Science held hostage in climate debate

GP says:
“The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise”
This is just flat out wrong! The absorption of all OLR by CO2 occurs within the first 35 meters from the earth’s surface.
NOW EVERODY PAY ATTENTION!!! DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Google “Climate Change Reexamined”
2. Google returns the link fo the pdf file and the author is Joel M. Kauffman
3. Open the pdf file and go to page 735.
4. Fig. 7 is the IR spectrum of real ambient air for Philadelphia.
5. The net absorbance for the peak at ca 660 wavenumbers is 0.018 for the gas cell with a pathlength of 7 cm. If the cell path lenght was 11 meters, the absorbance would be 2 and 99% of the IR would absorbed. The vibrational energy of the CO2 molecles would be very rapidly themalized by collision with N2 and O2 molecules.
6. The small shoulders have an absorbance of ca 0.004. If the pathlenght of the cell was 35 meters, the absorbance would be 2 and 99% of the IR would be absorbed and thermalized as above.
7. Although there is a strong absorption at 2350 wavenumbers, there is no OLR at this wavelenght.
8. Adding more CO2 would shorten the pathlengh for complete absorption of OLR, but cause little heating of the air.
9. The maximum of the OLR at 298 K is 500 wavenumbers and most of this is absorbed by water vapor.
As warm air rises it undergoes adiabtic cooling, the maximum of the OLR shifts the right of the CO2 peaks at 660 wavenumbers. Most of the OLR is asorbed by OH2.
This spectrum shows that CO2 absobs little OLR as compared to OH2 and consequently can have little or no effect of warming the air.
\

Kauffmans mentions in the Cem Ed paper that no methane was detected.

Harold Pierce Jr says:
June 22, 2012 at 9:14 pm
“As warm air rises it undergoes adiabtic cooling, the maximum of the OLR shifts the right of the CO2 peaks at 660 wavenumbers. Most of the OLR is asorbed by OH2.”
They don’t have warm air rising – they don’t have air. That’s why they don’t have convection, only radiation – radiation in empty space.
What they have is a completely different atmosphere to the real world, they have a different Earth and a different Sun. Unless this is appreciated there will continue to be confusion generated because talking at cross purposes, from different paradigms.
Their Earth is surrounded by empty space not by the heavy voluminous ocean of gas subject to gravity which surrounds our real Earth. Their molecules are not real gas molecules, but ideal gas molecules – so they don’t have gases buoyant in air, because they have no air, they have the imaginary construct volumeless weightless hard dots of nothing ideal gas molecules zipping at great speeds through empty space bouncing off each other in elastic collisions without attraction or repulsion under their own molecular momentum.
So, for example one of their explanations, that their ‘carbon dioxide molecules overcome gravity’ is because their ideal gas molecules are without volume, weight and attraction … They neither realise how ludicrous this is, that they have stripped the molecule of its properties and so physical relationships, processes, but, they use the term ‘gravity’ without any understanding that they don’t have it.
That’s why they claim that carbon dioxide ‘accumulates in the atmosphere building up a blanket’, because they don’t have gravity and they don’t have gravity because they don’t have real molecules, but the imaginary ‘ideal gas in a container’ so their molecules do not rise in air if lighter than air or sink if heavier than air. They don’t have air. They don’t realise they’re talking about a completely different atmosphere, they think this is real world physics. They think this because they have been taught this, it is firmly entrenched in the general education system; put there to promote the agenda of some to support AGW claims. It is the great dumbing down of basic science for the masses.
It’s astonishing, they have created a completely different world by descriptions of an imaginary gas molecule.
Just like they use the term ‘clouds’, but in their atmosphere of empty space clouds can’t form, not least because all clouds are carbonic acid and they have no attraction with their molecules, because their carbon dioxide molecule is too busy zipping at great speeds through empty space bouncing off the other ideal gas molecules of nitrogen and oxygen and so ‘thoroughly mixing’. Likewise wind, they don’t have wind though they use the term, because wind is volumes of air on the move, convection, and their molecules don’t have volume or attraction, etc. etc.
They have a completely different fisics, it is completely imagined, created out of tweaking real world physics. That’s why nothing they say makes sense, because it’s science fiction – and because there is no internal coherence in their fisics, they mix it up as the occasion requires. I do wish more people in real world applied science would appreciate this – because it’s in every aspect of their fisics claims about their fictional world, spread across the different disciplines.
Their tweaks of real physics are clever pastiches, created by taking laws out of context, stripping matter of properties and by giving properties of one thing to another, and, taking old science erroneous thinking and claiming it is still current, as they do with Arrhenius. This is a complete package of tweaks, this really does have to be appreciated if anyone wants to understands why they say the strange things they do. It has been carefully crafted, a whole package of fisics about an imaginary Earth.
For example, here I’ve looked at their empty space ideal gas atmosphere: http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/#comment-1007003
Scuse the typos and lack of editing, it never made it into the discussion, somehow got lost. The story link of how I came by this knowledge of what is now taught is in this discussion: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/02/what-can-we-learn-from-the-mauna-loa-co2-curve-2

