.
Lunar temperature data also offers little comfort to greenhouse theorists.
By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
The “climate emergency” appears to have died, far out on the scientific frontier. Word of this death has yet to reach the mainstream.
Professors William van Wijngaarden (Canada) and William Happer (USA) have published some extremely important research on the radiation saturation of the major greenhouse gases. Their first report is titled simply “Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules”. It makes use of a major breakthrough in radiation physics.
Until recently the estimates of greenhouse potency were based on approximation bands of absorbed radiation wavelengths. Now the authors have done line by line spectral analysis, looking at over 300,000 individual wavelengths within these bands.
It turns out that saturation occurs much sooner than previously thought. In particular the primary greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O, turn out to be “extremely saturated” at present atmospheric concentrations.
These results strongly suggest that the dangerous multi-degree warming assumed…
View original post 695 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Not so fast.
What’s the history? Did ‘scientists’ notice the earth was warming, then decide it must be caused by human CO2 emissions? Determining it’s not caused by CO2 doesn’t stop the warming.
This has been self-evident forever, at least in terms of water vapor which is, I believe, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. Heat causes the oceans to emit water vapor, which should, according to mainstream GHG theory, cause more heating, which should cause more evaporation, more heating, ad infinitum. A positive-feedback loop hockey stick that should be ending in disaster. Only it doesn’t.
I’m sure the “world’s leading climate scientists” will just look sneeringly down their noses and shake their heads at how the proles like me just don’t get it.
AFAI am concerned, it was a dead issue the moment somebody got it into their head the earth is a greenhouse. Anyone with a PhD in science ought to have their diploma revoked if they maintain/promote the idea of a “greenhouse” gas. There is no such thing. Just atmospheric gases in an open system.
They still haven’t worked out why their models always run too hot, after decades of false results. If it’s not the underlying assumption of greenhouse gas, what’s left? ☀️
@Gamecock:
In the 1820s Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is, if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation. His consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect. Fourier dismissed the idea of an actual greenhouse by pointing out that it would require a layer of the atmosphere to solidify without changing its optical properties, so obviously he knew how a greenhouse works, unlike many these days.
In 1859 Tyndall measured the absorption of ‘heat rays’ by a number of gases, including CO2, but found that water vapour had much more effect. As a noted mountaineer he was aware of the lapse rate and concluded that water vapour was by far the main cause of “the greenhouse effect”.
Arrhenius came up with the idea that CO2 (from volcanism) was the major cause of interglacials. He was rubbished by Planck, Boltzmann, Angstrom and Einstein and the effect was relegated to obscurity.
In 1938 it was resurrected by Callendar, an engineer expert on steam tables, who suggested that recent warmer temperatures were caused by an increase in CO2. His paper is in the Proceedings of the Royal Society and not that convincing, but the idea persisted although Callendar, at the end of his life, decided he was wrong (this after the very cold winter in the UK in 1962. However it persisted until the cold weather of the 1970’s faded and temperatures rose slightly. Some people with no sense of proportion then proclaimed “the coming heat death of the world”.
ok…so there is some new science.
We have already seen that, if it contradicts the narrative, it will be cancelled and lost without trace. The only thing likely to result will be a couple of new professorship vacancies where the original researchers used to be.
And no one seems to bat an eyelid over this…
OK ok. . I’m having to “read” all this stuff. and yet now the money is on Hydrogen – to make/ release HOT water VAPOUR when burned in the IC engine as many are promoting, along with fuel cells. Is that different water vapour which doesn’t cause –warming then?
Graeme No.3 – the “heat death” physicists speak of is a lack of “heat” when all the energy in the universe is spread equally throughout the universe, resulting in a temperature everywhere of just above zero Kelvin.
Always seemed an odd choice of words to me.
Gamecock – there is no warming. Averages are not warming. And comparing 30 year averages when natural cycles may be longer or may coincide over longer periods is absurd. More hot days over a ten year period is not warming. Its more hot days.
UK August summary – lowest max temp since 2010, which was set well north of Glasgow.
Phoenix44:
Yes, but I am being “modern” and recycling a good old phrase, esp. as the Gloom Goblins are for ever predicting run-a-way warming and
lyingsaying it’s warmer than it has been for the last 500,000 or 5 million years.I don’t know if that will go through.
Taking the sun seriously
By Dr. Jay Lehr | August 29th, 2021
https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/29/taking-the-sun-seriously/
Who’d a thunk it ? Me actually.
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN AND K. LASSEN
1 Nov 1991
A set of data that supports the suggestion of a direct influence of solar activity on global climate is the variation of the solar cycle length. This record closely matches the long-term variations of the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature during the past 130 years.
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.254.5032.698
– – –
Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere
K. Coughlin, K. K. Tung
First published: 06 November 2004
The statistical significance of this signal and its correlation with the 10.7-cm solar flux are established. We conclude that the atmosphere warms during the solar maximum almost everywhere over the globe.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD004873