Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide. The newly released Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that “radiative forcing” from human-emitted CO2 is the leading driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide is blamed for everything from causing more droughts, floods, and hurricanes, to endangering polar bears and acidifying the oceans. But Earth’s climate is dominated by water, not carbon dioxide.
Earth’s water cycle encompasses the salt water of the oceans, the fresh water of rivers and lakes, and frozen icecaps and glaciers. It includes water flows within and between the oceans, atmosphere, and land, in the form of evaporation, precipitation, storms and weather. The water cycle contains enormous energy flows that shape Earth’s climate, temperature trends, and surface features. Water effects are orders of magnitude larger than the feared effects of carbon dioxide.
Sunlight falls directly on the Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on the Polar Regions, where less energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth is driven by a redistribution of heat from the Tropics to the Polar Regions. Evaporation creates massive tropical storm systems, which move heat energy north to cooler latitudes. Upper level winds, along with the storm fronts, cyclones, and ocean currents of Earth’s water cycle, redistribute heat energy from the Tropics to the Polar Regions.
The Pacific Ocean is Earth’s largest surface feature, covering one-third of the globe and large enough to contain all of Earth’s land masses with area remaining. Oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold over 1,000 times the heat energy. Oceans have a powerful, yet little understood effect on Earth’s climate.
Even the greenhouse effect itself is dominated by water. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.
Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The argument is that, since warmer air can hold more moisture, atmospheric water vapor will increase as Earth warms. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, additional water vapor is presumed to add additional warming to that caused by CO2. In effect, the theory assumes that the carbon cycle is controlling the more powerful water cycle.
But for the last 15 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data. Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends.
An example is Atlantic hurricane prediction. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its 2013 hurricane forecast, calling for an “active or extremely active” hurricane season. At that time, NOAA predicted 7 to 11 Atlantic hurricanes (storms with sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher). In August NOAA revised their forecast down to 6 to 9 hurricanes. We entered October with a count of only two hurricane-strength storms. Computer models are unable to accurately forecast one season of Earth’s water cycle in just one region.
The IPCC and proponents of the theory of man-made warming are stumped by the 15-year halt in global surface temperature rise. Dr. Kevin Trenberth hypothesizes that the heat energy from greenhouse gas forcing has gone into the deep oceans. If so, score one for the power of the oceans on climate change.
Others have noted the prevalence of La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean since 1998. During 1975-1998, when global temperatures were rising, the Pacific experienced more frequent warm El Niño events than the cooler La Niñas. But the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a powerful temperature cycle in the North Pacific Ocean, moved into a cool phase about ten years ago. With the PDO in a cool phase, we now see more La Niña conditions. Maybe more La Niñas are the reason for the recent flat global temperatures. But if so, isn’t this evidence that ocean and water cycle effects are stronger than the effects of CO2?
Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“But isn’t the water cycle created by the Sun? I don’t know how the Sun can create the water cycle if the IPCC K-T diagram says the sun provides only 168 W/m^2 of input power, which is only -40F if converted into a temperature that sunlight would induce on a surface if totally absorbed. -40F can’t melt ice, can it? But direct sunshine DOES melt ice, doesn’t it? And create the water cycle? I guess the energy from the water cycle must come back to help create the water cycle in the first place.”
The Sun when it’s direcly over head and on clear sky has solar flux of about 1000 watts per square meter. If you measue this solar flux about 1 foot under water, it also around 1000 watts per square and as you deeper in the water [there still solar flux at 100 meters] one has less solar energy.
If you stop the sunlight from going deeper in the ocean, so have the water a meter or so deep
and have bottom which dark material [dark mud] than you basically have a solar pond.
A solar pond in texas in the winter will have water temperature beneath the surface which is
about 70 C and in summer this average temperature can be more than 80 C.
What causes these high temperature is the sunlight at around noon and it maintains such temperature because the surface is cooler than the water a meter below the surface, and the heat gradient caused by salt water prevents the warm water from rising.
