Because lying is what they do best. About everything. It one tells you it's raining, check for yourself. If one tells you it's sunny, check for yourself. If one tells you they're male, check...well, maybe you shouldn't do that. 😉😊😋
Yes, the line, "climate scientists are baffled," means how can we change our story and still be right? Rather than accept they were wrong they always concoct further ridiculous explanations to maintain the lie.
None of the climate scientists that i know of have been the least bit baffled by this for over 50 years, once the aeroplane was invented and studies on the upper atmospheric layers could be done. In fact they make videos showing how this repeat of a 100 year old experiment on surface CO2 doesn't in any way debunk that co2 causes climate change. It's those who want to claim that climate change isn't real or isn't anthropogenic who are getting themselves into all sorts of confusing knots. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/more-evidence-that-health-freedom
One of the main greenhouse gases is water vapor, not CO2. Watch the video of the Hunga Tonga volcano putting enough water into the atmosphere to fill 58000 olympic swimming pools. Makes man's contributions seem like nothing. https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/ I can see that jet contrials can effect weather as they fill the blue skies with particulates that block the skies but I don't believe it's the CO2 from the exhaust that is the problem.
Ah the left is it! Take a look at the facts of atmospheric science that have been discovered since your painting a barn theory was first introduced 100 years ago. Looks like the world view of the right is built on out of date data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBDMeuHq_U&t=2s
I watched both video's, well done. You mentioned the quality and lack of good temperature data a few times, and statistical analysis/evidence demonstrates the temperature data is poor and/or corrupted, if I understood correctly. This is an area that needs more research to slowly tear down climate emergency BS. I have heard Willie Soon, make similar statements about the data in recent months.
Videos are nice, agreed, but hard copy, paper-based media aka ‘reading’ is what we will have to get used to, because they are orchestrating control over us via all our devices and online activity…
This myth relies on the use (or in fact misuse) of a particular word – 'saturated'. When someone comes in from a prolonged downpour, they may well exclaim that they are saturated. They cannot imagine being any wetter. That's casual usage, though.
In science, 'saturated' is a strictly-defined term. For example, in a saturated salt solution, no more salt will dissolve, period. But what's that got to do with heat transfer in Earth's atmosphere?
Heat-trapping by CO2 in the atmosphere happens because it has the ability to absorb and pass on infra-red radiation – it is a 'greenhouse gas'. Infra-red is just one part of the electromagnetic spectrum, divided by physicists into a series of bands. From the low-frequency end of the spectrum upwards, the bands are as follows: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. Gamma rays thus have a very high-frequency. They are the highest-energy form of radiation.
As our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum developed, it was realised that the radiation consists of particles called 'photons', travelling in waves. The term was coined in 1926 by the celebrated physicist Gilbert Lewis (1875-1946). A photon's energy is related to its wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy, so that the very high-energy gamma-rays have the shortest wavelength of the lot.
Sunshine consists mostly of ultraviolet, visible light and infra-red photons. Objects warmed by the sun then re-emit energy photons at infra-red wavelengths. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 has the ability to absorb infra-red photons. But CO2 is unlike a mop, which has to be wrung out regularly in order for it to continue working. CO2 molecules do not get filled up with infra-red photons. Not only do they emit their own infra-red photons, but also they are constantly colliding with neighbouring molecules in the air. The constant collisions are important. Every time they happen, energy is shared out between the colliding molecules.
Through those emissions and collisions, CO2 molecules constantly warm their surroundings. This goes on all the time and at all levels in the atmosphere. You cannot say, “CO2 is saturated because the surface-emitted IR is rapidly absorbed”, because you need to take into account the whole atmosphere and its constant, ongoing energy-exchange processes. That means taking into account all absorption, all re-emission, all collisions, all heating and cooling and all eventual loss to space, at all levels.
If the amount of radiation lost to space is equal to the amount coming in from the Sun, Earth is said to be in energy balance. But if the strength of the greenhouse effect is increased, the amount of energy escaping falls behind the amount that is incoming. Earth is then said to be in an energy imbalance and the climate heats up. Double the CO2 concentration and you get a few degrees of warming: double it again and you get a few more and on and on it goes. There is no room for complacency here. By the time just one doubling has occurred, the planet would already be unrecognisable. The insulation analogy in the myth is misleading because it over-simplifies what happens in the atmosphere.
when Placing an insulator between the heat source and the thermometer
wouldn't the effect mostly be seen during the night so the average would move up solely because the nighttime lows are higher (but the daytime highs will be lower)?
