Surgical anesthetic gases coming under fire for global warming potential – Only one problem: they haven’t been observed in the atmosphere

Surgical anesthetic gases coming under fire for global warming potential – Only one problem: they haven’t been observed in the atmosphere“. Another anti-science whine from Anthony Watts. A study of anesthetic gases concludes that they are extremely active in the atmosphere, but are present in such modest quantities that they have little practical impact.

This seems to fall under the “learning is a waste of time” category. How dare scientists investigate something and not discover a way to make cheaper cars? If you don’t know exactly what you’re going to discover, why bother?

Time for a taxpayer revolt! The commenters are concluding that this paper is trying to ban medical anesthetics so more people will die. This calls for a head-smack.

P.S. I love the paper’s atmospheric radiance chart that Anthony reproduces. It unequivocally shows the “greenhouse effect”. Which doesn’t exist.

Oh, that greenhouse effect. From Andersen, 2010. Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change.

A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II

A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II. Denialist Jeff Id from “the Air Vent” tries to explain to the more enthusiastic followers of Anthony Watts’ blog why they shouldn’t make themselves look foolish defending Tom Vonk’s recent imaginative foray into radiative physics.

My statement is – CO2 does create a warming effect in the lower atmosphere.

Horrors! But the usual escape hatch is attached:

Before that makes you scream at the monitor, I’ve not said anything about the magnitude or danger or even measurability of the effect. I only assert that the effect is real, is provable, it’s basic physics and it does exist.

Lasers and canisters of CO2 explain it all. Source: WUWT figure 7.

After some simple-minded talk about lasers and canisters of gases Jeff declares that “NONE of this should create any alarm” and says that perhaps “CO2 then, can be considered nothing but plant food”. And of course we all must be reminded why the “true and high quality results from Anthony’s surfacestations project [is] so critically important.”

CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view

CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view. Tom Vonk, “Physicist”, engages in some wishful thinking to prove that CO2 is not responsible for heating the atmosphere. If you look at a small enough quantity of atmospheric gases in just the right way, and ignore the rest of the field of radiative physics that is. It’s always a bad sign when an arm-waving pet theory that start with “intuitively”.

So what is responsible for heating the atmosphere? Oh, that’s a question for another day.

Vonk’s conclusion?

The main point is that every time you hear or read that “CO2 heats the atmosphere”, that “energy is trapped by CO2”, that “energy is stored by green house gases” and similar statements, you may be sure that this source is not to be trusted for information about radiation questions.

Oh, I se. This is just an exercise in training denialists to stop reading “warmist” statements as soon as the science begins.

When the educated commenters, including Dr. Roy Spencer and even Steven Goddard, take a big step back from Vonk’s claims in the comments you know this post ain’t earning any Nobel prizes.

Most of the comments are, of course, of the hilariously oblivious wild praise variety. And that’s what counts, right?

Venus Envy

Venus Envy“. Steve Goddard tries once more to explain how Venus’s surface temperature is strictly the result of atmospheric pressure. Um, nope.

Steve’s confused about transient temperature changes that occur with changes in pressure. Like a good denialist he’s clinging to this belief in spite of clear explanations of why he’s wrong.