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.

Please help keep Electroverse online, consider becoming a Patreon.
Become a patron at Patreon!