I'd put forward that the "excess" temperature of the planet's atmosphere is controlled by the pressure, so basically the more atmosphere the higher the "excess" surface temperature, and what is that change? Water Vapour. Water forms clouds which then block more solar evaporation of seawater, so basically the amount of cloud over water lowers the "excess" temp. i.e. the topology of the sea, land and wind controls the long term change.
It is well understood that water vapor and clouds are two of the dominant factors controlling the earth's temperature, I do not think this is disputed by anyone, even the IPCC. However, the IPCC tells us that the a small change in the energy exchange between the earth and space from C02 is enough to cause a climate emergency. To put this hypothesis into context, the energy exchange impact due to C02 is tiny relative to the effect of clouds, I can't remember the exact percentage but believe it is like 1%. The inability of the models to reasonably account for the energy exchange from clouds is a big problem, to the extent that believing that we can account for the meniscal effect of C02 is hard to comprehend. Anyways, this is the state of science, all for the "Greater Good", to hell with the rest.
My final point. It's also a really good thing that absorption by Co2 is dependent on wavelength and slows down. "The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it’s the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2. And it’s a good thing it does. You can show that if the transmission decayed exponentially, as it would if the absorption factor were independent of wavelength, then doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by about 50 degrees C instead of 2 to 4 degrees (which is plenty bad enough, once you factor in that warming is greater over land vs. ocean and at high Northern latitudes).
You again. Wrong about excess deaths and wrong about saturation physics of Co2 (you gotta take into account all levels of the atmosphere)-a 100 year old argument that was debunked over half a century ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBDMeuHq_U&t=2s keeping the discourse 70 years behind the science. What a drag.
Just an observation: Doesnt CO2 feed plant life, which gives back oxygen, which allows the world to breathe? And that’s 5th grade science on photosynthesis. Sheesh what has happened to the people of the world? Are they all smoking dope and joining the “New Age Movement”. Must be leftest tree huggers controlling government these days. Talk about backwards thinkers.
Paul, your reply has more relevance to the entire mess the West finds itself in, than all previous comments. I allude to the 'education' system now foisted upon us.
Thank you. But, it is exhausting to live in a world where most of what I'm told is a lie of some sort. Irrational premises are established by authority, promoted across the Media, and the accepted by an unquestioning population. These "Irrational Factoids", become rooted in the foundation of our culture and even our Knowledge. Questioning these "Facts" becomes Heresy, so the whole structure is built on a rotten foundation. Mankind is lucky that this is mainly confined to The West, because civilization could not survive if it was global.
Seems your 5th grade science missed the important parts; rapid absorption of surface infra red by co2 is only a small part of the issue and there's also the use (or in fact misuse) of a particular word – 'saturated'. When someone comes in from a prolonged downpour, they may well exclaim that they are saturated. They cannot imagine being any wetter.
In science, 'saturated' is a strictly-defined term. For example, in a saturated salt solution, no more salt will dissolve, period. But what's that got to do with heat transfer in Earth's atmosphere?
Heat-trapping by CO2 in the atmosphere happens because it has the ability to absorb and pass on infra-red radiation – it is a 'greenhouse gas'. Infra-red is just one part of the electromagnetic spectrum, divided by physicists into a series of bands. From the low-frequency end of the spectrum upwards, the bands are as follows: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. Gamma rays thus have a very high-frequency. They are the highest-energy form of radiation.
As our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum developed, it was realised that the radiation consists of particles called 'photons', travelling in waves. The term was coined in 1926 by the celebrated physicist Gilbert Lewis (1875-1946). A photon's energy is related to its wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy, so that the very high-energy gamma-rays have the shortest wavelength of the lot.
Sunshine consists mostly of ultraviolet, visible light and infra-red photons. Objects warmed by the sun then re-emit energy photons at infra-red wavelengths. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 has the ability to absorb infra-red photons. But CO2 is unlike a mop, which has to be wrung out regularly in order for it to continue working. CO2 molecules do not get filled up with infra-red photons. Not only do they emit their own infra-red photons, but also they are constantly colliding with neighbouring molecules in the air. The constant collisions are important. Every time they happen, energy is shared out between the colliding molecules.
