Ångström Was Correct

Knut Ångström discovered over 100 years ago that changing the amount of CO2 in the air has very little impact on how much longwave radiation is transmitted. This is the same thing which climate models show. The graph below was generated with data from one of the standard radiative transfer models used in climate and weather models.

As you can see, changing CO2 levels has little impact on the amount of radiation transmitted to the upper atmosphere in the mid-latitude summer.

2015-10-27-07-07-25

But it’s worse than it seems. The interesting thing is the amount of downwelling longwave radiation. This is the greenhouse effect. An increase to 1,000 PPM CO2 would increase the amount of downwelling longwave radiation in the mid-latitude summer by less than one percent. The concept being promoted by fraudsters Katherine Hayhoe and Heidi Cullen that summers will get much hotter as CO2 increases, is patently absurd. Correct use of models shows nothing of the sort.

2015-10-27-07-01-44

The whole climate scam is based around Hansen’s fake feedbacks. CO2 has very little effect.

On the other hand, downwelling longwave radiation is strongly affected by humidity. A humid day will have 60% greater longwave radiation hitting the ground than a dry day. This is one reason why humidity makes the weather feel hotter. A one percent change in humidity has far more effect than a 100% change in CO2.

2015-10-27-07-27-11

If Hansen’s feedbacks were correct, one humid day would start the whole world spiraling towards thermal Armageddon. His theories are patently absurd.

About stevengoddard

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

8 Responses to Ångström Was Correct

  1. Steve Case says:

    Water vapor is NOT a forcing agent. Do you not know anything? Back to school for you!

    I know that’s the answer I get when I point that sort of thing out.(-:

    • An increase in H2O would produce exactly the same feedbacks as an increase in CO2.

      • David A says:

        ? but what. about cloud formation? Increased H20 is by definition an increase in clouds, and therefore a far greater decrease in energy reaching the surface, and most importantly, a decrease in SW entering the oceans, which are in affect a LGH. (Liquid green house) of far more power then anything in the atmosphere cogent to earths energy budget.

        I suppose the minimum increase in CO2 DLWIR would result in a small increase in H20 as that energy is being absorbed by the ocean surface. Indeed that alone may convert most of the CO2 DLWIR into an acceleration of the convection in the hydrological cycle, and a small increase in cooling clouds verses any increase n atmospheric T.?

    • Ted says:

      CO2 feedbacks are completely different from any other feedback. If they weren’t, then any increase in temperature, for any reason, ever, would have caused runaway warming. Since earth is still cooler than venus, CO2 feedbacks MUST be different. It’s the only possible explanation.

      CO2… It’s got what feedbacks crave. It’s got electrolytes.

  2. omanuel says:

    100 years ago scientists did research to uncover details of reality.

    Now scientists do research to hide reality from the public in exchange for government research grant funds.

    The switch occurred at the end of WWII when two falsehoods were inserted in the foundations of nuclear and solar physics.

    We are now in a tight race as seventy years of government deception (1945-2015) are being exposed on Research-Gate.

  3. macha says:

    Some one please post this angstrom blog at Jo Nova site where Dr David Evans has proposed a new model.

  4. gymnosperm says:

    Just ask Andrew Lacis, water is FEEDBACK ONLY. He actually believes this, even after he did a model run without the paltry 400ppm CO2 and got a snowball earth in a century.

    Had a discussion with Joel Shore about this a while back and even he was incredulous about the feedback only status. He wanted a citation which I provided.

  5. Reposted this at the Climate Change Chronicle – thanks for that.

    Usually for reality on CO2, I would visit Idso’s CO2 Science website.
    http://www.co2science.org/

    However on searching the 12791 public documents
    at that website, there is no mention of Ångström at all.

    It has always troubled me, that CO2 seems to be only officially
    now measured at Mauna Loa, yet what relevance does this have
    to CO2 concentrations Worldwide, at any particular locus ?
    What Keeling claimed is that in various other loci, historically,
    the measurements were all the same in the 1950’s, and so the
    assumption is that the same holds true today, and we need only
    measure at one place, Mauna Loa, The slopes of an active CO2
    emitting volcano. Err, eh what ?

    The “Keeling monopoly” seems to still be extant.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s