reply to post by mc_squared
I have to admit i made a mistake and i'm a bit annoyed with myself. So, apologies to me and to you for having wasted both of our time by turning this
into a chartjunk debate over a distorted graph.
The only proper reply should have been, your graph is bunk and be done with it.
On the grounds that i've admitted my mistake, i'll ignore, for the most part, what you wrote in response to my post.
You spend way too much time ranting on about intellectually challenged, bible-waiving nutjobs who have all helplessly swallowed Big Oil propaganda and
will cause the ultimate demise of the human race.
If you can, take a step back and try to realize how strikingly similar your rethoric is to that of those you accuse of being unable to grasp the "cold
hard facts". You know, the denier types.
If you're so convinced you are only dealing with folks who are immune to the truth, then why bother at all. Take a walk in the park. Hyperbole and
vitriol are not really helping your cause and i have a hard time to believe you honestly think this is an effective way to make people see the
Your "hard science"
You really had me laughing about your "tested & repeated" links to those preschool experiment youtube clips to support your argument for the well
understood cause and effect mechanisms. (But i guess i had it coming...) It is good to see you do have a sense of humor. This is scientific evolution
right there, - Tyndall > BBC2 > global warming in a jar. That's it, the debate is over, the science is settled. No wonder people keep on 'one-upping'
you with spurious evidence and refer you to sites like "climate depot". You set the tone.
Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over
radiative forcing of climate.
Given that you have this strange habit of linking to paywalled studies, i pretty much doubt that you have actually read the paper.
If you have, then you would know that your bold claim of "less and less infrared radiation escaping"
is directly contradicted by the study's
findings. The only (statistically) significant difference in the spectra was observed for meathane and to lesser degree for two CFC's (11-12), the
changes for CO2 were described as weak and within the margin of error.
Our interpretation of Fig. 1 is as follows. We consider ®rst the sharp spectral features. A negative-going brightness temperature difference is
observed on the edge of the CO2 n 2 band, between 710 and 740 cm-1 , in accord with the known increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 1970
and 19971 . The O3 band centred at about 1,060 cm-1 also shows a negative-going difference from the background window signal, which can be attributed
to the known changes in ozone17 and in temperature18.
A strong, negative Q-branch is observed at 1,304 cm-1 in the CH4 band, due mainly to increases in tropospheric CH4 concentrations in the period
between the observations, which causes emission from higher, colder layers of the troposphere. Negative-going lines due to n 2 -band H2 O absorption
are seen between 1,200 and 1,400 cm-1 . There is also evidence of weak features due to CO2 , CFC-11 and CFC-12 in the 700±1,000 cm-1 range.
Harries et al 2001
The conclusion "the results provide direct experimental evidence for a signicant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect"
is hardly supported
by the research itself. You can always blame the authors for overstating the results and for not being precise enough to point out what exactly the
observations imply (although they have in two subsequent studies), or you could blame yourself for not reading the papers you link to.
edit on 15-5-2013 by talklikeapirat because: why not