Through those emissions and collisions, CO2 molecules constantly warm their surroundings. This goes on all the time and at all levels in the atmosphere. You cannot say, “CO2 is saturated because the surface-emitted IR is rapidly absorbed”, because you need to take into account the whole atmosphere and its constant, ongoing energy-exchange processes. That means taking into account all absorption, all re-emission, all collisions, all heating and cooling and all eventual loss to space, at all levels.
If the amount of radiation lost to space is equal to the amount coming in from the Sun, Earth is said to be in energy balance. But if the strength of the greenhouse effect is increased, the amount of energy escaping falls behind the amount that is incoming. Earth is then said to be in an energy imbalance and the climate heats up. Double the CO2 concentration and you get a few degrees of warming: double it again and you get a few more and on and on it goes. There is no room for complacency here. By the time just one doubling has occurred, the planet would already be unrecognisable. The insulation analogy in the myth is misleading because it over-simplifies what happens in the atmosphere.
Yeah, I dunno. It seems to me there was a lot more plant life say 2000 years ago and probably just as many cows and other animals flatulating all over the place. None of that seemed to bother the earth. I think you geniuses think you know what you are talking about but are guessing all the time. We done need any more problems. We need solutions that will benefit us and our world. You need to be a part of the solution not a Raving lunatic left wingnut spouting tree hugger “the sky is falling” rhetoric. Because that is all the left is good at.
I beg to differ. We had a lot more plant life around to absorb CO2 centuries ago. Much of it has been cut down over the years. Trees and plants are an oxygen manufacturing machines. At night they feed on CO2. During the day they take in sunlight and emit oxygen for our benefit. Tree huggers and new age gurus want to cull the population and will think of any way to get control of our resources and then use them against us. They’ve even gone so far as tell people they can’t collect rain water. What they really want is power and control over each and every one of us. Stand your ground. Tell the libtards you’re not listening anymore to their foolishness.
While it may be true that CO2 can become saturated, the real question--the only question--is, "Can the wallets of people who receive grants because of climate studies become saturated?" If not, then such findings as this will have no long-term effects on the lunacy. #LatherRinseRepeat #FollowTheMoney
What rational people have known for years...is it finally going mainstream? I've been watching the vendetta against CO2 for decades, wondering when the myth of catastrophic warming would crack. Maybe that time is upon us.
To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government.
This Orwell 1984 T is perfect for these times: t.co/EKkMWeTAPG
I see no evidence that "Global Warming" is occurring?
30 years ago Al Gore et al, got on this 'very profitable' bandwagon and rode it to wealth and fame?
Governments quickly saw the opportunity and joined the fray.
Canada is a perfect example: Every level of government has their "Climate/Carbon" taxes and levies, and most of the money collected is subject to Fraud???
Typical Communism: The "Productivity" is actually shrinking now and so is the number of Productive people! The Middle Class will implode with a damp pop. There is no reward!
The next CO2 doubling over say 100 years causes 0.5°C increase & then nothing after that, that's if the overall effect of atmospheric CO2 is warming - there's actually no real world evidence for that though.
They are not baffled. They understand it is true but simply ignore it to allow the globalists’ climate change hoax to continue on its sorry way, leading us to impoverishment and deindustrialisation.
The biggest “climate change” factor is all the shit they’re chem trailing into the skies everywhere. O the irony that they bleat about natural phenomenon like CO2 & temperature variations while they shoot poison into the air to fall to earth & poison land, water, plants, animals, insects & us….
Sorry Joel, but this it is utter nonsense, however the saturation point maybe real (????) BUT THE FUNDEMENTAL science and engineering data proves that HIGHER TEMPERATURES cause higher CO2 levels and not higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures. Where do higher temps come to us - from the effing Sun.
What you say may be true but it’s also true that, ceteris paribus, increased concentration of CO2 can cause warming. The question of how much is therefore entirely relevant. The answer - given by this, plus eg Denis R’s work - is not that much.
But all other factors being equal (sorry, ceteris paribus) is not the case is it ?. People seem to forget that plant life thrives off CO2 and records show (according to our history) that Co2 levels on this planet have been up to 6,000 ppm....
I am not arguing, I am just saying. I do not believe in manmade climate change - well how it is defined and described anyway, but as a Chemical Engineer - I do know the relationship between temperature and CO2.
Yes this shows the repetition of the 100 year old experiment on the absorption properties of Co2 at surface atmosphere level. However, this isn't the only way that co2 increases temperature- molecules also emit photons themselves and collide with other molecules in other layers and make energy go further before it can escape, all of which causes more heat. There doesn't seem to be any evidence yet that increasing co2 and increasing heat will plateau anytime soon, if ever.