Now, go back to ocean, below a meter most the sunlight is passing thru the water, and at certain deep no sunlight reaches. So what happen to the energy of sunlight which passes thru the first
meter of water? If it very slightly per second warms the water in 100 meter column of water, that heat doesn’t return to the surface [within a day or months]. So such numbers as “168 W/m^2”
isn’t the amount energy warming the surface which in on second radiates and in one second radiate back towards space. Instead most of it goes in ocean and takes a long time before it’s radiated towards space.
So the bottomless “solar pond” of ocean don’t reach the sond pond’s high temperature, but they
would tend to keep more heat per square meter of ocean surface area.
Because a solar pond will reach a certain temperature it can’t warm higher whereas the ocean has 100 meter of water it can warm up a little bit every day, and year after year.
So Ocean not a good solar pond in sense it create a large temperature difference, which could use to drive a turbine or purify water, or whatever, but better at storing heat an solar pond- and solar pond very good at storing heat for days or weeks. The ocean is something that stores heat on scale of centuries, compared to weeks for a shallow solar pond.
Sometimes I feel we are flogging a zombie horse.
@PWilson –
Further proof of what you say is the fact that the west coasts of North American and Europe have much milder climates than farther inland. It’s because the oceans control air temps, not CO2.
And not vice versa, either.
As I have written and said many times, in comparison to water in all of its forms: the ocean, clouds, snow and ice cover, CO2 is about as significant as a fart in a hurricane.
Its not alarming like the climate science community suggests, and the temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentration is less than what the science community suggests, but CO2 emissions do affect temperature. Water vapor fluctuates wildly with temperature on a daily and seasonal basis. Water greatly exceeds CO2’s influence, but increased CO2 concentration is more of a constant ever present low level influence and more evenly distributed across the globe. Not so with water vapor. CO2 is re-absorbed by plants and the ocean, but its residence time is relatively long. The surface water supply can already be considered infinite compared to the amount of water vapor that the total atmosphere could hold, i.e 100% RH even at temperatures much higher than today.
To understand why the radiative green house hypothesis is in error, you only need to be able to answer the following simple physics questions –
1. Do radiative gases such as H2O and CO2 both absorb and emit IR radiation? Yes or No?
2. Are Radiative gases critical to strong vertical tropospheric convective circulation? Yes or No?
3. Does altering the quantity of radiative gases in the atmosphere alter the speed of tropospheric convective circulation? Yes or No?
4. Is convective circulation including water vapour the primary mechanism for transporting energy from the surface and lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere? Yes or No?
5. Are radiative gases the primary mechanism for energy loss to space from the upper atmosphere? Yes or No?
6. Does down welling LWIR emitted from the atmosphere significantly effect the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? Yes or No.
Konrad,
I like it.
An individual (I assume he is an alarmist) posted a rebuttal to this article in the comments section of the Washington Times website where the article appeared:
“This article hinges on the assumption that the CO2 cycle and the H2O cycle are not intimately intertwined. This is a false assumption. Conversely, CO2 is absorbed by the ocean. Clearly plowing an ill thought out agenda of ideological fixation is so boring………………”
Not being a scientist myself, does someone understand what he is hinting at? What does the CO2 cycle have to do with the water cycle and the gist of this article?
Well, when I notice a a change in climate and sea levels in particular (I live right by the sea) I will start to worry. Until then…
I respect the scientific method but as William Burroughs once said “There is no job too dirty…”
You are are not Gods, far from it.
Re: atmosphere heating water and vice versa
The atmosphere cannot directly heat the ocean. It can, however, slow the rate of cooling. So, if the ocean is receiving a constant source of energy (i.e. from the sun) and downwelling IR from the atmosphere increases (via an enhanced greenhouse effect) then it is possible that the oceans will warm. By how much is the big question.
It is worth noting, though, that the increase in OHC since the 1950s is more or less consistent with the estimated CO2 forcing over the same period.
