The Logic of the Greenhouse Effect

[Excogitatoris]

With this thread I like to present a common sense view on the popular Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Hypothesis. This hypothesis is the basis for the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cult that has gripped global politics.

My view is expressed in this article: The Logic of the Greenhouse Effect
My view is:
- that the popular model of the GHE is way too simplistic and leads to the wrong conclusions
- that the Earth's Energy Balance is not a matter of Energy flow up and down the atmosphere but determined by the meridional energy flow
- that CO2 is NOT the thermostat of the world, but Water is doing the heavy lifting of energy transfers within the meridional energy flow

I have debated this view with several AI's. And the results are stunning: Repeated contradictions and bending over backwards to explain the warming effect defying logic.
See this post Artificial Intelligence or Artificial Dogma for links to the discussions.

As AI cannot logically defy my reasoning, I challenge anyone to critique my view and confirm the notion that the Greenhouse Effect of CO2 is the main driver of Climate Change.

[Bill Ryan]

Many thanks, and a very warm welcome to the forum!

I think most (if not all!) Avalon members, and most of our guests, would fully agree with your skepticism. We have a number of major threads about this whole issue, containing enormous amounts of information, which you might find very interesting. Here are just a few of them:

• Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??
• "Climate Change" (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?
• The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is freezing. What does this mean?
• Geomagnetic Reversals and Ice Ages

[Johnnycomelately]

Good thread, OP. Read your link, looked well put.

Nowadays, climate change is assumed to be humans’ fault, because MSM told us so.

I look forward to the big swamp part of Big Science being drained. And ditto Big Media.

[ExomatrixTV]

• see also:

'Climate Lockdowns' are Coming (Agenda2030) Predicted by Conspiracy Researchers!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

• source

• source

• source embedded PDF here

[ExomatrixTV]

• source

[ExomatrixTV]

Australian 🇦🇺 geologist, Ian Plimer, blows the UN's "human-induced climate catastrophe" fear mongering completely out of the water:

"Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong... They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming."

"There's been a relentless campaign of propaganda for 30 years, and the basics haven't been shown."

Geologist Ian Plimer discusses the IPCC report warning of a "climate time bomb" saying the "green policies promulgated by the UN is killing people".

“I will not allow Greens or the UN to play the moral card to try and say they are morally superior,” Mr Plimer told Sky News host Rita Panahi.

“Green policies promulgated by the UN kill people, and these people know that they’re knowingly killing.”

• A recent discussion critiqued the media's portrayal of the latest United Nations climate change report.
• The report raised alarms about the dangers of fossil fuel use, but one guest labeled the media coverage as "climate hysteria".
• The guest, a top geoscientist, argued that mainstream media accepts claims contradicting established data without scrutiny.
• They expressed frustration over ongoing narratives despite 30 years of predictions being proven wrong.
• The conversation touched on the moral implications of energy policies, emphasizing the role of fossil fuels in alleviating poverty and providing reliable energy.
• Criticism was directed at the UN and green policies for harming developing nations and increasing energy costs in wealthier countries like Australia.
• The guest predicted that the shift from coal to renewable energy would lead to higher prices, inflation, and power outages.
• They suggested that the current trajectory of energy policy is economically detrimental and morally questionable.
• The speaker discussed the state of wealth and employment, indicating potential changes in the coming years.
• Gratitude was expressed towards the audience for their participation in the discussion.

In a recent discussion about the latest United Nations climate change report, there was a strong critique of the media's portrayal of the findings. The report, which has led to alarming headlines about the dangers of fossil fuel use, was labeled as "hysteria" by one guest, a top geoscientist. They argued that the mainstream media is uncritically accepting claims that contradict established data, such as assertions that hurricanes, sea levels, and climate-related deaths are on the rise. The guest expressed frustration that despite 30 years of predictions being proven wrong, the narrative continues to thrive, likening it to the "boy who cried wolf." The conversation also touched on the moral implications of energy policies, with the guest arguing that fossil fuels are essential for lifting people out of poverty and providing reliable energy. They criticized the UN and green policies for harming developing nations and causing higher energy costs in wealthier countries like Australia. The guest predicted that the shift away from coal to renewable energy would lead to increased prices, inflation, and power outages, suggesting that the current trajectory is economically detrimental and morally questionable.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8ic-iqWm9ng

[Nancybing99]

Absolutely, I resonate with your point! Water's role in energy transport, especially through latent heat is often downplayed. We’re seeing the focus on CO2 sometimes as a diversion from understanding water’s vast influence. It’s as if climate science needs a shift towards recognizing these natural water cycles. I enjoyed your article a lot, thanks for a good read!

[ExomatrixTV]

• source

Astrophysicist and geoscientist Dr. Willie Soon: "CO2 is the gas of life... and these people want to demonise it as some gas that can cause global warming, can cause hurricanes... more rain, more droughts, and all this other nonsense that they claim." "And I've published scientific papers refuting all of these arguments."

• Credit: @TuckerCarlson

[Vicus]

Oops, science was 'settled' — until it wasn't: Plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than we thought



A new study reveals that plants have been absorbing 31% more CO₂ than previously believed. Yes, 31%—a glaring error that casts serious doubt on climate models, emissions scenarios, and policy prescriptions like Net Zero. For years, we were told that the “science was settled,” and that urgent action was needed to avoid catastrophic warming. But this discovery suggests that our models have been dramatically underestimating nature’s ability to manage CO₂. This revelation not only upends the rationale behind aggressive policies but also raises broader questions about the supposed certainty of climate science.

The Myth of “Settled Science”

The phrase “settled science” has been the bedrock of climate advocacy for decades. We’ve been told that if we don’t make rapid, costly changes, we’d face imminent disaster. Skeptics were treated as heretics, while the so-called consensus was portrayed as unquestionable. Yet, it turns out we were 31% wrong about something as fundamental as plant CO₂ absorption. This isn’t a minor correction; it’s a massive revision that undermines the credibility of models driving policy.

The Unraveling of Climate Models

Climate models are the tools used to predict warming and guide policy. They’ve been treated as scientific scripture, driving policies from emissions reductions to renewable energy mandates. But with a key assumption proven wrong, the models’ projections are called into question:

Overblown Emissions Impact: Climate models predicted rapid CO₂ buildup, assuming limited natural absorption. This inflated the urgency of drastic emissions cuts. Correcting for higher CO₂ absorption rates means that CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere slower than models predicted, weakening the case for urgent, economy-wrenching measures.
Questionable Feedback Loops: Many models rely on dramatic feedback loops—such as reduced plant CO₂ absorption at higher temperatures—to justify emergency interventions. But this new data shows plants can handle more CO₂ than anticipated, making these feedback loops look less inevitable and more speculative.
Policy Implications: If the models guiding climate policy have been this far off, then the entire framework behind policies like Net Zero becomes shaky. Policies driven by these models were never proven to be beneficial, but were only assumed to be so. The discovery that plants are absorbing significantly more CO₂ undermines the supposed need for extreme measures.

continue:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/10/...an-we-thought/

[Excogitatoris]

Thanks for all replies. Good info.
I was actually hoping someone would try to refute this reasoning as I am doing lectures about this to the public. I have started with 'awake' groups but I expect to have to counter cult-members and like to anticipate criticism. But I guess if several AI's can't properly explain the GHE hypothesis without violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, who can come up with a sensical response.