Baffled, I know you are being sarcastic as CO2 saturation is a fundamental principle of the greenhouse effect but I am afraid some may not get your sarcasm
It is the perfect hoax, no way to test if the hypothesis is correct. Just keep repeating the science is settle and shut down anybody that has a different hypothesis. Check out this video by Dr. Happer, he has been trying to explain CO2 saturation and why there is little warming affect left in the tank.
OH, It could be tested. But, there is no incentive for any academic institution to ever do it.
If they even began, all government funding would evaporate instantly! Regulations would be put in place to block any progress,,,,,,,And "If" the researchers managed to complete the experiment and found no link between CO2 and Global Warming.........Then there is always 'Burning at the stake....For Heresy?? Look what happened to Julian Assange~
This information will never see the light of day. The authors will never be given another Government grant to study anything. They will be ridiculed in their professional societies and their credentials will be stripped.
Totally get the sentiment. However...I'm more and more thinking that as we change our language to what we DO want instead of what we don't want, the resulting energetic force toward what we want will strengthen more and more. Even such a simple changes as, "It's wonderful to see this information in this post and to imagine every nook and cranny that this light will spread into from here." (vs xxx will never xxx...) You get the drift...
It's got the light of day though hasn't it? Published in peer review. The authors are employed by the Warsaw University of Military Technology. They are doing what their employers in the Military Industrial complex want. They'll be just fine.
"Climate scientists around the world are baffled by this discovery."
I wonder why.
It is very well-known that the relationship between absorption of photons of a particular energy level and concentration is logarithmic, this is clear from the accepted statement that the each incremental increase in temperature requires a doubling of the concentration, so it is inevitable that the absorption curve rapidly becomes asymptotic.
That is not advanced mathematics, very basic in fact.
2 things David; 1) it's not a new discovery (it was first observed over 100 years ago) and 2) climate scientists are of course not baffled by it because they've known about it for this long. They've also understood, for over 50 years, that though absorption levels of at the surface layer may have plateaued- not only is there plenty more room in the higher layers for more Co2 and more warming the interactions between the co2 molecules in the different levels also creates heat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBDMeuHq_U&t=1s
I applied this saturation physics to climate in 2011, here: https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect/mode/1up
"Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect"
Facts and reality do not matter to the left. You lose every time by only using facts. Their whole world view is built upon lies.
Because lying is what they do best. About everything. It one tells you it's raining, check for yourself. If one tells you it's sunny, check for yourself. If one tells you they're male, check...well, maybe you shouldn't do that. 😉😊😋
Yes, the line, "climate scientists are baffled," means how can we change our story and still be right? Rather than accept they were wrong they always concoct further ridiculous explanations to maintain the lie.
None of the climate scientists that i know of have been the least bit baffled by this for over 50 years, once the aeroplane was invented and studies on the upper atmospheric layers could be done. In fact they make videos showing how this repeat of a 100 year old experiment on surface CO2 doesn't in any way debunk that co2 causes climate change. It's those who want to claim that climate change isn't real or isn't anthropogenic who are getting themselves into all sorts of confusing knots. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/more-evidence-that-health-freedom
One of the main greenhouse gases is water vapor, not CO2. Watch the video of the Hunga Tonga volcano putting enough water into the atmosphere to fill 58000 olympic swimming pools. Makes man's contributions seem like nothing. https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/ I can see that jet contrials can effect weather as they fill the blue skies with particulates that block the skies but I don't believe it's the CO2 from the exhaust that is the problem.
Ah the left is it! Take a look at the facts of atmospheric science that have been discovered since your painting a barn theory was first introduced 100 years ago. Looks like the world view of the right is built on out of date data. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBDMeuHq_U&t=2s
Nice going, Denis!
You don't mean to say that Carl Sagan was lying in his testimony to Congress???..........LOL
But then, he wasn't a very good prognosticator for Space travel either........D
You need to make a video for those that don't like the reading. :)
Yup, here is part one of a two-hour lecture that I gave in 2015:
https://youtu.be/A-uY3tuV3yw?si=knTdAlPFPLI2MsOz
Part two:
https://youtu.be/B3mnSnkgM4s?si=ddnwgIOhAQ5OhLUf
I watched both video's, well done. You mentioned the quality and lack of good temperature data a few times, and statistical analysis/evidence demonstrates the temperature data is poor and/or corrupted, if I understood correctly. This is an area that needs more research to slowly tear down climate emergency BS. I have heard Willie Soon, make similar statements about the data in recent months.