This chart is a fine visual example of the enormous difference between the Atmosphere and the Ocean when it comes to heat capacity:
Energy Content Atmosphere vs Ocean
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-9653.html#pid9653
Anomalatys says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Don’t you realize you are talking in circles? All of the “heating” you speak of is a null effect. K-T shows ~78 W/m² of solar energy being directly absorbed by the atmosphere gases. Of that one half radiates downward to the surface. Take the ~161 W/m² + that 39 W/m² half and you have the ~200 W/m² warming of the surface. That 200 plus the upward half from the atmosphere radiated upward is the ~239 W/m² the satellites measure in LWIR from our planet. Please stop unnecessarily confusing this thread. Ok?
Transpiration (hydrological sourced) accounts for ~1/2 of the upward transfer of energy. The other 1/2 is from LWIR but don’t forget the “window” radiation that directly exits ever second from the surface. That is around 66 W/m² of that 200 W/m² leaving from the surface and only ~33 W/m² being LW cooling from radiation that interacts recursively absorbed and re-radiated upward. The downward component of that has already been accounted for.
Yes, the water cycle dominates. Most of what you see in LW in T-K’s energy budget cancels out and is that “null” effect, changes nothing and just maintains the local temperature, and is VERY misleading, just ignore it and that is proper, stick to the ‘net’ effects.
So you end up with ~3 parts of cooling by water related processes, ~1 part cooling by non-window radiation and we must live with that fact as much as IPCC whats you to “believe” otherwise.
I can get more exact by figures from papers (± a few W/m² here and there) but you will find, in general, that is what is reality.
Posted on my blog at http://conservefewell.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/the-maddening-world-of-climate-change/ Has anyone offered a credible refutation or critique of Goreham’s scholarship?
Ha! A post one agree with in part!
Yes on the power of the oceans on the climate, no on this being a score for one mechanism at the expense of the other mechanism, they occur side by side.
This means the others kind of agree with Trenberth. Ocean circulation patterns with upwelling cold water in the east pacific cause a change in the relative temperature difference between air and water and therefore heat exchange, in this case leading to relatively more energy being in the ocean than in the atmosphere (as opposed to situations without such upwelling cold waters).
This is evidence that ocean patterns influence surface temperatures (who’d have thought that!) but not that CO2 has no warming effect. Ocean patterns primarily influence distribution of heat within the system. CO2 causes an energy imbalance for the whole earth system.
Anyways, you are very close to mainstream climate science. Compare:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/apr/24/reuters-puzzled-global-warming-acceleration
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/07/global-warming-puzzle-pieces-assembled
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/24/global-warming-pause-button
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/28/global-warming-oceans-known-unknowns
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/03/global-warming-pacific-ocean-puzzle-piece
But, the main reason give precedence to CO2 over water vapour is that water vapour gets washed out of the atmosphere quickly while this is not the case for CO2. It doesn’t matter if the air is dry or moist, the CO2 is still there and doing what physics says it does.
Regards, Sisi
Actually a great deal of the heat does return to the surface the following night. There is an effect in tropical oceans called overturning which occurs a few hours after sunset. In this effect, the surface water – which has been cooling since the sun went down – becomes more dense than the water beneath it. This leads to the cool surface water sinking to its density level and the warmer water beneath the surface rising to the surface to give its heat up. Some small amount of heat is added to the ocean, but not nearly as much as the 168 W/m^2 quoted. Of course if too much heat is locally absorbed into the water, that water expands, causing sea surface elevation to rise and the heated water to begin flowing downhill. As I understand it, this and tradewinds are the main drivers of the warm surface currents.
Sisi,
CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming.
Stop reading the Guardian and you will do fine.
Try and heat a bucket of water by directing a hair dryer at the surface — it just does not happen – the above article and at http://www.newclimatemodel.com/our-saviour-the-hydrological-cycle/ are excellent
Anomalatys says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:36 pm
@P Wilson –
Well, even if the thermal capacity from air can’t heat the oceans, radiation from the air can heat the oceans…the energy budget shows it…air provides 2 or 3 times more heat to the oceans than the sun does.
