Rebuttal to Skeptical Science’s Claimed Climate Myths by John Christy
This is an interesting and rather comprehensive looking article.
Humans contribute less than 3% of the increase in atmospheric co2, there would be no significant cuts if all human output was stopped. With a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
If you don't get the massive contradiction to any proposal of human intervention against rising CO2 in those two lines, perhaps this will help.
BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.
"TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium* and temperatures have stabilised."
*The only way I see that happening is for the planet to resemble the Moon.
Perhaps you are starting to understand why the only quotation about the effects of CO2 that stuck with me is not this rehash ( not really - it's a clickbait headline for an article about the cooling effects of aerosols ) of the global cooling scare, but that the signal for effect of CO2 increase is so uncertain that the SIGN of the change is not nailed down - let alone the amount.
That would be bad enough. Here comes the biggest laugh I have seen in years.
Sometimes it pays to check the most widely accepted assertions.
Just about every discussion of CO2 and “Greenhouse Gasses” includes a harangue about Oxygen and Nitrogen NOT being active in the IR and NOT being a “Greenhouse Gas”. Yet we know that any object with a temperature above nearly nothing emits photons. Some are X-rays, some are visible light, and some are infrared light. (And radio waves and microwaves and…) So how can you have a world wrapped in hot nitrogen and NOT have it radiate something? So I started to search.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment