Study: CO2 Molecules Have Little Consequential Impact On Outgoing Radiation; + Climate Change ‘Benefits’ Removed From Geography Course
Study: CO2 Molecules Have Little Consequential Impact On Outgoing Radiation
Recent research suggests carbon dioxide molecules have little consequential impact on outgoing radiation, and that today’s climate models assign fundamentally erroneous global temperature effects to CO2.
Russian physicists (Smirnov and Zhilyaev, 2021) had their peer-reviewed paper published in the Advances in Fundamental Physics Special Issue for the journal Foundations.
After a detailed assessing of the role of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, they assert: “w”e have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”
Key points from the paper:
1. Climate model calculations of CO2’s impact on global temperatures are in error by a factor of 5 as a result of “ignoring, in climatological models, the fundamental Kirchhoff law” which says radiators are “simultaneously the absorbers.”
2. Change in the concentration of an optically active atmospheric component (like CO2) “would not lead to change in the outgoing radiative flux.”
3. CO2 molecules “are not the main radiator of the atmosphere.” Water vapor molecules are, and thus they “may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth.”
The discrepancy between the greenhouse gas effect of water vapor molecules relative to CO2 has been addressed elsewhere: Lightfoot and Mamer (2014) and (2017) suggest that water molecules are a) 29 times more abundant in the atmosphere and 1.6 times more effective at warming than CO2 molecules are; b) water vapor accounts for 96 percent of the total radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases; and c) doubling CO2 concentrations to 550 ppm would only result in a global temperature increase of 0.33C.
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming can blindly dismiss these findings all they want, but what they show, at the very least, is that the science is far from settled. The term ‘consensus’ is one used to rally the misinformed and browbeat weak politicians. In reality though, the science is still very much out on global warming–and that’s me being generous. However, without an open and honest review of the literature, the masses will remain in the dark, forever fearful of a hypothesized future.
Climate Change ‘Benefits’ Removed From Geography Course
Once upon a time there were at least two sides to any story, but those days are dead. A UK exams body will no longer ask pupils to give explanations on the “positive” effects of climate change.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) made the update to the National 5 Geography course following pressure from the Scottish Green Party.
The decision was welcomed by the greens, which said young people “need to be equipped with the skills and knowledge” to tackle the existential issue that is global heating.
The SQA said they “recognize the importance” of including references to reflect “the emergency we are facing”.
The previous geography course document gave examples of the benefits of climate change, such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”. But the exam board couldn’t grapple with the idea that warmth could be good, and claimed to have worked with “experienced geography teachers to ensure the new wording is clear and appropriate”.
‘Geography teachers‘…?
Analyzing ALL sides/perspective/theories is the key to acquiring knowledge, which is why my children are homeschooled.
Just a comment on the weather in mid east coast of Australia.
Spring is here. First citrus trees are flowering as are the jasmine vines (just noticed today). It is all very ordinary/same weather. Same max temp each day around mid 20’s. As usual the dry period is well entrenched. And as usual by mid Aug every year our split system solar hot water now heats via the sun without any electric boosting. This always coincides with global solar radiation of => 18 MJ/m2 at local met station.
No, honey, you will die because you are a stupid member of the climate cult.
TS Franklen forecast as hurricane off E coast US headed for Greenland and producing six feet of new snow there. Franklen drawing up a TS headed for Florida and into the Atlantic to become a hurricane. The models vary and will further modify as we get more solar activity which there will be because Saturn, Earth and moon, Venus, and Mercury all line up with the Sun next week!!!!
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/atlantic/2023/tropical-storm-franklin
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?gust,2023090118,62.319,-40.364,5,i:pressure,m:fioaeM7
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?snowAccu,next10d,62.319,-40.364,5,i:pressure,m:ftCaeZe
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?sst,27.352,-79.255,5,i:pressure,m:erSadOk
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?temp,2023082918,43.229,-81.870,4,i:pressure,m:ez4adSu
Hurricane Katrina was from an X 17 solar flare there were 43 solar flares in 23 days. 18 years later most humans don’t know anything or give a crap about the solar storm hurricane connection: These storms push up your wavey jet stream the warm fronts have cold fronts same as it ever was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-SojmxW2Y
https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c3.gif
Very interesting youtube video, I’m really surprised this hasn’t been picked up by any climate sceptic blogs (as far as I’m aware). I’m sure there’s more to hurricane formation than just solar activity, e.g. the position of the tropical convergence zone and the pre existence of tropical waves and clusters of thunderstorms which is where hurricane initially form, but solar flares seem to be part of the jigsaw.
