Evaluating The Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis

The continuing barrage of claims that man’s use of fossil fuels should be curtailed because it creates CO2 emissions has caused me to revise and increase an earlier posting on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. The EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant even though it is essential for plant development and the present levels are significantly less than optimal for vegetation. It also has no known toxicological results upon man, unless it was to be at least 20 times more focused than it currently is. Obama and many in Congress want to find ways to further reduce fossil gas use to be able to decrease CO2 emissions, roughly they state.

The United Nations remains determined to bring about a reduction in the utilization of fossil fuels. Man obviously makes a contribution to global warming because there is a strong local warming impact 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 compared to the natural sources. The CO2 added by man to the atmosphere lingers there a long time, said to be 100 years often. The greenhouse-gas warming caused by these additions of CO2 is itself significant. The warming triggered by man’s CO2 improvements to the atmosphere causes a much stronger warming credited to increased drinking water vapor at altitude and its own greenhouse effect.

The great increase in water vapor at 8 to 12 km altitude within the equator and the lower latitudes result in a warming hot zone in the atmosphere, which warms the whole globe by infra-red radiation back. This is all so much hogwash and bunkum. The greenhouse-gas models treat the Earth’s surface as a black-body thermal radiator. Black-body radiators are extremely special idealization which the surface of the Earth does not much resemble.

2, which is the billed power emission for a dark body with a heat of 289.1K, close to the Earth’s average surface temperature. The models underestimate the solar radiation occurrence on the Earth’s surface. They state it to be about 47% (Kiehl and Trenberth), when measurements have in common shown it to be between 65 and 75% of the total solar radiation occurrence 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 came back to the Earth’s surface is double (1.97 times to be precise) that amount. This huge exaggeration of the 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 makers and influencers (AUTHORITY) have been determined; 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 top was a dark body radiator as claimed.

In reality, the surface temperature with an emissivity of 0.7 is 200.4K or -72.7C. 0.101 of the surface radiation passes through the atmosphere without absorption. The data on the right side of the top of the part of this figure makes it clear that a lot more than 10% of the radiation is emitted into space from the top despite the infra-red gases called greenhouse gases.