It reached 100 degrees in New Hampshire’s largest city today. It’s no surprise that the spot with the most asphalt and concrete was slightly warmer than the rest. It’s the largest heat island in the state, but if you dare suggest that these urban encroachments have corrupted the temperature data, you’ll get a good talking to from the experts and their supporters.
And that’s not even the biggest issue with the Climate Cult’s “science,” but since we’re on the topic as a segway.
“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, … compare it
directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is
wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” The Character of Physical
Law (1965), p. 150.
Plenty of observations in nature rebut or “disagree” with the global warmists’ prognostications in the name of partisan politics. Almost all of them, truth be told, but this is a big one. CO2 can’t cause runaway global warming. The chemistry and physics of our planet make it impossible. And yet, here we are, listening to so-called experts or watching Western countries destroy themselves in the pursuit of a “solution” to a nonexistent problem.
We shared the chemistry a few years back, but that page is no longer active. Thankfully, a pair of actual experts, “career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics,” just published a 46-page report explaining it all and why net-zero policy is a dangerous waste of resources.
Before you click the link, be warned. There be science in those pages.
Like how CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas that gets weaker as its atmospheric concentration rises.
[continued] be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC’s words “the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme
weather. Now and at higher levels, increasing carbon dioxide creates more food for people
worldwide, and only a slight and beneficial increase in temperature.
The assumption that we need to mitigate CO2 is a lie, and achieving net-zero will cost trillions while keeping billions in poverty, while accomplishing less than a fraction of the potential reduction in temperature.
Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to nearly 20 times higher than they are today, shown in the chart in Part III.C covering 600 million years.
Further, saturation means that from now on, CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and other sources will have little impact on global warming. We could double atmospheric CO2 to 840 ppm and have little warming effect. Since CO2 at today’s level is “saturated,” for this reason alone there is no risk that the continued use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.
CO2 is not the control nob for Earth’s temperature, and neither is methane (citations removed).
There are numerous greenhouse gases. The five most abundant GHGs are water vapor (H2O), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), and methane (CH4). The Endangerment Finding cites six: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and three more: hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The warming effects of thesethree are so small they are irrelevant to climate. The warming effects of methane and nitrous oxide are also so small that they too are irrelevant to climate.
Moreover, water vapor and clouds account “for more than 90% of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat.” Thus CO2 and all the other GHGs account for less than 10% of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat.
Water vapor, again, for the cheap seats, is the primary driver, and no one is going to suggest we mitigate that.
The need for CO2 mitigation is a lie. The presumed cure (net zero) is an expensive, useless lie. And, oh, by the way, doubling CO2 would be great for humanity.
What would happen if CO2 doubled from the current approximately 400 ppm in the atmosphere to 800 ppm? Crop yields worldwide would increase by about 40%, based on empirical findings of how CO2 concentrations affect crop yields.
What if the Net Zero Theory went into effect now and CO2 does not double to 800 ppm? There would be 40% less food worldwide.
Thus, more CO2 means more food for people worldwide. Reducing CO2 to Net Zero means less food for people worldwide, but with only a negligible effect on temperature.
Read the report. There are a lot of tasty bits to share on social media, or just share this post with a trigger warning. Actual science by actual experts, that will wreck your poverty-inducing, virtue-signalling climate paradigm.
I left out warming. Apologies.
history shows that warmings of a few degrees Celsius — which extended growing seasons — have been good for humanity. The golden age of classical Roman civilization occurred during a warm period as did the first great civilizations during the Bronze Age in the Minoan Warm Period.
Human beings thrive when there si more CO2 or a slightly warmer earth. Neither of them is a negative, unlike Net Zero. We need affordable carbon-based energy to lift people out of poverty. Net Zero is a dark days strategy that advances only one agenda. Depopulation.
And no, you don’t need to worry about CO2 and warming causing catastrophic sea level rise or more severe storms. They were not in any way connected, sixty years ago, before Gore, Hanson, and Mann invented Global warming, and they are not now.
It’s all just another thing from the left that we were right about.
You can read the entire report here.