I watched the original clip back in 2015 but I’d already been watching solar activity and cyclones for four years day and night. I’ve been on here 2.5 years pointing out every event and was doing the same on Ice Age Now for 2,5 years till RF got the vax. Solar windstorms from coronal holes kick up the cyclones too not just flares it’s the increase in heat.
Sorry I didn’t recall your comments. The main blogs I read are http://www.notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com and http://www.climatechangedispatch.com and they haven’t picked up on it.
As a tremendous geography buff, I’m deeply insulted that the benefits of climate change/global warming are being eliminated from that geography course in Scotland.
I’m not if school geography courses ever looked at the benefits of CO2 fertilization and global greening. If they did no doubt this has now been removed in order to focus on the link between climate change and toxic masculinity/transphobia/systemic racism etc.
Sure would like someone to explain how this CO2 dome works. I would like to see the CO2 gradient as you go up in altitude. CO2 is a heavier than air gas. Think about it. Global warming Junk science is more like a landfill every day. There is an infinite supply of cold in the background of space. The sun is a finite pinpoint source of heat and is on the verge of plunging according to some of those qualified to make that assessment. If anyone has the pleasure of talking to Dr. Valentina Zharkova it would be telling to find out how many would leaders have asked for her assessment of future climate. In my opinion they don’t because they are fully aware we will be plunging into a modern cold period.
Here are the accepted chemical compositions of our nearest neighboring planets Mars and Venus. Now you tell me which list belongs to which planet>
A) 96% CO2, 3.5 % N2, <1% of the foloing AR, CO, SO2, and H2O,
B) 95% CO2, 2.8% N2, 1.6% Ar, and 0.13% O2
Don't forget that one is the example of runaway greenhouse effect and the other of runaway cooling. See the variable that matters is the density of the atmosphere. Heat is only held weakly in the atmosphere because gases generally have very low thermal coefficients (Ie ability to store heat compared to liquids or solids.) The overall density of the Earth's atmosphere isn't changing. thus neither is the climate due to chemical make-up. The Earth is for the most part a closed mass system except for the few projectiles we launch into space. for the record A is Venus while B is Mars; Venus is nearly 100 times the density of Earth's atmosphere while Mars's is about 1% as dense as the Earth.
CO2 molecule will be fairly well mixed in the atmosphere due to convection. There’s no doubt that they absorb certain wavelengths of outgoing infra red radiation and scatter it meaning that some of it returns to the surface and heats it up. In this sense the science is settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, up to a certain concentration. Beyond this amount, and I’m not sure if climate sceptic scientists fully agree on the exact concentration, the heating effect of any further increases in CO2 have a rapidly decreasing ability to cause further warming as pretty much all of the outgoing IR radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. The estimate of 0.33C or warming if CO2 levels reach double preindustrial levels seems perfectly reasonable to me.
August 24 and woke up to temp of 53 at 5am. Surprisingly some leaves are changing colors here in southern New England one full month early. I believe the last time I saw this was late 1970s. I’m curious to see what this winter brings.
The first dogwood to go red last year was harbinger for fall colors the 3rd week of Oct in East Tennessee, it changed more than a month before the colors hit at their once usual time. The year prior colors did not peak until fist week of November. This year the said dogwood is already going red much earlier than last year…so yes it will be interesting to see what happens next. I think the plants are attuned to solar cycles and cosmic ray flux changes they may “know” what is coming…maybe.
Well, it was 109 F in my part of Texas today. We’ve had triple digit temperatures every day since the last week of July (with the only break occurring this past Monday when we were 97 F). No rain for 45+ days. Anyone want to send some cooler temperatures down to us in the South, feel free
The real emergency is the unfolding Eddy Minimum, the third Grand Solar Minimum since the 1600 hundreds. The unfolding Eddy Minimum is expected to last into the 2050’s. The cold times are just beginning.
Notice that downward spike in the Greenland SMB!!!
That is very very erratic!!!
Any one have any meaning associated with it?
Dallas
Natural short term changes in the weather. At the minute there’s southerly winds over Greenland, probably because of a kink in the jet stream, bringing warm air from the subtropics and well above average temperatures. The southerly winds are also bringing a lot of moisture and the forecasts for Thursday and Friday are for a lot of snow so the SMB is likely to be positive for the next few days.
From Norway ,bachelor from 2020.
