A friend recently befriended a legitimate Climate Scientist who possesses all of the academic credentials, field research assignments and paper publishing credentials of someone highly qualified.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
I am happy to report that a valuable lesson can be learned from beer!
Anyone that has had the good fortune of dispensing beer from a keg knows that it is impossible to fill a glass or pitcher with warm beer, as the container will rapidly overflow with foam. The foam is formed by carbon dioxide coming out of solution. CO2 is both a product of fermentation during the brewing process, as well as a preservative that is added to shield the beer from oxidation ("going skunky").
The solubility of CO2 in water increases inversely with the liquid's temperature, which is why, in order to get a clean pour, the beer line from one's keg must be chilled.
The relevance to your essay goes back to the argument of whether increasing CO2 is a cause or an effect of global warming. Oceans are a huge reservoir of dissolved CO2. If the planet is truly warming, the oceans will as well, resulting in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
I've been skeptical about the climate narrative for a number of years, and am happy that wrote on this topic.
Nevertheless we are not alone. I've noticed a number of "climate scientist" being interviewed on YouTube who ask the right questions and have been censored by their "authorities". The playbook is just like that applied to COVID-9 and the jabs. Some names that come to mind are William Happer and Judith Curry.
Can you provide us with references to the information on the mechanism of action for CO2 interaction with UV Light?
Several replies have suggested I refer to Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate.”
OK.
Principles of Planetary Climate, page 143, section 3.3
“The (idealized) planet is spherical and has a distinct solid or liquid surface which radiates like a perfect black body.”
This assumption is 100% invalid.
Because of the kinetic heat transfer processes of the terrestrial surface it cannot radiate as a perfect blackbody.
TFK_bams09 = Radiation (63) / (kinetic + radiation =160) = 0.4
This idealized model creates/duplicates surface energy violating LoT 1.
Solar upwelling 160 = 17 + 80 + 63 & BB 396 upwelling = 333 + 63 = two independent paths to OLR.
This “extra” energy requires “back” radiation to avoid a major OLR imbalance violating LoT 2.
This 396/333/63 GHE loop of Pierrehumbert & TFK_bams09 is bogus!
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
I am happy to report that a valuable lesson can be learned from beer!
Anyone that has had the good fortune of dispensing beer from a keg knows that it is impossible to fill a glass or pitcher with warm beer, as the container will rapidly overflow with foam. The foam is formed by carbon dioxide coming out of solution. CO2 is both a product of fermentation during the brewing process, as well as a preservative that is added to shield the beer from oxidation ("going skunky").
The solubility of CO2 in water increases inversely with the liquid's temperature, which is why, in order to get a clean pour, the beer line from one's keg must be chilled.
The relevance to your essay goes back to the argument of whether increasing CO2 is a cause or an effect of global warming. Oceans are a huge reservoir of dissolved CO2. If the planet is truly warming, the oceans will as well, resulting in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Hi Gene,
I've been skeptical about the climate narrative for a number of years, and am happy that wrote on this topic.
Nevertheless we are not alone. I've noticed a number of "climate scientist" being interviewed on YouTube who ask the right questions and have been censored by their "authorities". The playbook is just like that applied to COVID-9 and the jabs. Some names that come to mind are William Happer and Judith Curry.
Can you provide us with references to the information on the mechanism of action for CO2 interaction with UV Light?
Thanks,
Kanji