————————————————————————————–
LOL. It always amazes me the naivety of those with no background in the physical sciences how they worship the nonsense served up by the now discredited IPCC. Even when it is pointed out to him that he is mistaken he persists. Brainwashing with a most successful example.
Reblogueó esto en Blog de Mariano Vargasy comentado:
Ojo al dato!
The K-T energy balance diagram has the Greenhouse Effect at 155 W/m2.
Water Vapor in the atmosphere is responsible for more than 100 W/m2 of this amount.
So again, it is water.
—–
But in terms of the water vapor feedback, it is assumed to be a 7.0% increase in water vapor per 1.0C increase in temperatures. However, water vapor feedback is only coming in at between 2.4% per 1.0C (in Hadcrut4) and 4.6% per 1.0C (in RSS/UAH average troposphere temps).
http://s17.postimg.org/6jl2b984f/Hadcrut4_vs_TCWV_1948_Aug_2013.png
And then, why does that matter. The entire theory of global warming depends on this 7.0% showing up. If the feedback is in the range of the empirical evidence to day, global warming can only be between 1.0C to 1.6C per doubling. Furthermore, we see what happens to water vapor levels when the Greenhouse Effect is completely gone – when we get down to -33.0C. In the theory, there is virtually no water vapor left but the empirical data to date still leaves a substantial amount left. So, the math just does not work for 3.0C per doubling. Water vapor is still the biggest greenhouse gas there is, no matter how much CO2 is left, even if it is Zero.
This is the first time this chart will have appeared anywhere. Might be self-explanatory but I can post about it more if needed.
http://s18.postimg.org/tug1h4svt/CC_Relation_Implication_TCWV_vs_Empirical.png
It is estimated that at least 505 thousand cubic kilometers of water falls as precipitation each year. Which is so much water it would cover whole Earth with ~1 meter thick layer of water. And this water must be evaporated each year from the sea and land surfaces. Given the water latent heat of vaporization (2.26×106 J/kg)
5.05×1017 kg x 2.26×10^6 J = 1.14×10^24 Joules
(at least ~70.8 W/m2 average energy flux from the sea and land surfaces in form of purely latent heat – good to note that this figure is still significantly lower than the latent heat estimation made in so called Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget.)
Let’s compare the figure to an estimation how much heat the Earth surface yearly received in average from the sun (1361.1 / 4 x 0.7 = 238.19 W):
238.19W x 5.10072×10^14 Joules x 31556926 [seconds in year] = 3.83×10^24 Joules
The comparison shows that only for precipitation cycle is consumed about 30% of the total heat absorbed at the surface from the solar shortwave and is transported as latent heat via evaporation way from the sea and land surfaces somewhere up to the atmosphere where it again condenses and releases the latent heat, heating so the atmosphere there.
Anomalatys, How do you evaluate the following? ‘War is Peace’, ‘Lies are Truth’, ‘Obedience is Freedom’?
Just wondering.
CO2 is the primary coolant of the upper atmosphere. It, and water, block e.n.o.r.m.o.u.s. volumes of sunlight coming in from sun-side top of atmosphere.
Now watch very carefully and you’re going to experience the transmogrificational, transcendent joy, of having your plus-isms match up to your minus-isms.
The Sun is shining on half the spherical atmosphere-planet complex 24/7/365.
That ratio of light IN
to light OUT
never varies enough for you to have to take off your shoes.
On the non sunlight influenced regions’ vs the sunlight impinged regions there’s a boundary layer where some light creeps around, but not much, and it’s less than a mile back that way so normalize that boundary to a standard and give yourself sunlight in, on an area, of average intensity. It’ll be more intense in the middle, less intense to the sides, get it strapped in as some value. A numerical one.
