Danish astrophysicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark has long challenged the climate crisis narrative, and has even faced “Nazi” slurs for not agreeing with the current CO₂ climate dogma.
When you consider that CO₂ is present in air at around 0.04% or so, and then that human contribution to CO₂ represents only around 3% of that, you can realise (if your politics permit it) that man-qmade climate change is undetectable!
Upon further reflection, you might be able to figure out that H₂O (water vapour), comprising around 1% of humid air, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.
But, I guess, if your employment depends on you selling out humanity then that's what you're going to do.
I am sorry but this is wrong. CO2 is indeed about 0.04% of the atmosphere but that is irrelevant. All that shows is that there is an absolutely massive amount of other gasses in the atmosphere. 0.04% still corresponds to 3,300 gigatons of CO2. After all it is enough to sustain plant life! Without greenhouse gasses the earth's surface would be about -18C.
Of that 0.04% the human contribution is about 40% not 3%. That is the increase since industrialisation began. We know that because it has a different carbon isotope concentration. Maybe what is confusing you is that human activity only adds about 3% of the CO2 input each year. But there is a carbon cycle. Most of CO2 input is recycled into the oceans, plant growth, soil etc (this is school science and easily verified). Before industrialisation this cycle was in balance. The input matched the output so there was no increase in the atmosphere. The additional 3% from human activity upset the balance and amount of CO2 began to increase.
As CO₂ increases, more will dissolve in the oceans, tending to restore the relative amount in the atmosphere as you point out.
I'm confused: why then should we see warming when the oceans act as a sink? (the same oceans that provide the actual greenhouse gas, water vapour, which keeps us above -18C).
Such common sense and verifiable with empirical data. I have written a short essay 'Seeking the Climate Truth' incorporating these thoughts but also adding that increasing temperatures cause rises in CO2 not the other way around. I can forward this if interested. drgordoncopley@gmail.com
The fundamental intention of decarbonisation is not to save the planet but to prevent economic development in Africa, for example, to destroy Western industries and to cause as much mayhem and poverty as possible. This has been the intention, not of the Left, but of very wealthy elites, the Deep State and families like the Rockefellers - whose intention, for several decades, has been global control of resources and depopulation. Now, with advanced tech and the establishment of a global Technocracy, their intentions may be realised. Jacob Nordangard, another brilliant Scandinavian, has written extensively on this, as has Patrick M.Wood. See my https://www.sciencexcel.com/article/blob-lords-and-the-left
The Left has been brainwashed by the unelected elite and tax-payer funding of UN and other institutions and by university acadamics and researchers who only get funding, as Svensmark correctly points out, when they play ball with the elites' plot. 'Climate change' is the biggest scam ever, and it was introduced by people linked to Nazis, who were not all destroyed by WW2 or punished by the Nuremberg trials.
The oceans and other sinks would eventually restore the balance at a higher level of GHGs but this takes hundreds of years and the new balance would be a higher level of CO2 and a lot warmer.
Water vapour does provide the most powerful GHG effect but the level of water vapour varies day by day and one of the key factors is the temperature! So it acts to amplify any warming (or cooling) taking place for other reasons. Without water vapour increases in GHGs would cause much less warming. It is a key part of climate scientists calculations. Did you think they just ignored it?
No known gases, or combination of gases in the known universe has the ability to prevent convection, which is what cools the surface of the earth, i.e. it is not cooled by radiation because the atmosphere is too dense for that to happen.
However, the atmosphere cools by radiation (Adiabatic Laps Rate), i.e it's not the same thing.
A cooler atmosphere can not further warm a surface that is already warmer, in fact the atmosphere is getting most of it's energy (heat) from the surface. Will a stove get warmer if you add a few random molecules to the air above it??
There's no "Greenhouse Gas" or "Greenhouse Effect" (in the real world). You kind of shoot yourself in the foot by claiming it is, ignorance or for political reasons, Mr. Svensmark???
To a reasonably well-informed lay person, this account of Svensmark's contribution to the debate is not very convincing. I understand that there a number of natural cycles of varying length, and it is the additive or subtractive effect of these combined cycles that affect the intensity of energy received and emitted globally. But I fail to see how an eleven-year cycle of cosmic radiation can have played a significant part in the rate of increase in global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last few decades compared to any similar period in the last two centuries.
When I was young, I remember visiting the Ontario Science Center. They had a cloud chamber exhibit. A naturally radioactive rock was mounted close to a sealed chamber containing water vapour at the saturation point. The little particle tracks were clearly visible. Appearing instantly and then fading over a fraction of a second. The trails are composed of ting droplets that acted as nucleation sites for the visible hair-like clouds it was explained to me. I can still see them, fascinating.
Then you are not quite well informed enough. We are all learning, so don't take that as snark. There are several observed cycles in solar activity. The one that's probably most relevant to the subject of discussion is about 200 years in length. The 11 year cycle is only one half of the 22 year cycle, with solar magnetic pole switching polarity at the 11 year sunspot minimum. There's also a 40 year cycle and others I don't recall. The unfortunate difference between just being interested and deliberate rigorous study.