Wolf minimum 1260 1350
Eddy 2020….
https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2775658/no.ntnu%3Ainspera%3A67960342%3A20970589.pdf?sequence=1
I cannot fathom how a concentration of 400ppm CO2 can have much effect on planet temperature. 400ppm or 4 molecules per 10000 air can be visually as an array of 100×100 or 10000 100w light bulbs with only 4 dimly lit.
Help, I just don’t see it.
Indeed, 400ppm atmospheric CO2 equates to 1 molecule of CO2 in every 2500 molecules of atmospheric gases (mostly nitrogen). Put all of those molecules in a line or disperse them in a cube, it is still is beyond plausibility that it would have any significant (other than minor) impact on global climate through IR radiation absorption and re-radiation. And that is accepting that CO2 does absorb IR radiation – there just ain’t anywhere near enough of it to have the warming effect ascribed to it. CO2 in off itself, in the absence of absorption, produces little if any exothermic heat. THE AGW argument is fundamentally flawed right at its foundations. The July heat the northern hemisphere experienced is not generated by CO2, it clearly came from the significant uptick in Solar activity that has occurred during this period – the heat has to come from somewhere and it ain’t from the 1 molecule in every 2500 of atmospheric CO2.
It may be hard to believe that CO2 can have any warming effect when there’s so little of it in the atmosphere, but up to a certain concentration it does. I don’t know of any climate sceptic scientist who will claim otherwise. Where the climate models are fundamentally flawed is that they assume a linear relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. In reality the narrow bands of IR radiation that CO2 absorbs rapidly become fully saturated at relatively low concentrations, so adding more has little or no effect on temperature.
Cat 4 typhoon forecast Philippines/Taiwan 153mph:
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/western-pacific/2023/tropical-storm-saola
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?gust,2023082615,17.780,123.915,6,i:pressure,m:d8zajBX
On a US Navy ship West Pacific 47 years ago we had no forecast models like these, we took weather reports every half hour wet/dry bulb barometer, wind speed, cloud cover and put it on the weather log. No weather sats No internet. I saw green water go all the way over the flight towers of aircraft carriers. Tore our radar off at 147 feet high. Ever drive a ship through a typhoon? Howsabout a tug boat Gulf of Alaska towing two 500 foot long barges loaded with train cars waves coming over the ship for days no weather sats, no internet, no TV, intermittent two way radio squawking all night keeping the bow into the wind going up and down 60 feet every 20 seconds like a yoyo. Weeeee. Nice to be on dry land watching cyclones on weather sats and solar flares on my ICUTV here on easy street;) where it’s hot and dry here no sign of the onset of rapid global cooling from GSM praying my well don’t go dry. Total burn ban here no BBQs whole place is a tinderbox miles and miles of dry forest haven’t had a cool summer for eleven years. Dry La Ninas last three no cooling forecast any time soon.
)
Go Navy!!!
Thanks for the SMB info!!!
Interesting Tree Color info. Clif High says this will be a “Brutal Winter”.
SW Florida – SHARP Drop in pre-dawn temps with Sky temp 32 F!!! Air Temp 64.
The Sky temp taken with infrared gun pointed straight up moved around until I get the lowest has been reading in the mid-upper forties. 14 Degree drop is significant cooling. Now I don’t have to mow as much as the grass won’t grow as fast!!!
The air temp has held steady at 70 F for most of Aug, In past years it would not drop below 72 F until much later say October/Nov. Last year 2022 Nov 2nd it was 74 F then dropped into the 60 F range. That is drop 9 Weeks early!!!
Stay Warm!!!
I don’t see why you think the “sky temperature” is significant, other than something to post about.
I looked up the definition and it’s what you’d expect: The higher the altitude, the colder the temperatures.
People don’t live 6 miles up, most, along with most weather, live at sea level to a mile or so above.
Unless you are contending that your “sky temps” are descending abnormally in a way not previously done and are thus cooling the earth, what’s the point?
The girl holding the sign that says “…WE’LL DIE OF CLIMATE CHANGE” may be correct.
But from cold, not from heat.
A message for that banner carrier! “You Kids, with your Marxist teachers, will die of Ignorance. Us Oldies will live to see the Ice Age.”
Hello Jay,
These “Sky” Temps are something I came up with to track the trend that is somewhat reliable. As my altitude stays the same, about 10 feet above Sea Level, it would not change so you got me interested in what is my highest sky temp? I have been concentrating on the coldest, so what is my highest? There is a 68F on 3rd Feb 2023 and a 66 F on 14th Aug 23 that stand out. So on 3rd Feb all three temps were the same. Now the coldest was MINUS -54 F on 30 Jan 2022 followed by a MINUS -38 F the next day. So ALTITUDE has NOTHING to do with it.
