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
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!