Runaway Braindamage Effect Strikes Climate Scientists

One of the stupidest claims in climate science, originally pushed by the constantly stoned Carl Sagan, is that increasing CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

This is a spectacularly stupid concept. The only IR bands which are not saturated are ones which CO2 doesn’t affect.

ScreenHunter_40 Jul. 31 11.49

File:Atmospheric Transmission.png – Global Warming Art

The IPCC says :

a “runaway greenhouse effect”—analogous to Venus–  appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.

www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Runaway Braindamage Effect Strikes Climate Scientists

  1. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on CACA.

  2. Jimbo says:

    Backed up by one of their insiders.

    “There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”
    [Sir John Houghton – IPCC author & atmospheric scientist]

  3. gator69 says:

    Greenhouses have physical barriers that actually DO trap heat, and need human control. Gases transfer heat and are incapable of ‘trapping’ it. Call it what it is, a ‘blanket gas’ that helps us retain heat temporarily so life can flourish. It is not a problem, it is a blessing.

    We have no roof on the planet, heat escapes to space.

    • CO2 neither traps nor slows down heat from escaping to space, it is in fact a “heat lubricant”, speeding up heat transfer, because it increases the radiative pathway for heat transfer within the atmosphere (on top of any conduction and convection). There is no temperature-raising bouncing of heat between the atmospheric “greenhouse gases” and the planetary surface, as the consensus believes–that would be a free-energy pump, a violation of conservation of energy, as was obvious in the infamous Trenberth “Earth energy budget” diagram, which can be seen here. The atmosphere is only a “blanket” retaining heat because of the vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere, which dominates over all other atmospheric processes involving heat transfer and is due only to the weight of the atmosphere (and the effective specific heat c of the air molecules: dT/dh = -g/c), as the temperature increases with pressure throughout the troposphere (that “lapse rate” structure is independent of any IR absorption in the atmosphere–so long as the atmosphere is warm enough to remain gaseous, and obeys the hydrostatic condition, any available heat energy must be parcelled vertically according to the lapse rate–horizontally is more complicated, involving regional winds and weather). The definitive fact denying the consensus greenhouse effect is my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Thank you Harry. 🙂
      Think..

      If the surface is cool, there is very little convection., ie, doesn’t do anything
      If the surface gets hot, lots of convection, ie cooling

      It is patently obvious that this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a blanket.

      The atmosphere acts to COOL the surface once it gets warmer than the pressure gradient will allow.

    • AndyG55 says:

      ps.. the ONLY substance that can alter the lapse rate to any significant amount is the one that is capable of 3 different phases at atmospheric temperatures.. ie H2O !!

      CO2 actually has a specific heat LESS THAN that of air, so it increases the lapse rate by a tiny, tiny amount.

      • gator69 says:

        You guys are a little trigger happy! 😆

        My comment had nothing to do with CO2, it was merely a comment on the use of the word ‘greenhouse’ when describing necessary gases. For the record I do not believe CO2 has any significant effect on our climate whatsoever, and that it acts as a coolant at times. But obviously we do have gases that keep us from freezing to death at night.

        I conducted my first CO2 soybean experiment in 1978, and it has been my opinion ever since that we need MORE CO2, and not less.

        I will forgive the friendly fire. 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          Sorry mr gator.. when I see the word “blanket” applied to the atmosphere.. I see red, its so …. stupid !! 🙂

          Toward 700ppm !!!

  4. Olaf Koenders says:

    Carl Sagan also theorised Earth-like conditions at the surface of Venus. I don’t think he ever publicly recanted his theory after the Russian Venera missions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s