RE: One final point on Mr Novak's site
- Professor Essenhigh's argument is littered with errors and nonsensical arguments, but they are essentially different errors to the one that Mr Novak made. Here are a few of them:1. He makes a mistake I have commented on before. He looks at a 400,000 year cycle of global warming and concludes (rightly) that the evidence shows that warming started in the distant past before the CO2 levels rose. He implies that this is contrary to what climatologists say (It isn't). He then goes on to conclude that since warming initiated CO2 rises in the past rather than the other way around, that must be what is happening now. So if all polar bears are white, any animal that is white must be a polar bear.2.He arbitrarily gives a "noise" figure of atmospheric CO2 variation as 5gt, and equates this to an annual input to the atmosphere of 5gt from fossil fuel burning. His argument is that because this figure is the same level as the noise, it is unimportant. But this human contribution is an annual increase. Perhaps the industrial contribution to atmospheric CO2 of a single year might get lost in the noise, but the same argument cannot be applied to the continual addition of 5gt every year over a period of about 50 years!.3. He considers the relative effect of IR absorption of water and CO2 in the atmosphere and concludes that the effect of water is so great, the CO2 levels are unimportant. He claims that water is responsible for > 95% of radiative absorption. But the level of water he uses is the humidity in the lower atmosphere. He fails to take account of the atmosphere as a whole. In fact water vapour is only present in significant quantities for a quarter of the depth of the atmosphere that CO2 spreads to. What is more, it is the upper atmosphere, where the temperature drops, that is most important in the greenhouse effect.If you come across any more sites like these and you want to know the truth about the arguments, I suggest you go to the http://www.realclimate.org/ site. this site is run by climatologists actively working in the field, though far be it from me to suggest that climatologists are the best people to comment on the climate. there is a discussion on professor Essenhigh's contribution to the debate there. I notice that Professor Essenhigh is professor of "Energy Conversion" at Ohio State University. Gary tells us that the qualifications of anyone commenting on global warming do not matter, so it won't matter if I mention this.-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Seegers [mailto:xingu1306@...]
Sent: 28 February 2007 00:20
To: Bob Lerwill; Free_Energy@...
Subject: Re: [free_energy] One final point on Mr Novak's siteBob,I take it that this is the page/link on the 17000 scientists you meant:And here is the link you can send your reply to on the Global Warming item, although it is not Mr. Novak: