“THE WHITE HOUSE
September 17, 1969
The process is a simple one, Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The CO2 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels, At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.
Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
During the Cambrian explosion co2 concentration was about 16x higher, yet the average temperature was only 8 degrees higher( according to Britannica).
which should at least lead to the conclusion, that doubling of current co2 may not lead to more than 0.5 degrees in warming and that the magical 1.5 degrees warming won’t be reached before 1400- 1600 ppm.
On the other hand we have experts like him,the other Ehrlich or Schneider (who even wrote a book about billions of years of earth climate and therefore knowing very well that co2 concentrations have nothing to do with earth temperatures) who ignore everything else so they can blame everything on co2.
Another strange thing is when we use this current increase to 0.04 % as ultimate control knob for climate, then it is very odd that the critical climate co2 mass is being reached at such an early point.
When we have 10000 possibilities to chose from (0.01 % – 100.00 %) than the breaking point for climate could be at 27.9% , 5.2%, 91. 1 %, 48.6 % etc etc,
but for some reason it happens at the very beginning to do our globalist friends a favor.
And this is also very very bad news for complex extraterrestrial life (at least the carbon based) when it can only flourish between 0. 0150 and 0.04 % ,
as everything outside of this range will either not be enough for photosynthesis or too hot to survive even when all other parameters are perfect (take this Fermi -Paradoxon)
Your last sentence shows the absurdity of their beliefs. I was talking to an old friend today and told him I was sending the link to “Climate” and somewhere in there he burst out that he BELIEVED that humans have destroyed Earth and that there are too many of us. I said that was a position of faith, and or course he denied it. Anyway, I sent the link and requested that he give them at least 30 minutes to convince him. There is a chance that he will and that his view will be changed, at least he may become a little bit more doubtful.
we all died, and nobody told me!!! LOL
what caught my eye in Moynihan’s letter was a reference to and a cc to Hugh Heffner.
Yes, I know: 1 more “f” in the Heffner name….but….
maybe he knew a thing or two about body heat????? LOL
Historically, high earth temperatures have caused great droughts. And yet, these leftist predictions claim that the earth will be flooded if the temperature increases. I personally find the latter less worrisome.
A duff prediction from an inherently flawed theory. CO2 does indeed absorb IR, but it also re-radiates it. Unless it is ionized, a gas does not reflect radiation. At equilibrium what is absorbed is re-radiated. You get a ‘greenhouse effect’ in the model by ignoring Kirchoff’s Law, and only accounting what is absorbed. The atmospheric attenuation due to CO2 used in the models, is relevant only to a line of sight where the energy is radiated out of the beam before it reaches the sensor, it has nothing to do with the propagation of radiation through a layer of atmosphere.