|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 14, 2019 16:04:22 GMT
Did you suggest eye glasses? Nail on head, MB. She's just had cataract operations. That would explain the "fuzzy" logic.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 14, 2019 20:16:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 17, 2019 21:59:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 17, 2019 23:43:08 GMT
"Physicists: CO2 Molecules Retain Heat Just 0.0001 Of A Second, Meaning CO2-Driven Warming ‘Not Possible’
Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface” like a blanket does. And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second. A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will therefore have no detectable impact.
SkepticalScience, a blog spearheaded by climate science “consensus” advocate John Cook, is widely considered the explanatory guidebook for the anthropogenic global warming movement.
The blog claims CO2 molecules, with a representation of 4 parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere (400 parts per million, or ppm), collectively function like a blanket does in slowing down the rate at which the human body cools.
The rate or time lapse involved in this “slowing” of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming, however.
Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico).
Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters (Nahle, 2011a). Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.
Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second (Nahle, 2011b).
If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 ppm or 400 ppm – effectively doesn’t matter. The time lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.
Consequently, Nahle concludes “carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth”."notrickszone.com/2019/10/17/physicists-co2-molecules-retain-heat-just-0-0001-of-a-second-meaning-co2-driven-warming-not-possible/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 24, 2019 16:08:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 24, 2019 22:52:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 25, 2019 0:00:15 GMT
OK I'll take the challenge and people here can howl it down...
Note I added #3 and #4 as the poster failed to carry on numbering - perhaps showing a binary character counting above 2 being challenging
1. Plants could be the sink. NASA is showing the world is greening that is a lot of sink for CO2. The ocean has such a huge amount of limestone that it is almost caustic there is no 'ocean acidification' it may be a little less basic. Henry's law is very convincing though for the outgassing of dissolved CO2
2. Anthropogenic emissions might seem big but in global terms are very very small. If the atmosphere was a 100,000 seat stadium there would be 40 CO2 molecules man might be responsible for 1 or 2 of them. That is probably below experimental observation level.
3. See above. Hubris does not make the figures wrong
4. The isotopic trends are based on the assumption that burning fossil fuels is the only source of δ13C, it isn't. The same δ13C isotope is emitted by hundreds of volcanoes including undersea vents.
|
|