The continuing barrage of promises that man’s use of fossil fuels should be curtailed because it generates CO2 emissions has triggered me to revise and add to an earlier posting on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. The EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant though it is vital for plant development and today’s levels are significantly less than optimal for plant life. It also does not have any known toxicological effects upon man, unless it was to be at least 20 times more concentrated than it presently is. Obama and many in Congress want to find ways to help expand reduce fossil energy use in order to diminish CO2 emissions, roughly they say.
The United Nations remains determined to effect a result of a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Man obviously makes a contribution to global warming because there is a strong local warming effect in cities. However, the efforts of man to warming on the global scale are difficult and small to even measure.
The man’s use of fossil fuels leads to CO2 emissions in amounts significant set alongside the natural resources. The CO2 added by man to the atmosphere lingers there quite a while, said to be a century often. The greenhouse-gas warming caused by these additions of CO2 is itself significant. The warming caused by man’s CO2 enhancements to the atmosphere causes a much stronger warming due to increased drinking water vapor at altitude and its greenhouse impact.
The great increase in water vapor at 8 to 12 kilometers altitude on the equator and the low latitudes lead to a warming hot zone in the atmosphere, which warms the entire globe by back infra-red radiation. This is all a lot bunkum and hogwash. The greenhouse-gas models treat the Earth’s surface as a black-body thermal radiator. Black-body radiators are a very special idealization which the surface of the Earth will not much resemble.
2, which is the power emission for a black body with a heat range of 289.1K, near to the Earth’s average surface temperature. The models underestimate the solar radiation incident on the Earth’s surface. They state it to be about 47% (Kiehl and Trenberth), when measurements have commonly shown it to be between 65 and 75% of the total solar radiation incident upon the outer atmosphere (start to see the diagram below).
This infinite series equals one, although greenhouse warming advocates say it equals two! 2 in the Kiehl – Trenberth diagram, but the half returned to the Earth’s surface is double (1.97 times to be precise) that amount. This huge exaggeration of the comparative back radiation is a complete violation of physics.
- Angel Investors / Groups
- Smoke Alarm – 6 years
- Unit Trusts Equity money indirectly make investments int
- Robo-Advisor Investment
- 14 Townhome Units – 2014 Build – Arlington, TX $2.65M, 10 additional units to be built
- The key decision manufacturers and influencers (AUTHORITY) have been identified; and
This exaggeration then causes the consequences of greenhouse gases to be greatly exaggerated. The truth is, a cooler atmosphere cannot emit sufficient IR toward a warmer surface to improve the heat of the warmer surface. 2, which creates a surface with a dark body temperature of 183.3K or -89.8C if the surface were a black body radiator as claimed.
In reality, the top temperature with an emissivity of 0.7 is 200.-72 or 4K.7C. 0.101 of the surface radiation goes by through the atmosphere without absorption. The info on the right part of the upper part of the figure helps it is clear that a lot more than 10% of the radiation is emitted into space from the surface despite the infra-red gases called greenhouse gases.