There has been an enormous publicity effort in the recent years to get
the public to accept the idea that the release of greenhouse gases, mainly
CO2, has resulted in an inexorable rise in the surface temperature of the
Earth. A pair of graphs on page 6 of "An  Inconvenient Book", by Glenn Beck,
shows that premise to be completely false. (I am currently attempting to
determine the source and validity of the data.) These graphs cover a period
of time between 1870 and 2000. As anyone with more than a double digit IQ
can plainly see, if this data is valid, then what we assert to be global
warming is due to Solar activity and not to man's activities. Furthermore,
the correlation is so obvious that a reasonable man would assert that the
Global Warming scare does not represent truth but is propaganda for some
ulterior motive. No scientist could be stupid enough not to recognize the
implications of these curves and have survived the PhD process.

     The first pair of curves shows artic temperatures over the 130 year
period and the solar activity. The correlation between the curves is almost
perfect, indicating an extremely strong cause and effect relationship! The
second pair of curves shows the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the arctic
temperature over the same time period. The correlation between these curves
is virtually non-existent. Providing I am able to verify the data
represented by these curves, it is reasonable to assert that Al Gore et al
are not merely mistaken, they are deliberately lying.

     In all of the discussions of global warming, it has not been possible
to find any description of the actual mechanism by which CO2 etc. affect the
surface temperature of the Earth. All of the discussions seem to assume that
it is the amount of greenhouse gasses in the volume of the atmosphere which
control the Earth's surface temperature. That assumption is false! Earth's
temperature is determined by the altitude amd temperature of the "CO2
horizon". It is at this altitude and below the greenhouse gases cause the
atmosphere to be opaque to the 10 to 14.5 micron band of electromagnetic
radiation. It is the greenhouse gases at this altitude that radiate the
Earth's energy input (internal and solar) to space. No greenhouse radiation
to space occurs since below this altitude (about 55,000 feet) since any such
radiation is re-absorbed by the gasses above. The equilibrium temperature
for re-radiation of Earth's energy input to space is about -55C. (Depends
upon Solar input, ice cover and internal heat). Heat transfer from lower
levels to the CO2 horizon is primarily by convection. From the altitude of
the CO2 horizon downward, the atmospheres absolute temperature rises due to
adiabatic compression in proportion to the pressure ratio raised to the 1.35
power (see any thermodynamics text). It is this adiabatic temperature rise
which determined the surface temperature. It is This adiabatic temperature
rise effect from CO2 horizon is atop a very thick atmosphere which causes
the surface of Venus to be so hot. It is not the amount of greenhouse
contained in the bulk of the atmosphere.

     All of the information needed to determine the global warming effects
of greenhouse gasses can be obtained by directly measuring the altitude at
which the atmosphere becomes opaque in the 10 to 14.5 micron band of
electromagnetic radiation. Its a simple observation readily made by
satellite. With this data, the Earth's average equilibrium surface
temperature is readily determined. The effort does not require a battalion
of PhDs,

     Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

     E-mail:- einsteinh...@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

In a recent post, I did the following pencil and paper exercise
to show that ~1% variation exists if the <300nm part of the
solar spectrum is examined.  This might be enough to prove
a solar connection.

The only part of the solar spectrum to have significant variation
in intensity is the UV, X-Ray range (i.e., wavelength<300nm). This
portion of the spectrum accounts for only 8-9% of the total energy
content of insolation.  http://squ1.org/wiki/Solar_Radiation

What I realized is that less than .05 percent of that solar UV,
X-Ray radiation impinging on the earth’s disk is reflected back
into space.  The rest (99.95%) is totally absorbed by the earth.

On average, 30% of the remaining 91-92% with wavelength >= 300nm
is reflected right back into space.  The detailed shape is vaguely
parabolic with the wavelength and amplitude of the peak varying
depending on the surface (e.g. cloud, ice, ocean, desert, forest).
But a 30% figure is widely accepted as an average.

This leaves 70% of 92% =.7 * .92 = .644 = 64.4% of the total
insolation with wavelength >= 300nm that is actually absorbed and
contributes to global heating.

That 8-9% represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts
for ~12% of the insolation heating the earth.

The remaining 91-92% varies by only 0.1%.  Lean (2000) gives a
slightly higher historical variation of about 0.3% but let us stick
with the conservative 0.1% number.

Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) radiation varies
across a solar cycle (in lock step) by about 8%.  Below is a sample:
  200 nm, 8%
  220-260 nm, 5%
  >=300 nm, 0.1%

Shorter wavelengths are absorbed in the earth’s upper atmosphere and
see even larger variations:
  120 nm, 50%
  140-200 nm, 10-15%

So I conclude that  ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.

8% * 12% = 0.96% which is still larger than the 0.1% variation that
gets kicked around.

Fixed water vapor content with increased temperature means a lower
relative humidity.  Therefore, most global climate models predicate a
stable relative humidity with an escalating rise in water vapor
content.  It is this rise in water vapor, known as the tipping point,
which is supposed to lead to runaway global warming.  (Cubasch et al,
2001).

1. The climate models assume a semi-infinite atmosphere where none of
   LWR (long wave radiation, i.e. IR) is re-radiated out
   into space.  This is simply wrong.  The earth has a semi-
transparent
   atmosphere.  See Miskolczi (2007) for the detailed proof.
2. "The small fraction of ~5% of water molecules above 500hpa
altitude
   produce about 50% [of] the total greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere".
   See slide 7,
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Science/ResearcherResources/MeetingArchi...
3. CO2 plays only a minor role in that it is claimed to kick-off a
   positive feedback cycle leading to escalating amounts of water
   vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is *the* greenhouse gas.

The problem that the AGW people need to face is that data from
the Aqua satellite is showing that the atmosphere is drier by just
the right amount to counter the effects of increased CO2.  That is,
the atmosphere has a negative feedback cycle under increased CO2.
Miskolczi (2007) predicted this negative feedback using the
conservation
of energy principle + the energy minimum principle.

See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
and
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Documents/Papers/
for the Aqua data.

--Mike Jr