At https://correlation-canada.org/ we have an important paper in the works about exactly this, proof of manipulation of the temperature data! Join for updates: https://correlationresearch.substack.com/
Thank you, will make time to watch.
Videos are nice, agreed, but hard copy, paper-based media aka ‘reading’ is what we will have to get used to, because they are orchestrating control over us via all our devices and online activity…
This myth relies on the use (or in fact misuse) of a particular word – 'saturated'. When someone comes in from a prolonged downpour, they may well exclaim that they are saturated. They cannot imagine being any wetter. That's casual usage, though.
In science, 'saturated' is a strictly-defined term. For example, in a saturated salt solution, no more salt will dissolve, period. But what's that got to do with heat transfer in Earth's atmosphere?
Heat-trapping by CO2 in the atmosphere happens because it has the ability to absorb and pass on infra-red radiation – it is a 'greenhouse gas'. Infra-red is just one part of the electromagnetic spectrum, divided by physicists into a series of bands. From the low-frequency end of the spectrum upwards, the bands are as follows: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. Gamma rays thus have a very high-frequency. They are the highest-energy form of radiation.
As our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum developed, it was realised that the radiation consists of particles called 'photons', travelling in waves. The term was coined in 1926 by the celebrated physicist Gilbert Lewis (1875-1946). A photon's energy is related to its wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy, so that the very high-energy gamma-rays have the shortest wavelength of the lot.
Sunshine consists mostly of ultraviolet, visible light and infra-red photons. Objects warmed by the sun then re-emit energy photons at infra-red wavelengths. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 has the ability to absorb infra-red photons. But CO2 is unlike a mop, which has to be wrung out regularly in order for it to continue working. CO2 molecules do not get filled up with infra-red photons. Not only do they emit their own infra-red photons, but also they are constantly colliding with neighbouring molecules in the air. The constant collisions are important. Every time they happen, energy is shared out between the colliding molecules.
Through those emissions and collisions, CO2 molecules constantly warm their surroundings. This goes on all the time and at all levels in the atmosphere. You cannot say, “CO2 is saturated because the surface-emitted IR is rapidly absorbed”, because you need to take into account the whole atmosphere and its constant, ongoing energy-exchange processes. That means taking into account all absorption, all re-emission, all collisions, all heating and cooling and all eventual loss to space, at all levels.
If the amount of radiation lost to space is equal to the amount coming in from the Sun, Earth is said to be in energy balance. But if the strength of the greenhouse effect is increased, the amount of energy escaping falls behind the amount that is incoming. Earth is then said to be in an energy imbalance and the climate heats up. Double the CO2 concentration and you get a few degrees of warming: double it again and you get a few more and on and on it goes. There is no room for complacency here. By the time just one doubling has occurred, the planet would already be unrecognisable. The insulation analogy in the myth is misleading because it over-simplifies what happens in the atmosphere.
Further technical details https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
No doubt it is a full court press, these control freaks will not go away without ...
when Placing an insulator between the heat source and the thermometer
wouldn't the effect mostly be seen during the night so the average would move up solely because the nighttime lows are higher (but the daytime highs will be lower)?
I'd put forward that the "excess" temperature of the planet's atmosphere is controlled by the pressure, so basically the more atmosphere the higher the "excess" surface temperature, and what is that change? Water Vapour. Water forms clouds which then block more solar evaporation of seawater, so basically the amount of cloud over water lowers the "excess" temp. i.e. the topology of the sea, land and wind controls the long term change.
It is well understood that water vapor and clouds are two of the dominant factors controlling the earth's temperature, I do not think this is disputed by anyone, even the IPCC. However, the IPCC tells us that the a small change in the energy exchange between the earth and space from C02 is enough to cause a climate emergency. To put this hypothesis into context, the energy exchange impact due to C02 is tiny relative to the effect of clouds, I can't remember the exact percentage but believe it is like 1%. The inability of the models to reasonably account for the energy exchange from clouds is a big problem, to the extent that believing that we can account for the meniscal effect of C02 is hard to comprehend. Anyways, this is the state of science, all for the "Greater Good", to hell with the rest.
Water Vapour is the elephant in Greenhouse.
Water vapour does indeed magnify any increases in Co2.
