Author Topic: New Study Finds No Evidence Of A CO2-Driven Warming Signal In 60 Years Of IR Flux Data  (Read 329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 176,780
New Study Finds No Evidence Of A CO2-Driven Warming Signal In 60 Years Of IR Flux Data
By Marc Morano
January 11, 2024
5:23 pm


By Kenneth Richard on 11. January 2024

“The real atmosphere does not follow the GHG [greenhouse gas] GE [greenhouse effect] hypothesis of the IPCC.” – Miskolczi, 2023

CO2 increased from 310 ppm to 385 ppm (24%) during the 60 years from 1948 to 2008. Observations indicate this led to a negative radiative imbalance of -0.75 W/m². In other words, increasing CO2 delivered a net cooling effect – the opposite of what the IPCC has claimed should happen (Miskolczi, 2023).

Also, there is “no correlation with time and the strong signal of increasing atmospheric CO2 content in any time series,” which affirms “the atmospheric CO2 increase cannot be the reason for global warming.”

“The Arrhenius type greenhouse effect of the CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing.”

https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/01/11/new-study-finds-no-evidence-of-a-co2-driven-warming-signal-in-60-years-of-ir-flux-data/
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.  George Washington - Farewell Address

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,346
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
CO2 was chosen to be a climate "boogie man" because of its inability to fight back.

From "Rules for Radicals":
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

THAT's why they picked carbon dioxide -- it's an essential atmospheric compound of life, but it's also an ideal target upon which to thrust blame.

How can CO2 "defend itself"?

A brilliant move by the greenunists to create an "atmospheric Goldstein"...