When you consider that CO₂ is present in air at around 0.04% or so, and then that human contribution to CO₂ represents only around 3% of that, you can realise (if your politics permit it) that man-qmade climate change is undetectable!
Upon further reflection, you might be able to figure out that H₂O (water vapour), comprising around 1% of humid air, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.
But, I guess, if your employment depends on you selling out humanity then that's what you're going to do.
I am sorry but this is wrong. CO2 is indeed about 0.04% of the atmosphere but that is irrelevant. All that shows is that there is an absolutely massive amount of other gasses in the atmosphere. 0.04% still corresponds to 3,300 gigatons of CO2. After all it is enough to sustain plant life! Without greenhouse gasses the earth's surface would be about -18C.
Of that 0.04% the human contribution is about 40% not 3%. That is the increase since industrialisation began. We know that because it has a different carbon isotope concentration. Maybe what is confusing you is that human activity only adds about 3% of the CO2 input each year. But there is a carbon cycle. Most of CO2 input is recycled into the oceans, plant growth, soil etc (this is school science and easily verified). Before industrialisation this cycle was in balance. The input matched the output so there was no increase in the atmosphere. The additional 3% from human activity upset the balance and amount of CO2 began to increase.
As CO₂ increases, more will dissolve in the oceans, tending to restore the relative amount in the atmosphere as you point out.
I'm confused: why then should we see warming when the oceans act as a sink? (the same oceans that provide the actual greenhouse gas, water vapour, which keeps us above -18C).
Such common sense and verifiable with empirical data. I have written a short essay 'Seeking the Climate Truth' incorporating these thoughts but also adding that increasing temperatures cause rises in CO2 not the other way around. I can forward this if interested. drgordoncopley@gmail.com
The fundamental intention of decarbonisation is not to save the planet but to prevent economic development in Africa, for example, to destroy Western industries and to cause as much mayhem and poverty as possible. This has been the intention, not of the Left, but of very wealthy elites, the Deep State and families like the Rockefellers - whose intention, for several decades, has been global control of resources and depopulation. Now, with advanced tech and the establishment of a global Technocracy, their intentions may be realised. Jacob Nordangard, another brilliant Scandinavian, has written extensively on this, as has Patrick M.Wood. See my https://www.sciencexcel.com/article/blob-lords-and-the-left
The Left has been brainwashed by the unelected elite and tax-payer funding of UN and other institutions and by university acadamics and researchers who only get funding, as Svensmark correctly points out, when they play ball with the elites' plot. 'Climate change' is the biggest scam ever, and it was introduced by people linked to Nazis, who were not all destroyed by WW2 or punished by the Nuremberg trials.
Excellent synopsis.
The oceans and other sinks would eventually restore the balance at a higher level of GHGs but this takes hundreds of years and the new balance would be a higher level of CO2 and a lot warmer.
Water vapour does provide the most powerful GHG effect but the level of water vapour varies day by day and one of the key factors is the temperature! So it acts to amplify any warming (or cooling) taking place for other reasons. Without water vapour increases in GHGs would cause much less warming. It is a key part of climate scientists calculations. Did you think they just ignored it?
climate science is ideology mascarading as science by pseudo scientists...
Is there any ideology not lying, not obfuscating, not killing! all theorists!
CO2 is, of course not a "Greenhouse Gas"!
No known gases, or combination of gases in the known universe has the ability to prevent convection, which is what cools the surface of the earth, i.e. it is not cooled by radiation because the atmosphere is too dense for that to happen.
However, the atmosphere cools by radiation (Adiabatic Laps Rate), i.e it's not the same thing.
A cooler atmosphere can not further warm a surface that is already warmer, in fact the atmosphere is getting most of it's energy (heat) from the surface. Will a stove get warmer if you add a few random molecules to the air above it??
There's no "Greenhouse Gas" or "Greenhouse Effect" (in the real world). You kind of shoot yourself in the foot by claiming it is, ignorance or for political reasons, Mr. Svensmark???
To a reasonably well-informed lay person, this account of Svensmark's contribution to the debate is not very convincing. I understand that there a number of natural cycles of varying length, and it is the additive or subtractive effect of these combined cycles that affect the intensity of energy received and emitted globally. But I fail to see how an eleven-year cycle of cosmic radiation can have played a significant part in the rate of increase in global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last few decades compared to any similar period in the last two centuries.
When I was young, I remember visiting the Ontario Science Center. They had a cloud chamber exhibit. A naturally radioactive rock was mounted close to a sealed chamber containing water vapour at the saturation point. The little particle tracks were clearly visible. Appearing instantly and then fading over a fraction of a second. The trails are composed of ting droplets that acted as nucleation sites for the visible hair-like clouds it was explained to me. I can still see them, fascinating.
Then you are not quite well informed enough. We are all learning, so don't take that as snark. There are several observed cycles in solar activity. The one that's probably most relevant to the subject of discussion is about 200 years in length. The 11 year cycle is only one half of the 22 year cycle, with solar magnetic pole switching polarity at the 11 year sunspot minimum. There's also a 40 year cycle and others I don't recall. The unfortunate difference between just being interested and deliberate rigorous study.
Excellent.