I would not consider NdGT an elite physicist by any means. He advocates antropogenic CO2 as a critical element of climate change. Yet the RFek forcing valuations for key greehouse gases (ghg's) under the well established and stipulated laws of thermodynamics easily proves the CO2 fears are a hoax.
Yes I would challange NdGT in court with the following baseline calculations:
Climate is 288.8°K > |0|°K
Climate attributed to ALL GHG's is only 16.3°K
Therefore GHG's account for only 5.644% of climate.
Among GHG's..
H2O/water accounts for 25,000 ppm w/an RFek value of 1.00 unit per molecule, and therefore 25,000 RFek units/mp
CO2 equals 410 ppm x 1.94 RFek value per molecule for 795 RFek units/mp. And only 29% is anthropogenic.
CH4/methane or cow farts (actually all rotting organics worldwide) add <2 ppm at 1.52 RFek units/mp.
All other GHGs add about 3 more RFek units/mp.
So of all GHG's perhaps 238 RFek units out of about 25,800 total GHG RFek units are anthropogenic change over 125 years.
238/25,800 x 16.3°K/288.8°K = human C🦶
= .00052°K.
Of a 1°K change in climate > p-125 yrs, 99.948% of the change has nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. The math is irrefutable since those constants are stipulated factors approved by NASA, NOAA and the IPCC.
That is just one way we know the CO2 alarm is a hoax. There are several ways to arrive at the same results including the use of atomic weight equivalents incorporated into a ratio algorithm. That method produces the same limited AGW result within +/- 2% of the above.
NdGT is towing a political line, but physicists and astronomers, geologists, botanists and paleo climate scientists simply do not agree with what is easily disputed as a farce. We don't even know if the CO2 count was 285 back in 1895 because modern climate model writers decided to cull that number from the bottom third of over one hundred experiments run at the end of the 19th century.
One reason we know that is an error is the botanical extinction paradox. Botanists have discovered that over 1/3rd of plant species simply cannot survive below 200 ppm. Yet climate scientists keep insisting that ice age CO2 levels were in the 160-180 ppm range based on ice core studies.
If so, why did the earth not suffer a 1/3 loss of all botanical species enduring ice ages? The logical answer is CO2 sublimation loss. In other words, ice cores while consistent in storing data, do not store 100% of A-CO2 during the long event trapping processes that eventually become the source of the ice cores. Ignoring CO2 sublimation during the long course of each trapping event causes an estimate understatement of 33-50% of actual CO2 in the ice core. Adjusting the ice cores as physicists suggest, means actual CO2 levels in the last 3 million years was likely 50-80 ppm higher than previously thought. Such an understatement coupled with revisiting the real CO2 in A back in 1895 means the human impact on CO2 is likely no more than half of what could be calculated above.
Man, I just read that whole explanation. I feel like I understood most of it, despite not being a biologist/chemist. Sounds like you’re essentially saying that the amount of CO2 contributed by humans, based upon the rate of change since 1895, and other thermodynamic factors, isn’t enough to actually cause the change is average global temperature?
I’m trying to find more info on this. What does RFek mean? I cannot find a definition.
RFek is radio frequency gain that forces the addition of kinetic energy within the atmosphere.
The forcing values of each GHG molecule is established by the laws of physics post laboratory experimentation. Since 1998, the original forcing value for a molecule of CO2 was 2.011, but the NOAA, NASA and IPCC recently resolved and revised the value to 1.94. Water vapor (H2O) also a far more significant GHG has a value of 1.00.
H2O in the atmosphere = 25,000 ppm
CO2 in the atmosphere = 410 ppm
Now when you measure how important GHGs are to total climate, you realize that only 16.3°K of 288.8°K >|0|°K comes from GHG RFek forcing.
Of that, 25,000 x 1.00 ek units is from H2O., and 410 x 1.94 ek comes from CO2 and remember less than 30% of ek from CO2 is human caused.
That means the heat forcing of H2O is by an RFek factor of 25,000, while...
The heat forcing factor of CO2 when including methane (CH4 / cow farts) is only about 800.
So you can do the algorithm.
16.3°K/288.8°K x 800/25,800 × 3/10th (being generous here)...
That represents the total CO2 related climate change caused by humans over the last 125 years...
About 0.00052°K out of a purported 1°K (or C) change in the last 125 years. Ot means NATURE is responsible for 99.99848% of climate change.
No getting past the physics and those are easily validated in other ways. The laws of Thermodynamics will not change just because they are politically inconvenient for the Marxist left.
