I'm a simple aging engineer with a morbid interest in the world in general. Fundamentally, could you please explain/debunk the following to secure required support for the real climate change -
1. Dry air - molecular weight is roughly 30g/mol; wet (moist/humid) air is MADE LIGHTER (LESS DENSE) by the addition of water vapour
CO2 is heavier than dry air, even heavier than moist air H2O = 18g/mol; CO2 = 44g/mol;
as more water is added, wet air gets less dense; causing CO2 to settle faster on the ground -> if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then it is sitting on the earths surface only, not in the atmosphere. The upper atmosphere can only be mostly dry and wet air and lighter gases.
What are the meaurements by composition of CO2 at various higher altitudes?
2. Because of the obvious weight and density differences of the gases, there would be a stratification (subject to turbulences) of the biosphere. With lighter elements at the top, heavier elements tending towards the ground. Hence water vapour still forms the most abundant first line of absorption; any CO2 related heat absorption occurs closer to the ground. What heating value is attributed to the various gases - namely CO2 and H2O? The absorption lines for H2O are far more numerous across the radiation spectrum than for CO2.
3. I suppose to keep it simple - just exactly how does more CO2 cause the temperature to rise? (and without reference to a confined space greenhouse like a neighbour might have in his back yard) - CO2 sources and sinks are numerous in the real world.
4. The process of CO2 entrapment in ice - the ice core data showing changing levels of CO2 over thousands of years a. CO2 is heavier than air and much heavier than wet air, it sits on the ground b. CO2 gets trapped in failling ice/snow falling to the ground c. as the snow builds up, it compacts into ice, trapping the heavy CO2 (with other particulates etc in the snow) d. layer after layer of ice/snow increases trapping more CO2, in the end becoiming bubbles in ice
It would make sense then that higher levels of CO2 would trap more CO2 faster as CO2 rises. Have you conducted any CO2 mass flows? How are you convinced CO2 is a biosphere greenhouse gas given the atmosphere is not like a small modelled greenhouse at all.
5. Ground based solar radio flux measurements show very high variations in solar flux over the last 70 years. What has been allowed for/accounted for exogenous solar irradiance variations as contributing to the change in atmospheric temperature?
6. What is the assessment of the SORCE Solar Spectral Irradiance measurements since commencing in 2003 showing varying changes of up to 1% reductions in high power radiation since 2003? Temperature changes on earth are a direct result of changes in radiation at the source - the solar radiation has been varying (without measurement) for millions of years. (http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html)
7. What is the effect on temperatures due to - a. 1% increase or decrease in the Suns solar radiation levels at various wavelengths b. 1 degree rotation about the axis of the earths poles c. the Milankovic cycle of earths solar orbit? d. solar sun spots/solar winds on the chemical composition of the atmosphere e. absorption spectra of all the various gases known to exist in the atmosphere
8. Like the apparently worthy CFC (chloroflourocarbons) campaign, what nasty elements/compounds should not be commercially exploited or released on mass to the atmosphere that does more harm chemically than CO2 does for temperature?
9. Accepting all other reasonable and moral arguments 'for' climate change - explain why ANY Government should have to fund anything at all? Why is private enterprise not taking the case of environmental rehabilitation entirely on it's own?
