Carbon dioxide induced global warming is the major boogeyman of our times. This fear has been adopted by many governments and candidates for political office.
It has spawned a call to reduce CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and turn to very unreliable “renewable” energy such as solar and wind-generated electricity.
The Greenhouse Hypothesis is based largely upon the work of Svante August Arrhenius, a physicist and chemist, around 1896.
He devised a formula purporting to show the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide content and global temperature.
The Greenhouse Hypothesis has two major flaws: 1) It completely ignores heat transfer by convection, i.e., weather, and 2) as the new study shows, Arrhenius could not separate the effects of CO2 from those of water vapor.
Additionally, the greenhouse plays a very small role in the very complicated drivers of the global climate.
As the UN IPCC wrote: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Third Assessment Report, 2000, IPCC.
The new paper: Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC by Antero Ollila, Physical Science International Journal 22(2): 19 Jan. 2019
“The main objective of this study is to analyze the GH (greenhouse) contribution effects of different sky conditions and new contribution effects that had not been considered in the earlier studies. Energy fluxes of different sky conditions are needed in the GH effect analysis. Therefore, Earth’s annual mean energy budget has been updated.
“Water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling, about half the value used by the IPCC climate models. Clouds’ net effect is 1% based on empirical observation.”
(Read full paper) (note: the paper is very technical and sometimes hard reading)
Note that the paper says a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would produce warming of only 0.6°C. Eliminating our CO2 emissions would have almost no effect on climate.
Bottom line: Replacing fossil fuel-generated electricity with solar and wind is a very expensive exercise in futility which will make our electrical grid much less reliable and have no effect on global warming.
Read more at WryHeat
Nobody talks about the heat generated from our use of all types of fuel . Include nuclear and hydroelectric. Include biomass (wildfires, too). We’re using more of it, especially China and India.
Are we not in effect turning up the ‘burner’ under our atmosphere? Yes, and that doesn’t get discussed.
Google search CUBIC MILE OF OIL.
Food for thought.
Yes … please explain the massive ice sheet melting, ocean evaporating venus effect causing heat from the scorching hot hydroelectric plants. The whole point here is CO2, not yet another “fabrication” about poor fragile delicate sensitive earth being destroyed by intruders known as mankind [human-kind not Canadian, are you?] CO2 is closer to 1% and is totally, yes, COMPLETELY irrelevant compared to water vapor. CO2 is, was, and always WILL be a “trace” gas and barely measurable in our poor exploited and abused atmosphere.
Gee, Doug, you’ve missed my point. If there’s a measurable increase of temperature, maybe HEAT from every source should get some credit. I say credit because I happen to welcome a warmer climate. I live in Canada, yes. This whole greenhouse bullsh!t is hurting innocent ambitious middle class people here.
Don’t worry, this scientific paper will get no press coverage, and will be denied by the Alarmist as false.
And they like to call skeptics “Science Deniers”. They need to look into a mirror.
As they made up the greenhouse effect through faulty modeling of Earth, there is no greenhouse effect. So, 7% of nothing is still nothing.
Their “science” requires that the upper tropical troposphere is warming faster than anywhere and heats Earth’s surface. They call this the “hotspot.” Over 30 years of searching for the hotspot has failed to find it, but NOAA/NASA says that this region has been gently cooling for over 30 years.
No gas at any concentration can warm the surface. The atmosphere actually keeps the planet from going to about -100ºC at night and from going to 200ºC during the day. Thus, it moderates Earth’s temperature.
As CO2 only has three IR radiation absorption frequencies (bands), equivalent to 800, 400, and -80ºC, the vast majority of IR is transparent to incoming solar energy and outgoing IR.. Only during the day are the 400 and 800ºC bands activated by solar input and then re-radiate this energy immediately in all directions, effectively short-astopping some incoming energy and redirecting it back out to space, thus, decreasing insolation at Earth’s surface.
It is at night that CO2 can only emit at -80ºC and, as everything is warmer than that, it emits at this level all the time, effectively trying to take Earth’s temperature down to -80ºC. It is a coolant.
Thermodynamic researchers have not been able to get CO2 to warm anything. But, they have found that it makes a great refrigerant, again a coolant. It is being used in Mercedes Benz auto A/C and a number of new skating rinks as the primary coolant. It has been used as a secondary coolant for years.
Any discussion of decreasing CO2 emissions is a political discussion involving an often hidden, undesirable agenda regarding power and money.
I presume ‘the vast majority of IR is transparent to incoming solar energy’ has a typo, and should read ‘the vast majority of CO2 is transparent to incoming solar energy’?
Do you want the complete story about the GHG Theory scam? Read this…
https://principia-scientific.org/has-there-actually-been-a-scientific-debate-over-global-warming/
Oh no not the truth again . Well we must bury that says the Guardian , LA Times
and NY Times .
The isue in the global warming scame and pseudo-science is not the heat of the air mass that is our atmosphere, but the heat-holding potential of that air mass. This is a real thing and it drives the overall global climate, with a wide range of external inputs to it causing weather and seasonal variances. We can turn on every heating element and warming appliance of any kind and the heat they generate almost entirely dissapates into the upper atmosphere. These things do not influence climate. Instead, there is the fear that humanity is somehow altering the atmosphere itself in such a way that it alters the thermodynamic mechanism that traps radiant heat from the sun. This is the non-sense that is Global Warming mania.
The author notes that new studies show that Aeehenius could not determine the greater effects of water vapor. This is something meteorologists should have known and used in calculations years ago. I have been trying to explain this to those that cling to their Climate change religion but with only limited positive results. Water vapor is a green house gas but it also cools the atmosphere. It is very light and is a great transfer of heat so it rises into the less dense levels of the atmosphere and condenses during heat transfer and then evaporates thereby cooling the atmosphere. The Earth is full of checks and balances. This is one of them.