The biggest emission of C02 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity above sea level AND below.. C02 is water soluble so some of the gas converts into water which is why the icecaps melt.. the thermal flow from the Gulf Stream actually reaches the artic circle.. no one talks about the CO2 exchange from vegetation or trees… mans input pales to insignificance.. even if every country got to net zero.. the planet would continue to emit CO2 at a higher rate than mankind achieved..it always has and always will ..
Impacts on human cognitive performance is much lower. It's another reason I don't use AI. Do your research. Question Everything as Ryan Christian of TLAV says
For the umpteenth time, the greenhouse effect is a hoax that only exists in the alternate reality pushed by the U.N. IPCC where unicorns can fly and global Marxism is the solution to all the world's problems.
For starters, radiation can't heat a gas. Next, CO2's "back radiation" can only raise surface temperature higher than the Sun alone did if it can return before it even left. And then the b.s. about slowing down cooling radiation to space has nothing to do with the surface where we live, where the radiation is dependent on instantaneous surface temperature and nothing else.
As to CO2 and human health, it's more complicated, but the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC has long suppressed the good side, which is dug up here:
Ran across this recently. Your take on this Winslow?
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán, 1 M. L. Santee, 1 A. Lambert, 1 N. J. Livesey, 1 F. Werner, 1 M. J. Schwartz, 1 H. C. Pumphrey, 2 G. L. Manney, 3 , 4 Y. Wang, 1 , 5 H. Su, 1 L. Wu, 1 W. G. Read, 1 and L. Froidevaux 1
Abstract
Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17‐year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.
Water vapor in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) plays an influential role in determining the Earth’s climate. Even small variations in the abundance of UTLS water vapor can significantly modulate the flux of outgoing long-wave radiation, prompting responsive changes in global surface temperatures. Solomon et al. [2010] demonstrated that the rapid 10% drop in UTLS water vapor near the end of 2000 [Randel et al., 2006] reduced the global surface warming from long-lived greenhouse gases and aerosols by 25% during 2000–2009. This sensitive connection with climate dictates that UTLS water vapor be closely monitored for changes, especially those that may result from our warming planet.
Historic and contemporary discrepancies between stratospheric water vapor measurements by a number of balloon-, aircraft-, and satellite-based instruments impede our ability to accurately quantify the radiative effects of variations in UTLS water vapor. Weinstock et al. [2009] reported longstanding 1–1.5 ppmv differences between aircraft-based measurements by the Harvard University Lyman-alpha photo-fragment fluorescence hygrometer and those by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), the NOAA frost point hygrometer (FPH), and the cryogenic frost point hygrometer (CFH). A recent comparison of in situ water vapor measurements by aircraft- and balloon-borne instruments during the 2011 Mid-latitude Airborne Cirrus Properties Experiment reveals smaller but statistically significant in situ measurement differences of 0.4–0.8 ppmv (10–20%) [Rollins et al., 2013]. Vömel et al. [2007a] demonstrated good agreement between CFH and NOAA FPH stratospheric water vapor measurements, a result corroborated by Rollins et al. [2013].
MLS water vapor retrievals have been previously compared with measurements by ground- and balloon-based instruments, but earlier versions of MLS retrievals (v1.5 and v2.2) were used (current version is v3.3). Vömel et al. [2007b] compared 1 to 11 CFH profiles obtained at each of 10 different sites during 2005–2007 with coincident MLS soundings. They found (for v2.2) that MLS retrievals and CFH measurements agreed to within 2.7 ± 8.7% over the pressure range 68 to 22 hPa, while at 83 and 100 hPa the mean MLS – CFH discrepancies were 3.6 ± 12.7% and −1.0 ± 9.7%, respectively. Vömel et al. [2007b] also reported large negative mean MLS – CFH differences over the pressure range 316 to 147 hPa and a statistically significant mean difference of −24 ± 16% at 178 hPa, supporting the conclusion of Barnes et al. [2008] of a dry (low) bias in MLS retrievals in the upper troposphere.
[[This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.]]
The U.N. IPCC strikes again. That's so lame. Water vapor is a mixture of gas and liquid.
There is no such thing as radiative forcing because radiation can't heat a gas, but the water droplets in the clouds are black bodies that can absorb surface IR radiation, but only at wavelengths so long that they can't raise their temperatures above CO2's -80C, and tropospheric temperatures bottom out at -60C.
It's the upper side where the action is. The clouds block 5500C sunlight from reaching the surface while absorbing this short wavelength radiation on their upper side, turning ice crystals into water droplets that result in freezing rain, cooling the surface not warming it.
Anybody who tries to use the zany fake greenhouse effect to guide their science is a dope.
https://youtu.be/YAKS-SwA-mY
So, it appears the plan moves forward. Worth every minute. You can get the document...
We must, collectively, put our foot down. No can do!
The biggest emission of C02 in the atmosphere comes from volcanic activity above sea level AND below.. C02 is water soluble so some of the gas converts into water which is why the icecaps melt.. the thermal flow from the Gulf Stream actually reaches the artic circle.. no one talks about the CO2 exchange from vegetation or trees… mans input pales to insignificance.. even if every country got to net zero.. the planet would continue to emit CO2 at a higher rate than mankind achieved..it always has and always will ..