My final point. It's also a really good thing that absorption by Co2 is dependent on wavelength and slows down. "The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it’s the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2. And it’s a good thing it does. You can show that if the transmission decayed exponentially, as it would if the absorption factor were independent of wavelength, then doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by about 50 degrees C instead of 2 to 4 degrees (which is plenty bad enough, once you factor in that warming is greater over land vs. ocean and at high Northern latitudes).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
You again. Wrong about excess deaths and wrong about saturation physics of Co2 (you gotta take into account all levels of the atmosphere)-a 100 year old argument that was debunked over half a century ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBDMeuHq_U&t=2s keeping the discourse 70 years behind the science. What a drag.
Just an observation: Doesnt CO2 feed plant life, which gives back oxygen, which allows the world to breathe? And that’s 5th grade science on photosynthesis. Sheesh what has happened to the people of the world? Are they all smoking dope and joining the “New Age Movement”. Must be leftest tree huggers controlling government these days. Talk about backwards thinkers.
"And that’s 5th grade science "...Not any more, it isn't.
The school system is too consumed with teaching 'Fifth Graders' how to masturbate, and that "Men can have babies?"
Paul, your reply has more relevance to the entire mess the West finds itself in, than all previous comments. I allude to the 'education' system now foisted upon us.
Thank you. But, it is exhausting to live in a world where most of what I'm told is a lie of some sort. Irrational premises are established by authority, promoted across the Media, and the accepted by an unquestioning population. These "Irrational Factoids", become rooted in the foundation of our culture and even our Knowledge. Questioning these "Facts" becomes Heresy, so the whole structure is built on a rotten foundation. Mankind is lucky that this is mainly confined to The West, because civilization could not survive if it was global.
Seems your 5th grade science missed the important parts; rapid absorption of surface infra red by co2 is only a small part of the issue and there's also the use (or in fact misuse) of a particular word – 'saturated'. When someone comes in from a prolonged downpour, they may well exclaim that they are saturated. They cannot imagine being any wetter.
In science, 'saturated' is a strictly-defined term. For example, in a saturated salt solution, no more salt will dissolve, period. But what's that got to do with heat transfer in Earth's atmosphere?
Heat-trapping by CO2 in the atmosphere happens because it has the ability to absorb and pass on infra-red radiation – it is a 'greenhouse gas'. Infra-red is just one part of the electromagnetic spectrum, divided by physicists into a series of bands. From the low-frequency end of the spectrum upwards, the bands are as follows: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. Gamma rays thus have a very high-frequency. They are the highest-energy form of radiation.
As our understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum developed, it was realised that the radiation consists of particles called 'photons', travelling in waves. The term was coined in 1926 by the celebrated physicist Gilbert Lewis (1875-1946). A photon's energy is related to its wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy, so that the very high-energy gamma-rays have the shortest wavelength of the lot.
Sunshine consists mostly of ultraviolet, visible light and infra-red photons. Objects warmed by the sun then re-emit energy photons at infra-red wavelengths. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 has the ability to absorb infra-red photons. But CO2 is unlike a mop, which has to be wrung out regularly in order for it to continue working. CO2 molecules do not get filled up with infra-red photons. Not only do they emit their own infra-red photons, but also they are constantly colliding with neighbouring molecules in the air. The constant collisions are important. Every time they happen, energy is shared out between the colliding molecules.
Through those emissions and collisions, CO2 molecules constantly warm their surroundings. This goes on all the time and at all levels in the atmosphere. You cannot say, “CO2 is saturated because the surface-emitted IR is rapidly absorbed”, because you need to take into account the whole atmosphere and its constant, ongoing energy-exchange processes. That means taking into account all absorption, all re-emission, all collisions, all heating and cooling and all eventual loss to space, at all levels.
If the amount of radiation lost to space is equal to the amount coming in from the Sun, Earth is said to be in energy balance. But if the strength of the greenhouse effect is increased, the amount of energy escaping falls behind the amount that is incoming. Earth is then said to be in an energy imbalance and the climate heats up. Double the CO2 concentration and you get a few degrees of warming: double it again and you get a few more and on and on it goes. There is no room for complacency here. By the time just one doubling has occurred, the planet would already be unrecognisable. The insulation analogy in the myth is misleading because it over-simplifies what happens in the atmosphere.
