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?
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:
Climte 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?
I would not consider NGT 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 NGT in court with the following baseline calculations:
Climte 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.
NGT 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 undiscovered 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. If so, whe 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 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 CI2 in A back in 1895 means the human impact on CO2 is likely no more than half of what could be calculated above.
NGT...how did you get a doctorate?