IF THE SIDE on the INSIDE of the atmosphere is giving off less on average than the amount of sunlight being BLOCKED FROM EVER GETTIN’ IN thair, perfesser,
your “it really is heating if Ya’ll look again” fake science immediately undergoes a fatal bullet through the major malfunction box that has the label on it saying, “If YOU TRY THAT, YOUR STORY’s gonna have a MAJOR MALFUNCTION.”
Oh
yes,
it
will.
You had better be HOLDING IN,
an amount IDENTICAL to,
or BIGGER than
WHAT THE INFRARED GASES BLOCK – keep OUT –
or YOU’VE
got a COOLING problem.
Not a problem, cooling.
Not us,
not the scientific method.
Your story
and you, have a
problem.
That’s called
COOLING when that CO2 is responsible for keeping OUT more sunlight than it keeps IN, translated into earth light. Because the earth is indeed a flashlight and the intensity of the energy it gives off is SO SMALL,
that YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN MONKEY EYES CAN’T SEE IT.
But boy howdy professer Bore Hole, you can see that sunlight so brightly you can barely stare into it even when it’s almost set and just risen. MUCH of that time you can’t make that human primate stare into that sun without EYE DAMAGE.
What’s the chance of your eyes being damaged staring into the intense infrared light the earth gives off professor B.H. Backerd?
Them Backerdisms gonna boil all our eyes out from the heat uh… feckt of them magic gaises?
No that”s not going to happen Mr. Climatologist because you’re either seriously misinformed about which way a thermometer goes when one refers to heating or cooling,
or you’re just some wacktard activist who respects nobody and nothing until you’re made to respect it.
But respecting it in the long haul you will my friend, and you will deny you ever thought otherwise.
The infrared resonant gases are coolants.
CO2 and WATER INTERCEPT LIGHT BEFORE IT HITS THE GROUND.
That means they are coolants.
Not maybe,
not Thursday,
not sometimes,
not could be.
If you block OUT more energy than you block IN,
you are a COOLANT.
If you block more energy IN than OUT
you are a WARMING mechanism.
Ya see how that works?
Now again you don’t even have to take off your Al Gore Effect Green Energy Backerdism Harvester mittens:
The earth is effectively HEATED hemispherically but obliquely by the Sun.
The earth is COOLED facing the sun by CO2 STOPPING SUNLIGHT from getting IN.
The CO2 blocks an energetically dense stream of infrared coming IN so it stays OUT.
THAT is called COOLING when that happens. You can say it, you just hate it.
Now: SOME light, gets in, and is converted to EARTH light: a much less dense energy stream that has similar frequencies to sunlight but at a much lower density per unit’s area. Meters, miles, millimeters, whatever.
Don’t be frightened we’re all here to support you admitting you’ve been having trouble facing the causes of global cooling.
Now watch: you won’t be afraid, and indeed, since you’ll stop blathering libtard stupidity, people are going to think you attended an exorcism and got some sympathetic vibrations from the good witch doctor and might have a hope of one day having some sense again:
When there is a very intense stream of sun infrared being blocked at all times over – give or take half – the earth’s hence the atmosphere’s area
and half of that is being blocked, and half is getting in,
some of that is going by: half of it, and part of THAT, is hitting the earth but bouncing OFF.
So the space where those molecules are, is filled with a LOT of sun source light, and it’s bouncing a LOT of it off and out into space.
On that hand, that’s called coooooooLing, you can say it, co000OOooL. CooLinG.
There ya go!
Now on the other hand the earth, is ALSO giving off a stream of infrared light but there is much, much MUCH less of it, per area you sample. Just fractional amounts.
When the CO2 isn’t kicking sunlight out to space in the UPPER atmosphere
and is instead kicking sunlight out into space in the LOWER atmosphere,
YOU’VE LEARNED, THAT’S called COOLING.
Look at the big brain on PHILiP….!
But when the CO2 is kicking light back to EARTH, that’s called WARMING isn’t it?
I said that’s called warming professer and I expect you’re gonna agree or we’re gonna be at loggereads over stupid and which way a thermometer points, when.