Yeah, I dunno. It seems to me there was a lot more plant life say 2000 years ago and probably just as many cows and other animals flatulating all over the place. None of that seemed to bother the earth. I think you geniuses think you know what you are talking about but are guessing all the time. We done need any more problems. We need solutions that will benefit us and our world. You need to be a part of the solution not a Raving lunatic left wingnut spouting tree hugger “the sky is falling” rhetoric. Because that is all the left is good at.
I beg to differ. We had a lot more plant life around to absorb CO2 centuries ago. Much of it has been cut down over the years. Trees and plants are an oxygen manufacturing machines. At night they feed on CO2. During the day they take in sunlight and emit oxygen for our benefit. Tree huggers and new age gurus want to cull the population and will think of any way to get control of our resources and then use them against us. They’ve even gone so far as tell people they can’t collect rain water. What they really want is power and control over each and every one of us. Stand your ground. Tell the libtards you’re not listening anymore to their foolishness.
First of all: You need to "Prove", that Global Warming is actually happening!
The water of the North East Pacific is less than 50 Degrees Fahrenheit this morning??
Lord. Of course climate change of which global warming is a part is happening. So it's cold in one place and one time. Do you think that's how science is done? https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
"By the time just one doubling has occurred, the planet would already be unrecognisable"
Your assertions are based on unproven models. Just because 'Tenured Authorities' make such claims, does not make it Fact.
As for the "Fifth Grade Science": When I went to fifth grade, We did not learn the Gobbldy Goop where "Men could have babies"!
The difference between Ice ages is now are only about 4 degree. Even Happer predicted 2.2 degrees of warming with continuing emissions of co2.
Jo Waller;
Humans are Foolish and Arrogant! All any of us have, is a collection of theories and preferences.
Even the most intricate and researched of our theories will not have any proven relevance until a thousand years after we are dead.
In my opinion; before we try to impose our "Theories" on other people, we should first put our own houses in order.
Makes fizzy drinks as well, I love the stuff.
They don't think. At all. Period. They hear something on TV and go, "Oh, ok. That makes sense," and then repeat that back to everyone else.
CO2 is the planet's most important nutrient!
The globalists have a dark sense of humour mislabeling it such an Orwellian way.
No one is saying co2 isn't essential. This is a strawman.
Kind of a leftist dope smoking tree hugger here, agreeing with you on your point :)
While it may be true that CO2 can become saturated, the real question--the only question--is, "Can the wallets of people who receive grants because of climate studies become saturated?" If not, then such findings as this will have no long-term effects on the lunacy. #LatherRinseRepeat #FollowTheMoney
Have you ever seen a grifter with a saturated wallet??
Yeah, me neither.
Well noted! #PointTaken
What rational people have known for years...is it finally going mainstream? I've been watching the vendetta against CO2 for decades, wondering when the myth of catastrophic warming would crack. Maybe that time is upon us.
Some of us are only recently waking up. Thanks for holding the fort till we arrived. More are streaming in.
I'm glad to hear you are seeing the change as well. I want to believe I am not engaging in wishful thinking!
and not to get too 'conspiracy theory' but we also have to question what 'anthropomorphic' climate change actually means...
what if it's so-called man-made because the weather is being manipulated and weaponized to push the agenda... https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/climate-change-a-plan-for-weather
You HAVE to watch the documentary, ‘The Dimming’
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-dimming-full-length-climate-engineering-documentary/
Remember this:
To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government.
This Orwell 1984 T is perfect for these times: t.co/EKkMWeTAPG
"... That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century
First, check the underlying premise:
I see no evidence that "Global Warming" is occurring?
30 years ago Al Gore et al, got on this 'very profitable' bandwagon and rode it to wealth and fame?
Governments quickly saw the opportunity and joined the fray.
Canada is a perfect example: Every level of government has their "Climate/Carbon" taxes and levies, and most of the money collected is subject to Fraud???
What's being taxed away (redistributed to the rich in economic rent) is the increased productivity of working people using fuel to do more!
Typical Communism: The "Productivity" is actually shrinking now and so is the number of Productive people! The Middle Class will implode with a damp pop. There is no reward!
i would suggest it's neo feudalism.
Although communism can be seen as a form of bureaucrat feudalism.
The next CO2 doubling over say 100 years causes 0.5°C increase & then nothing after that, that's if the overall effect of atmospheric CO2 is warming - there's actually no real world evidence for that though.
So much baffled.
They are not baffled. They understand it is true but simply ignore it to allow the globalists’ climate change hoax to continue on its sorry way, leading us to impoverishment and deindustrialisation.
