On this date in 1972, NASA announced that additional CO2 will have very little impact on global temperature.
15 Oct 1972, Page 44 – The San Bernardino County Sun at Newspapers.com
h/t Don Penim
YES!! THE CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS OF CO2 DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX CLAIMS. Can’t imagine real scientists promoting this scam with a straight face.
Only if they’re getting paid, which they are, to promote or at least not publicly dispute the global warming due to CO2 theory.
The “absorption limit” does not get talked about enough! This is most critical point in the AGW myth. Lefties linear thinking tells them the more CO2 you add to the atmosphere the hotter it will get, but this is fundamentally wrong. Go to the NASA website today and you will find none of it!
Alarmists used to talk about their way around it. This was before Tony plotted today’s adjusted temperature record on Hansen’s 1980s paper years ago.
The standard alarmist theory is(was) that the tiny remaining increase from CO2 would cause a chain reaction of other factors resulting in what amounted to runaway warming. The problem is that the clock ran out on that theory. The most that could be tortured out of the data was Hansen’s scenario C. Which was reducing man produced CO2 to zero by the year 2000. The theory of this chain reaction was proven false by observation. Thus it is not talked about much any more if at all.
This is another reason why they use children so much now. Anyone honest and with memory of the 1990s or 1980s on the subject knows that doomsday, the point of no return, was nearly 20 years ago. If they talk about the saturation limit and how this 2.5 degree max warming from CO2 (which as I recall happens at thousands of ppm CO2 because the returns diminish all the way to the limit) exists they also have to then bring up the feedback theory and then answer the question why hasn’t it happened yet?
It’s now too messy for alarmists to bring up the limit and diminishing returns. Better left unsaid. They’ll still talk about runaway greenhouse because that’s scary but they keep the point of runaway always out in the future. Never mind we’ve passed a couple of them already and nothing happened.
I presume this does not take account of the alleged positive feedback of an increase in water vapour upon which the theory of catastrophic greenhouse warming is based. But as water vapour can condense into clouds and rain the feedback is purely theoretical and furthermore it is belied by the absence of the tropospheric hotspot and the fact that the computer models are running considerably hotter than observations.
Tony, you could have set out the details from the Raso0l Schneider 1971 paper.
Here is the relevant papragraph from their paper:
Here is the take home plot from that paper:
Of course, since then, they have backtracked on the saturation point.
Physicists: CO2 Molecules Retain Heat Just 0.0001 Of A Second, Meaning CO2-Driven Warming ‘Not Possible’https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/17/physicists-co2-molecules-retain-heat-just-0-0001-of-a-second-meaning-co2-driven-warming-not-possible/
good find, Tony!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.