Skip to comments.Greenhouse gases explain only 5-10 per cent from global warming
Posted on 04/23/2010 1:06:31 PM PDT by neverdem
The following article is from a leading Finnish Newspaper and was sent to me via the contact area. I had to use the Google Translate process as my Finnish is not that good.
To show this to you I have had to put the article through as an image, rather then type it. Will this story break to the world press? We will have to see.
Greenhouse gases account for only 5-10 per cent of global warming Turkus sue Panel on Climate Change predictions Turun Sanomat 14.4 2010 01:30:40
A University of Turku Department of Physics study shows that carbon dioxide has a significantly smaller impact on global warming than previously thought. Its results are based on spectrum analyses. According to research led by Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide accounts for only 5-10 per cent of the observed warming on Earth . "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases," says Kauppinen.
According to him, projections made the UN climate panel, the International Panel on Climate Change, constitute a class-size error. The IPPC's calculated value is more than ten times larger than our calculated results, Kauppinen says. He intends to publish his results in the June issue of the magazine Nature.
The UN Climate Panel claims that global warming is almost entirely the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. [Unintelligible: Kauppinen, climate kestääkin much higher emissions than the IPCC reports have been made to understand.]
"I think it is such a blatant falsification," Kauppinen says.
He is not the first IPCC critic. The Panel has had to admit errors, including the melting of Himalayan glaciers, in its forecasts.
Causing a stir last year, Climategate came about as a result of computer hacking, which leaked e-mails between key IPCC researchers to the public. The aim was to isolate and stigmatize climate change experts; scientists are unconvinced. - AS
This should read "... climate can withstand much higher emissions ...".
kestää : to last or withstand kin : suffix - meaning "also" in this context can withstand works best. Perhaps another Finn could confirm this so it can be corrected in the text.
Comment edited by Wiseguy (forum) on Friday April 16, 2010 at 9:48 AM EDT REPORT Posted by Tomi Itkonen (Twitter) on Apr 18th 2010, 4:49 PM EDT For the wiseguy... Yeah, I confirm; your translation is good:
climate kestääkin much higher emissions -> climate can withstand much higher emissions
end of comments
10% of 0 is 0.
Yeah...but this guy doesn’t have a degree in climatology...or computer modeling. Nothing to see here. </sarcasm>
Mr. Misguided calling someone else misguided??
Oops! Wrong thread.
Green house gas was a term invented by environmental dimwits getting government grants and the sooner we stop parroting the language of the knuckle dragging left the better off we will be.
There was CO2, weather and vapor, now called green house gas, long before a greenhouse was ever invented.
You want to publish this in Science? Well, I don't think we can allow that, you see.
VOLCANOS!! That’s what we need, more volcanos,, gobs of them!!!!
He was very afraid to work for him because he was Jewish.
"We decide who is Jewish!" came the reply.
That's what libbies do, they decide!
Since there is not currently any global warming, how does it explain it?
It does NOT even represent that much. Ma’s influence is only on 5% of this picture. The political effort that this really is knows this. That water vapor is not considered shows how much the average person has NOT been educated in this area. This rock is 4/5ths water and the Sun can not be controlled. Our influence is on the 5% part of the thermal heat layer.
White House gas is emitted by Communist dimwits from Kenya getting US government control
Source, please. Please give me a citation to find the names of these "environmental dimwits" who were "getting government grants" more than 100 years ago.
After all, Professor R. W. Wood wrote his "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse" that discussed greenhouse gases and the radiative vs. convective questions back in 1909.
As would considering it in the same context as other gases, since it has such a low residence time and acts more in response than as a forcing.
But...but...but...3.4% of 3.62% means human activity causes .00123 (1/8 of 1%) of all GREENHOUSE gases!!!! x2% = .000025 of the entire atmosphere !!!!
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
The Greenhouse Effect: Origins, Falsification, & Replacement
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
First Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-13
This article focuses on the lack of a clear thermodynamic definition of the greenhouse effect. The idea of a “greenhouse” effect was initially introduced in 1824, an age when only one mode of heat transfer was known and when the theory of “aether” was used to explain how light and heat were conducted through space. As the greenhouse effect was refuted by a simple experiment in 1909, this article finds that the mechanism of heat residence in materials subject to incident radiation, referred to in the modern misuse of the term “greenhouse effect”, would be better referred to via Kirchhoff’s Law. Furthermore, this modern reincarnation of the Greenhouse Effect, perhaps more aptly called the Kirchhoff Effect, is controlled by the material property of emissivity; a thermodynamic property that is poorly understood in translucent materials and as yet undocumented with respect to the temperature of a radiating translucent-body at thermal equilibrium. This article, in clarifying emissivity in this context, critically analyses the role of “greenhouse gases” in a modern radiation budget and finds that the putative relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and air temperature, has no evidentiary underpinning whatsoever. In fact, simple experimentation has shown that not only is visible light not converted into heat on absorbtion, but that carbon dioxide concentration has little if any effect on air temperature in the urban environment. This would indicate an equivalence of carbon dioxide and air emissivities and ergo, that carbon dioxide concentration makes little if any difference to the Kirchhoff Effect as it applies to the temperature of the atmospheric gas mixture we call air. As such, the the mechanism by which the addition of carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere has no empirical basis. Therefore the assertion that global warming is anthropogenic, may well be philosophical and perhaps political, but it is most certainly not scientific.
Good, now to get this information taught in K-12 schools.
“Yeah...but this guy doesnt have a degree in climatology...or computer modeling. Nothing to see here.”
Of course that’s the problem. He only has a PhD in physics. So he’s not nearly as smart as climatologists.
My science knowledge on most topics is conceptual, but I am a numbers guy, and the numbers for the global warming theory have never added up. There is no way something as miniscule as CO2 in our atmosphere could ever have the effect they claim it does.
Only 10%? I gotta work harder then! See you at the next tire pile burn, LOL!