Abstract: Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of the atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate. Introduction: For comprehensive analysis of the influence of increasing concentration of the greenhouse gases on the global temperature of atmosphere, one needs to develop an advanced physicochemical theory of mass—energy redistribution among the Earth’s systems. This advanced theory should include: (1) evolution of the composition of atmosphere, (2) evolution of the geological conditions, (3) data on changing solar radiation, (4) the Earth’s revolution precession, (5) oceanological data, and (6) multiple feedbacks between the atmosphere and ocean.
The authors investigate the greenhouse effect using the adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of the troposphere to atmospheric pressure and allows one to analyze the temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. The existing feedbacks between atmosphere and ocean are intentionally neglected in the article with the focus on the atmospheric temperature changes due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission... (read remainder at link above)
History has taught most of us that warmer is better.
ReplyDeleteAs a generality, summer works better to grow food than winter. This is a bonus lesson, requiring only about 12 months of history.
Obviously (but studies (Idso et al) showed), rising CO2 does benefit plant growth, and could mitigate global cooling, if it were pronounced enough, but that is pure useless speculation.
Global cooling is ON THE WAY and IN THE BAG. CO2 cannot be adjusted, one way or the other, at least for the forseeable future. We will see who really likes global cooling.
The starved dead people in the Maunder period probably did not like it; but no government-funded scientist can remember the Maunder.
Government would like us to believe it can control climate and any other important aspect of the human condition. Lying is OK. And the "scientists" climb on board as fast as the basically fraudulent grants can be awarded. Now I am not saying this study was funded by the US Government. It has many of the earmarks, however.
I say this without having read the entire paper. Let me know if I am wrong.
I have already pointed this out here:
ReplyDeletehttp://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4245
Steven Wilde,
ReplyDeleteThanks, very interesting article. I had read elsewhere that downwelling IR only results in surface evaporation and thus cooling and was looking for a confirmation, which you have provided.
Another aspect I am working on is comparing the huge heat capacity of the oceans to the miniscule heat capacity of GHGs to show that even if GHGs were causing "radiative forcing" of 1.6 W/m2 on the oceans, it would take ~111 years to raise the ocean temperature 0.5C
Where are the thousands of global cooling deniers to dispute this article? It's now 4 years since their original paper. Hmmm! Maybe they can't because it's the truth!
ReplyDelete