bttt
Will Mikey Mann be helping to help promulgate this info from his new play Penn perch?
[Presidential Distinguished Professor
Director of Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media]
https://earth.sas.upenn.edu/people/michael-mann
So a trace gas doesn’t actually drive the climate?
The study will be quickly labeled as a “crackpot theory based on faulty science” or some such thing, and whenever it is mentioned in the future, the left will scream that just mentioning it disqualifies the mentioner’s whole argument- it will be labeled as a “right wing misinformation campaign”
[[The anthropogenic global warming paradigm has a magnitude problem]]
Been saying this for over a decade now! There simply is nowhere near enougH co2 to change anything. Man’s contribution is 0.00136% co2 in the atmopshere- that is nowhere enough to blanket the earth in a thick blanket which wouod prevent heat from escaping. It would be akin to dumping 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water into an Olympic sized pool of 90 degree water and claiming that He 4 5 gallon pails has just caused “catastrophic warming” in the pool.
It doesn’t! It reaches equilibrium almost immediately because there is far too much 90 degree water, and nowhere near enough 100degree water being poured into the pool.
The climatE warming scam has a massive equilibrium problem
It’s nice to see it fi ally in print, but again, Clarke will be chastised and ostracized for daring to present the facts which destroy the asinine claim that “man is detrimentally changing the climate”
golly
This is exactly what I said twenty years ago — without all that mathy stuff...
Unfortunately, this is a paper uploaded at a website, not a peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal.
That said, I have yet to see any smoking gun evidence that carbon dioxide can possibly drive an increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperatures, and the mechanisms said to drive “climate change” are insufficient. Most of the publications regarding “climate change” (CC) or “global warming” (GW) only describe an experimental or empirical observation and then list “CC” or “GW” as a possible reason why. But, in terms of studies that show that CO2 actually increases the heat content of the air, I have yet to see anything.
CO2 has an unusually wide absorption band in the infrared portion of the spectrum. This means that it absorbs and emits light energy (i.e. fluoresces) over a span of many wavelengths. This process occurs within nanoseconds (billionths of seconds). The light emitted as fluorescence has lower energy than the light absorbed. The difference in energy is shed as heat. Since, in CO2, the entire process occurs within the IR portion of the spectrum—the heat portion—there is no net change of heat energy.
Many molecules are fluorescent within the visible (non-heat) portion of the spectrum. If anything, fluorescence of these molecules will increase heat because of that difference in energy between absorbed and emitted light. The difference of energy is shed as heat. Also, dark surfaces absorb more light and release the energy as heat.
The thing is, there is no property of CO2 which makes it a net producer of heat. None. But CO2 is a byproduct of industrial processes as well as of metabolism of living things. It is literally something we cannot live without.
Well alrighty then!
Have these clowns forgotten the amount of CO2 pumped into the upper atmosphere by Volcanoes? Mother Nature maintains a balance of the atmosphere by adjusting to anomalies that she produces herself. It just takes a while as it should.
It has been well known for a long time that water is opaque to “greenhouse” back-radiation (LWIR) from energized CO2 molecules. The warmists simply ignore this commonplace fact and proceed to pursue the con by other means; and the general media goes dutifully along.
This is wonderful news!
It will relieve the anxiety of so many! Long live gas powered cars!
“New research suggests that the sensitivity of the ocean latent heat flux to wind speed is about 15 W/m² per meter per second, and the solar daily flux varies from 1 to 2 megajoules per square meter per day (1-2 MJ m⁻² day−1).
In contrast, the total accumulated downward longwave flux to the surface from a 250-year CO2 concentration increase of 140 ppm is just 2 W/m², which translates to just 0.17 MJ m⁻² day−1.”
Yeah THAT!
How refreshing to read actual science that didn’t spring from a rigged algorithm.