and ozone is close to zero or even cooling?
(I have no financial interest in any of this, I just started my investigations because I felt a bit guilty about driving my car)