It's called sarcasm.
The biggest “climate change” factor is all the shit they’re chem trailing into the skies everywhere. O the irony that they bleat about natural phenomenon like CO2 & temperature variations while they shoot poison into the air to fall to earth & poison land, water, plants, animals, insects & us….
Sorry Joel, but this it is utter nonsense, however the saturation point maybe real (????) BUT THE FUNDEMENTAL science and engineering data proves that HIGHER TEMPERATURES cause higher CO2 levels and not higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures. Where do higher temps come to us - from the effing Sun.
What you say may be true but it’s also true that, ceteris paribus, increased concentration of CO2 can cause warming. The question of how much is therefore entirely relevant. The answer - given by this, plus eg Denis R’s work - is not that much.
But all other factors being equal (sorry, ceteris paribus) is not the case is it ?. People seem to forget that plant life thrives off CO2 and records show (according to our history) that Co2 levels on this planet have been up to 6,000 ppm....
I am not arguing, I am just saying. I do not believe in manmade climate change - well how it is defined and described anyway, but as a Chemical Engineer - I do know the relationship between temperature and CO2.
It's both - co2 causes high temps and high temps cause release of co2 and water vapour.
If the other 'scientists' acknowledge these finding they will be committing financial suicide by switching off their bribes, sorry I mean grants.
I didn't see a link to the paper (sorry if I missed it).
It's at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456 for anyone who likes to spend their evenings studying resonant radiation absorption.
Yes this shows the repetition of the 100 year old experiment on the absorption properties of Co2 at surface atmosphere level. However, this isn't the only way that co2 increases temperature- molecules also emit photons themselves and collide with other molecules in other layers and make energy go further before it can escape, all of which causes more heat. There doesn't seem to be any evidence yet that increasing co2 and increasing heat will plateau anytime soon, if ever.
Baffled, I know you are being sarcastic as CO2 saturation is a fundamental principle of the greenhouse effect but I am afraid some may not get your sarcasm
Do you know that the "Only" evidence for "Greenhouse Effect" comes from a lab bench top?
There's no greenhouse
The top of the atmosphere changes height with the pressure underneath it.
It is the perfect hoax, no way to test if the hypothesis is correct. Just keep repeating the science is settle and shut down anybody that has a different hypothesis. Check out this video by Dr. Happer, he has been trying to explain CO2 saturation and why there is little warming affect left in the tank.
https://rumble.com/v3pyoh7-will-happer-co2-the-gas-of-life-tom-nelson-pod-158.html
OH, It could be tested. But, there is no incentive for any academic institution to ever do it.
If they even began, all government funding would evaporate instantly! Regulations would be put in place to block any progress,,,,,,,And "If" the researchers managed to complete the experiment and found no link between CO2 and Global Warming.........Then there is always 'Burning at the stake....For Heresy?? Look what happened to Julian Assange~
This information will never see the light of day. The authors will never be given another Government grant to study anything. They will be ridiculed in their professional societies and their credentials will be stripped.
Totally get the sentiment. However...I'm more and more thinking that as we change our language to what we DO want instead of what we don't want, the resulting energetic force toward what we want will strengthen more and more. Even such a simple changes as, "It's wonderful to see this information in this post and to imagine every nook and cranny that this light will spread into from here." (vs xxx will never xxx...) You get the drift...
"The Power of Positive Thinking." Supposedly, it works.
Well, it sure makes sense to me that "the car goes where we're looking as we drive."
It's got the light of day though hasn't it? Published in peer review. The authors are employed by the Warsaw University of Military Technology. They are doing what their employers in the Military Industrial complex want. They'll be just fine.
"Climate scientists around the world are baffled by this discovery."
I wonder why.
It is very well-known that the relationship between absorption of photons of a particular energy level and concentration is logarithmic, this is clear from the accepted statement that the each incremental increase in temperature requires a doubling of the concentration, so it is inevitable that the absorption curve rapidly becomes asymptotic.
That is not advanced mathematics, very basic in fact.
2 things David; 1) it's not a new discovery (it was first observed over 100 years ago) and 2) climate scientists are of course not baffled by it because they've known about it for this long. They've also understood, for over 50 years, that though absorption levels of at the surface layer may have plateaued- not only is there plenty more room in the higher layers for more Co2 and more warming the interactions between the co2 molecules in the different levels also creates heat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVBDMeuHq_U&t=1s