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018312807
Impacts on human cognitive performance is much lower. It's another reason I don't use AI. Do your research. Question Everything as Ryan Christian of TLAV says
For the umpteenth time, the greenhouse effect is a hoax that only exists in the alternate reality pushed by the U.N. IPCC where unicorns can fly and global Marxism is the solution to all the world's problems.
For starters, radiation can't heat a gas. Next, CO2's "back radiation" can only raise surface temperature higher than the Sun alone did if it can return before it even left. And then the b.s. about slowing down cooling radiation to space has nothing to do with the surface where we live, where the radiation is dependent on instantaneous surface temperature and nothing else.
https://www.quora.com/Since-greenhouse-gases-cannot-produce-a-physical-barrier-is-the-trapping-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-climate-change-based-on-the-heat-capacity-of-the-gases-in-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow
As to CO2 and human health, it's more complicated, but the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC has long suppressed the good side, which is dug up here:
https://papundits.wordpress.com/2022/06/21/who-knew-co2-was-vital-to-human-health-scientists-part-one/
https://papundits.wordpress.com/2022/06/28/co2-important-for-human-health-who-knew-scientists-part-two/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-credible-scientific-organizations-that-research-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
https://youtu.be/YAKS-SwA-mY
Good vid, while you can get it.
Ran across this recently. Your take on this Winslow?
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán, 1 M. L. Santee, 1 A. Lambert, 1 N. J. Livesey, 1 F. Werner, 1 M. J. Schwartz, 1 H. C. Pumphrey, 2 G. L. Manney, 3 , 4 Y. Wang, 1 , 5 H. Su, 1 L. Wu, 1 W. G. Read, 1 and L. Froidevaux 1
Abstract
Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17‐year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.
---------
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5571760/
Introduction
Water vapor in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) plays an influential role in determining the Earth’s climate. Even small variations in the abundance of UTLS water vapor can significantly modulate the flux of outgoing long-wave radiation, prompting responsive changes in global surface temperatures. Solomon et al. [2010] demonstrated that the rapid 10% drop in UTLS water vapor near the end of 2000 [Randel et al., 2006] reduced the global surface warming from long-lived greenhouse gases and aerosols by 25% during 2000–2009. This sensitive connection with climate dictates that UTLS water vapor be closely monitored for changes, especially those that may result from our warming planet.
Historic and contemporary discrepancies between stratospheric water vapor measurements by a number of balloon-, aircraft-, and satellite-based instruments impede our ability to accurately quantify the radiative effects of variations in UTLS water vapor. Weinstock et al. [2009] reported longstanding 1–1.5 ppmv differences between aircraft-based measurements by the Harvard University Lyman-alpha photo-fragment fluorescence hygrometer and those by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), the NOAA frost point hygrometer (FPH), and the cryogenic frost point hygrometer (CFH). A recent comparison of in situ water vapor measurements by aircraft- and balloon-borne instruments during the 2011 Mid-latitude Airborne Cirrus Properties Experiment reveals smaller but statistically significant in situ measurement differences of 0.4–0.8 ppmv (10–20%) [Rollins et al., 2013]. Vömel et al. [2007a] demonstrated good agreement between CFH and NOAA FPH stratospheric water vapor measurements, a result corroborated by Rollins et al. [2013].
MLS water vapor retrievals have been previously compared with measurements by ground- and balloon-based instruments, but earlier versions of MLS retrievals (v1.5 and v2.2) were used (current version is v3.3). Vömel et al. [2007b] compared 1 to 11 CFH profiles obtained at each of 10 different sites during 2005–2007 with coincident MLS soundings. They found (for v2.2) that MLS retrievals and CFH measurements agreed to within 2.7 ± 8.7% over the pressure range 68 to 22 hPa, while at 83 and 100 hPa the mean MLS – CFH discrepancies were 3.6 ± 12.7% and −1.0 ± 9.7%, respectively. Vömel et al. [2007b] also reported large negative mean MLS – CFH differences over the pressure range 316 to 147 hPa and a statistically significant mean difference of −24 ± 16% at 178 hPa, supporting the conclusion of Barnes et al. [2008] of a dry (low) bias in MLS retrievals in the upper troposphere.
[[This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.]]
The U.N. IPCC strikes again. That's so lame. Water vapor is a mixture of gas and liquid.
There is no such thing as radiative forcing because radiation can't heat a gas, but the water droplets in the clouds are black bodies that can absorb surface IR radiation, but only at wavelengths so long that they can't raise their temperatures above CO2's -80C, and tropospheric temperatures bottom out at -60C.
It's the upper side where the action is. The clouds block 5500C sunlight from reaching the surface while absorbing this short wavelength radiation on their upper side, turning ice crystals into water droplets that result in freezing rain, cooling the surface not warming it.
Anybody who tries to use the zany fake greenhouse effect to guide their science is a dope.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-the-mechanics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-and-how-water-vapor-and-carbon-dioxide-play-a-role-in-it/answer/TL-Winslow
Is there any hope of indicting these Bond supervillains any time soon?
It will all be on us. Gather your cape. A lot of work ahead.