More "Global Warming" BS

[M]

Source; https://patriotcommandcenter.org/forum/more-global-warming-bs

Source; Robert Webster

Came across this bit in a technical periodical (Atmosphere 2014, 5, 473-483) from eleven years ago:

 

"Detailed absorption cross-sections of three newly detected gases in the atmosphere, CFC-113a,

HCFC-133a and mixture of CFC-112/CFC-112a (predominantly CFC-112), .... These are used to

calculate, for the first time, ... global warming potentials for the three gases.  This allows the

quantification of the radiative forcing due to these gases and the CO2-equivalence of their emissions.

Although their current contribution to radiative forcing is trivial, they are nevertheless powerful

greenhouse gases on a molecule-per-molecule basis"

 

The full article* was originally found at CentAUR (Central Archive at the University of Reading).

 

A few points:

 

They didn't know about these atmospheric (extremely trace) gases until well into the 2000's.

 

They reference their "CO2-equivalence" as if such a reference were meaningful.  It isn't.

 

They're slowly realizing the fraud in their claim that "CO2 is a strong climate change force", making "CO2-equivalence" that much less meaningful.

 

They found these gases reactive with IR over limited wavelengths of the IR spectrum, yet failed to note any coincidence of those wavelengths with the spectra IR outbound from Earth's surface!  It is entirely possible that such gases would have no ability to "trap" heat (IR) released by Earth!

 

While they admit their "current contribution to radiative forcing is trivial" they hang their frenzy (at the time) on the fact that these gases "are nevertheless powerful greenhouse gases on a molecule-per-molecule basis".  This is like claiming a baseball player with a 0.083 batting average is a superstar ("powerful greenhouse gases") because he can hit a monumental homerun if the pitcher lobs a nice easy pitch over the heart of the plate (an unlikely event in his entire career).

 

Such papers are not conducive to proper education because the only thing of value to be learned is that these researchers were looking for evidence to support an invalid theory they continue to treat as if it were valid.

 

Let's hope that the University of Reading (UK) has cleaned up its act, but I wouldn't hold my breath… I've seen no evidence those in power (UK) are willing to acknowledge "the big lie" and move on from demonizing CO2.  Let's hope the students are smarter than the fools who preach this nonsense and simply nod their heads in agreement, provide the "correct" exam answers (for their grade) while knowing the truth and living their lives accordingly. 

If so, ultimately, their will be a strong change for the better and universities will, of necessity, be forced to clean up their act.

 

The long actual history of climate and atmospheric CO2 very clearly demonstrate no correlation either between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing climate or between atmospheric CO2 and climate.

 

No correlation means causation is impossible, yet some "researchers" will continue to try to support the theory invalidated by the evidence in nature.

 

That's not research… it's blind devotion to nonsense.

 

Bob Webster

* Infrared Absorption Spectra, Radiative Efficiencies, and Global Warming Potentials of Newly-Detected Halogenated

Compounds: CFC-113a, CFC-112 and HCFC-133a