When I was an active engineer I used to do back-of-the-envelope (BOE)analyses to check the output of large computer simultions. Often errors in the simulations were revealed. Once I needed to set design parameters immediately, but the results of the computer simulation would not be available for a year. I based the design on BOE analysis, and a year later the computer simulation found that the design was less than 3% of f of the optimum. Regarding global warming I see that Al Gore's buddies in the inherently corrupt UN's IPCC expect huge temperature increases in the future based on projections made with Global Circulation Models (which are large computer simulations). Others who don't agree with the IPCC project more modest temperature increases of maybe 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) due to large increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. I decided to try a BOE anaysis to see what I would project. CO2 absorbs radiation at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns based on my missile design handbook. The attenuation of radiant energy in the atmosphere is about 2 dB/km at 2.7 micron, 30 dB/km at 4.3 micron, and 1 dB/km at 15 micron. Based on this, the atmosphere is currently absorbing all of the energy at 2.7 and 4.3 micron, and about 80% at 15 micron. (For a body at 520 degrees R, ie. 60 degrees F, there is not much energy radiated at the shorter wavelengths, but there is a significant amount at 15 micron. The wavelength of maximum radiant energy can be computed from this equation:

[wavelength in microns]*[temperature in degrees R] = 5215.6

so the maximum emission for Earth at 520 R is at about 10 microns)

The result is that a dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could only cause the absorption of an additional 20% of the energy radiated at about 15 micron. I calculated the amount radiated between 14.5 and 15.5 microns, which is about the interval indicated for CO2 absorption in my missile design handbook Based on that, the Earth's average temperature could go up slightly less than 1 F. This approach ignores the effect of evaporation and convection from the Earth's surface, which could reduce this temperature increase to some extent.

I think that at least some of the climate modelers agree with this assessmment of the impact of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but expect some other "forcing" to provide the additional increase in surface temperature. One of these forcings is a predicted increase in water vapor in the atmosphere due to the slight temperature increase due to the increased CO2 concentration. (Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.) There is vague talk about other forcings but I haven't been able to tell what these are. Presumably these are changes in albedo (ie, reflected sunlight) due to icecaps melting, changes in cloud cover and other phenomena like changes in wind velocity.

There are some problems with the global warming hypothesis that are beginning to show up, such as the temperature now being about the same as it was in 1979 despite a 35% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapor in the air is not following the script, the models do a poor job of predicting cloud cover and wind, and, despite melting of ice in the artic, the icecaps in Greenland and in the Antarctic are growing. It appears that no one is calling the IPCC to account for the failure of their projections to come true, and you are an evil fascist if you mention it. Instead the politicians are charging full steam ahead to get their program in place before everyone realizes that global warming is not happening. I notice that Al Gore's supporters now talk about "climate change" instead of global warmimg. They blame any unusual weather on climate change, even though there have always been unusual weather events. This works because the timescale of climate is much longer than the life of any individual, and is in fact much longer than the period for which we have reliable records, which is only about 100 years. Recent flooding in Great Britain was cited as being the worst in history, no doubt due to CO2 buldup in the atmosphere. Then someone checked and found that flooding was much worse back in 1875.

It is clear that the global warming story is based on politics rather than science. The politicians have marginalized the scientists who support the theory but not the cataclysmic warming Al Gore preaches, and are attempting to silence those who disagree with the hypothesis. We now have a situation similar to what the ancients experienced; high priests who claim to know secrets others are not privy to are demanding sacrifices to appease the gods. The ancients only wanted to kill a few babies or virgins; Al Gore wants to put modern civilization back into a dark age. It is a sad situation.