I would not consider NdGT an elite physicist by any means. He advocates antropogenic CO2 as a critical element of climate change. Yet the RFek forcing valuations for key greehouse gases (ghg's) under the well established and stipulated laws of thermodynamics easily proves the CO2 fears are a hoax.
Yes I would challange NdGT in court with the following baseline calculations:
Climate is 288.8°K > |0|°K Climate attributed to ALL GHG's is only 16.3°K Therefore GHG's account for only 5.644% of climate.
Among GHG's..
H2O/water accounts for 25,000 ppm w/an RFek value of 1.00 unit per molecule, and therefore 25,000 RFek units/mp
CO2 equals 410 ppm x 1.94 RFek value per molecule for 795 RFek units/mp. And only 29% is anthropogenic.
CH4/methane or cow farts (actually all rotting organics worldwide) add <2 ppm at 1.52 RFek units/mp.
All other GHGs add about 3 more RFek units/mp.
So of all GHG's perhaps 238 RFek units out of about 25,800 total GHG RFek units are anthropogenic change over 125 years.
238/25,800 x 16.3°K/288.8°K = human C🦶
= .00052°K.
Of a 1°K change in climate > p-125 yrs, 99.948% of the change has nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. The math is irrefutable since those constants are stipulated factors approved by NASA, NOAA and the IPCC.
That is just one way we know the CO2 alarm is a hoax. There are several ways to arrive at the same results including the use of atomic weight equivalents incorporated into a ratio algorithm. That method produces the same limited AGW result within +/- 2% of the above.
NdGT is towing a political line, but physicists and astronomers, geologists, botanists and paleo climate scientists simply do not agree with what is easily disputed as a farce. We don't even know if the CO2 count was 285 back in 1895 because modern climate model writers decided to cull that number from the bottom third of over one hundred experiments run at the end of the 19th century.
One reason we know that is an error is the botanical extinction paradox. Botanists have discovered that over 1/3rd of plant species simply cannot survive below 200 ppm. Yet climate scientists keep insisting that ice age CO2 levels were in the 160-180 ppm range based on ice core studies.
If so, why did the earth not suffer a 1/3 loss of all botanical species enduring ice ages? The logical answer is CO2 sublimation loss. In other words, ice cores while consistent in storing data, do not store 100% of A-CO2 during the long event trapping processes that eventually become the source of the ice cores. Ignoring CO2 sublimation during the long course of each trapping event causes an estimate understatement of 33-50% of actual CO2 in the ice core. Adjusting the ice cores as physicists suggest, means actual CO2 levels in the last 3 million years was likely 50-80 ppm higher than previously thought. Such an understatement coupled with revisiting the real CO2 in A back in 1895 means the human impact on CO2 is likely no more than half of what could be calculated above.
NdGT...how did you get a doctorate?
in 2019 the level of CO2 was 409.8 parts per million
500 million years ago the concentration was 9000 ppm
volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per day (only about 2% of the amount that human activity causes).
why is there even a question?
Man, I just read that whole explanation. I feel like I understood most of it, despite not being a biologist/chemist. Sounds like you’re essentially saying that the amount of CO2 contributed by humans, based upon the rate of change since 1895, and other thermodynamic factors, isn’t enough to actually cause the change is average global temperature?
I’m trying to find more info on this. What does RFek mean? I cannot find a definition.
RFek is radio frequency gain that forces the addition of kinetic energy within the atmosphere.
The forcing values of each GHG molecule is established by the laws of physics post laboratory experimentation. Since 1998, the original forcing value for a molecule of CO2 was 2.011, but the NOAA, NASA and IPCC recently resolved and revised the value to 1.94. Water vapor (H2O) also a far more significant GHG has a value of 1.00.
H2O in the atmosphere = 25,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere = 410 ppm
Now when you measure how important GHGs are to total climate, you realize that only 16.3°K of 288.8°K >|0|°K comes from GHG RFek forcing.
Of that, 25,000 x 1.00 ek units is from H2O., and 410 x 1.94 ek comes from CO2 and remember less than 30% of ek from CO2 is human caused.
That means the heat forcing of H2O is by an RFek factor of 25,000, while...
The heat forcing factor of CO2 when including methane (CH4 / cow farts) is only about 800.
So you can do the algorithm.
16.3°K/288.8°K x 800/25,800 × 3/10th (being generous here)...
That represents the total CO2 related climate change caused by humans over the last 125 years...
About 0.00052°K out of a purported 1°K (or C) change in the last 125 years. Ot means NATURE is responsible for 99.99848% of climate change.
No getting past the physics and those are easily validated in other ways. The laws of Thermodynamics will not change just because they are politically inconvenient for the Marxist left.