Let somebody in the mountains take some readings for comparison.
One might ask “How the hell do you get a sky temp of MINUS -54 F at sea level in SW Florida?” Seems this might be a point to start an investigation.
What peaked my interest in this was an article about how people in Peru in the mountains would freeze ice on their rooftops at night even though the air temp did not drop below freezing, even at 35 F. I did not find that article, but I did find this one: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/252638/how-does-frost-form-above-freezing-temperature ”
“On a cold evening, the sky may have a radiation temperature of -40.”
As the Climate Change people all consider we are warming it seemed to me that taking the sky temp might give an indication of the rate of loss of heat. So I shot the infrared gun to the sky in the pre-dawn hours so sun heating would be eliminated as a factor. The physics idea is the sky acts as a black body that absorbs heat so it cools. Now we get a measurement of exactly how much when tending towards a more scientific investigation of the phenomena.
My personal opinion is that it has more to do with humidity than anything else.
For instance, the day back in Feb all three temps, sky, radiating body to the sky, (my GND ground temp) and the Air temp (in the air under cover protected from radiative forcing) were the exact same temp. I recorded a “Light Fog and Mist” that morning also. So the fog temp permeated everything.
Now you may have heard that we have a hurricane just north of Cuba this morning headed north towards the Florida panhandle. The last four days of sky temp show an increasing trend of 32F-35F-37F-48F. So it appears we may have an increase in humidity effected sky temp. I am not sure a ground humidity would reflect this as my sky temp is measuring an average temp of the entire column of air above it.
Notice the last jump was 11 Degrees F in one day. A jump of this size has been a reliable indicator of rain in the next 24-48 hours. This most certainly will occur per our forecast models this week. But it has worked that way with no hurricanes as well.
Now one of our problems is I find NO ONE else has thought to buy a $30 infrared gun, step out at 5 AM in the morning to point it to the sky and see what it says for their area. I would appreciate someone not that lazy that would get up at 4 AM, not that cheap that would spend $30 and curious enough to see if the sky has been hiding information from us all this time. Are You that Person???
By the way, it is said among the UFO community that if you spend $3-4,000 for the very best infrared binoculars you can see plenty of UFOs in the night sky. Now I will pardon anyone NOT spending that kind of money just to satisfy a brief bit of curiosity, but $30 dollars, c’mon man!!!
Thank you very much for your comment as two communication will resolve barriers!!!
Dallas
http://www.redneckbillionaires.com
The main energy flow and storage is from the Sun to the oceans and from the oceans to the atmosphere. The Sun warms the oceans and it takes 50-100 years for the oceans to circulate and they accumulate heat during that time. The oceans are warmer that the atmosphere so the colder atmosphere can’t warm the oceans as is claimed.
The Environmentalists are the reason so many people are using fossil fuels. They pressured the governments into getting rid of nuclear reactors, the only alternative, at that time, was fossil fuel. By this time, we would have cheaper energy and little CO2. The Sun has been sending more energy to the Earth for the the last 50 years. That is warming the oceans, which are warmer that the air and warm the air. What the solution is, they claim, is green energy, solar and wind. Those are both intermittent energy sources. Solar doesn’t work at night or when it is cloudy. The wind is minimal when a high-pressure system is over the windmill. That happens often. They sometimes get stuck for weeks. That would mean no energy gets produced at night when a high-pressure system is present. Solar cells need cobalt, that is mainly produced by mines in the Congo in Africa. It may become a supporter of China and/or Russia and raise the price, through the roof or stop selling to the West. The environmentalist are the reason so many people are using fossil fuel. They pressured the governments into getting rid of nuclear reactors around the world and the only alternative at that time was fossil fuel. By this time we would have cheaper energy and little CO2, although the Sun has been sending more energy to the Earth for the the last 50 years. What the solution is, they claim, is green energy, solar and wind. Those are both intermittent energy sources. Solar doesn’t work at night or when it is cloudy. The wind is minimal when a high pressure system is over the windmill and that happens often and they sometimes get stuck for weeks. That would mean no energy gets produced at night when a high pressure system is present. Solar need cobalt and that is mainly produced by mines in the Congo in Africa. It may become a supporter of China or Russia and raise the price through the roof.