re: #141 Honorary Yooper

I deny that the primary change atmospheric temperature is man made. I do not deny that man can change the temperature however. The first partial of the surface temperature in the equations of radiative transfer with respect to CO2, averaged over the normal cloud patterns is 0.00125 degrees C per ppm of CO2. The CO2 line is really opaque already. Adding more CO2 does not broaden it. It will push the height of the total opacity a slight bit higher in the atmosphere, that is all. Venus is an example of global warming. The high pressure of the atmosphere causes significant pressure broadening of the molecular absorption lines so that they are vastly broader than those of earth. A wide absorption line captures more energy. As a heavier gas in the atmosphere, CO2 tends to drop to the lower levels in the absence of vertical mixing. Thus even adding more CO2 does not change much. The troposphere and stratosphere tend to be fairly isolated unless you have something like a volcano punching through. Some extreme storms will also punch through. But by in large, what goes into the troposphere or stratosphere stays there a while. Bad news with the CFCs were that once they got elevated into the stratosphere they stayed there for a long time blowing apart ozone molecules. Anyway, the main driver for temperature is not CO2. It is elsewhere. We can change climates on the earth through our own action like overgrazing and creating increased areas of desert. That is real man made climate change in some parts of the world like Africa and Australia. But CO2 is not a problem. Its really astounding to see the press follow the ~60 year AMO cycle. That is a cycle where the temperatures increase for ~30 years and then decrease for ~30 years. For the past 2 AMO cycles, we have had hysteria in the press at the turning points of the cycle. early 1900s, 1930s, 1970, 2000.