So WHICH do you think the CO2 does MORE OF?
Do you think CO2 BLOCKS more SUN light OUT?
Or do you think the CO2 block more EARTH light, IN?
WHICH of THOSE ENERGY STREAMS, in YOUR PERFESHUNUhL UhPINyuN
is MORE ENERGY RICH?
Because if YOU’VE got a problem with the fact the one from the SUN is more ENERGY DENSE
then I and I’m sure quite a few here are going to INVITE YOU to an EXPERIMENT where you walk outside and stare at the sun for a few afternoons,
then go stare at some beautiful dirt for a few,
and you can come back and GIVE US YER ASSESSMENT, Perfesser Bore Hole,
on which energy stream’s most energy dense.
Now it’s NOT going to be a real good test in the sense the sunlight’s got a lot more light of other colors and you’ll go blind,
but on the other hand, the world will be saved from another person who thought a class of gases keeping half the energy of the sun from ever reaching the planet, on the one hand –
and then functioning as a phase change refrigeration system helping release whatever gets in
is a giant heater on,
in the sky,
over all our heads,
too big not to believe in,
too tiny to move a meter.
If you have some kind of problem wit the concepts that have been related to you, why don’t ya go find the s.m.a.r.t.e.s.t. Mann yew no,
and send him to explain how blocking more light out than in
is a giant heater in the sky.
Too big not to believe in
Too tiny to move a meter.
Among other scientific disciplines, Electronic Engineering specializing in the generation, transmission, capture, processing and analysis of electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere and space and also, the industrial compounds I need to make that happen
awaits with breath abate.
I’m sure the entire room’s throbbing with eager anticipation of the scintillating backerdistical back & forthisms that are gonna roll off his befuddled fingers to explain to us all, how thim
Backerdisms
is uh gonna boil our eyes out
before we even can close our eyes to the truth and deny it.
We keep waiting.
Apparently so does N.O.A.A.
Here’s where they checked their own story of Backerdisms and found there were fewer Backerdistical Rays than when they started counting.
Yeah N.O.A.A. was SURE them CO2’s was uh.. gonna boil all our heads before we could get our hats on so they… set out sophisticated Backerdistical sensors at ground zero for MoronMade Global Goofyisms.
Guess what Perfesser Bore Hole?
They put the sensors out in ’96 or so and FOURTEEN YEARS LATER, when they wrapped it up around 2010,
Thair was less uh them Backerdisms.
Now aint that plumb magical?
Yew bet it is.
So you go ahead and find the guy who’s going to explain to me how them Backerdisms is POWWWWurFuL.
Powerful.
From another realm in this life, REAL sciences, extend a mocking “HOWDY!” to the Magic Gais crowd.
=====
John Phillips says:
October 7, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Its not alarming like the climate science community suggests, and the temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentration is less than what the science community suggests, but CO2 emissions do affect temperature. Water vapor fluctuates wildly with temperature on a daily and seasonal basis. Water greatly exceeds CO2′s influence, but increased CO2 concentration is more of a constant ever present low level influence and more evenly distributed across the globe. Not so with water vapor. CO2 is re-absorbed by plants and the ocean, but its residence time is relatively long. The surface water supply can already be considered infinite compared to the amount of water vapor that the total atmosphere could hold, i.e 100% RH even at temperatures much higher than today.
The all important LINKS:
N.O.A.A. LOOKING IN VAIN for MAGICAL BACKERDISMS growin’ an’ growin with them CO2s!!!
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim&
N.A.S.A. confessing CO2 is the MAJOR BLOCKER of INCOMING I.R. in the UPPER atmosphere.
is currently an INACTIVE website due to Federal shutdown.
Google for yourself: N.A.S.A. proves CO2 COOLS UPPER ATMOSPHERE.
Of course magically in the lower atmosphere it don’t block nairy what got by up at thuh top. It’s awl warmin
awl thuh
time.
YaW.
Pfft…