Greg House says:
June 22, 2012 at 12:48 pm
…CO2 warming the rest of the air directly. This is the most ridiculous notion. Just imagine, how hot CO2 must get to warm the air by 7 degrees (this is the CO2 part according to the AGW concept). Given only 1 of every 2600 air molecules is CO2, each CO2 molecule must get thousands degrees hot. This notion is obviously absurd, but it works with some people, unfortunately.

As a deep-dyed AGW Denialist, I beg you to stop using such irrational argumentation. The heating being postulated is clearly transitional, such that immediately after each CO2 molecule heats up it transfers its thermal energy to some other kind of molecule by collision, and then gets warmed by another IR photon, etc. No “thousands of degrees” required.
There are lots of excellent avenues and arguments for disputing the consensus cartoon model(s); please stop roiling the water with s****d ones.

***
E.M.Smith says:
June 22, 2012 at 6:26 pm
IMHO there is little reason to believe that CO2 does ANY warming. It causes increased cooling of the upper atmosphere and convection / evaporation is the driver in the lower atmosphere, so added CO2 might well increase the radiative heat loss.
***
E.M., gotta disagree w/ya. Earth will radiate its heat outward from somewhere. The more it radiates at a colder temp, the better the insulation effect. If CO2 didn’t radiate outward at high altitudes, the outward radiation would come from somewhere else down lower & at a warmer temp. That would increase heat loss & reduce the insulation effect. Just sayin.
And yes, convection bringing relatively warm air (which contains H2O vapor/liquid/ice & CO2) to near the tropopause nullifies the stratified CO2 effect somewhat by “presenting” a warmer radiative surface to space & increasing heat loss. That’s a negative feedback assuming increased temps cause increased convection.

Harold Pierce Jr,
I went through your list of steps and that is a good summary of the radiative transfer occurring in the atmosphere. CO2’s effect at this concentration and upward is minimal if even measureable. Good to know there are still some good empirical scientists still engaged in this subject. Thanks, I’ll read the entire paper in detail later.

If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.
This is not the case if you meet those in other spheres of science that have gone almost totally unheard in the grants rush to supply the climate change cult. There is a far stronger case for there being a natural creation and usage system that is fundamentally stable but for short term blips because as supply of any of the relevant gases increases so does the ability of the demanding systems to grow as a result.
We created a huge short term blip by reducing the man made input from SO2 from the acid rain legislation which the system took time to adapt to. Man’s input is always compared to the quantity of these gases in the air, which is the residual and not the amount created by nature so the computer models are at even the most basic level utterly flawed.

Walter H. Schneider says:
June 22, 2012 at 1:38 pm
……It’s all the fault of man, and nature has nothing to do with it? I did not bother with reading the rest of the article, but it certainly is not very comforting to know that so many of its readers are impressed by it.
____________________________
That the writer is a warmist is a given, that he actually is showing signs of thinking about the corruption of climate science is what we are impressed by. At least he can SEE that “Post-normal Science” is not science at all. That is a starting point. A step in the right direction.