Klimaat Forum Broeders en Zusters ter informatie van NASA:
NASA (EARLY 1970S): “CO2 WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE 10 TIMES TO ACHIEVE A 2.5-DEGREE RISE IN TEMPERATURE”
The chemistry and physics of carbon dioxide DOES NOT support the global warming theory, and NASA was aware of this way-back when the notion of wielding climate science as political weapon was but a twinkle in a young Al Gore’s eye.
In the early 1970s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a strong and consistent theory regarding the trace gas that is carbon dioxide.
“The amount of atmospheric CO2 would have to increase 10 times to achieve a 2.5-degree rise in temperature,” scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies were reported as saying in October, 1972.
“More CO2 wouldn’t raise the temperature any further because the gas would have reached its absorption limit,” the researchers added.
This “absorption limit” is one of the most critical points in the AGW myth.
Alarmists’ linear thinking tells them the more carbon dioxide you add to the atmosphere the hotter it will get — but this is a scientifically-baseless assumption, a line they’ve been fed by the dippy-eco-journalists (non-scientists) of the world.
A paper published in 1971 by NASA scientists Rasool and Schneider entitled “Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate” explains why the alarmists’ assumption is fundamentally wrong.
Below is a key paragraph lifted directly from the study:
“From our calculations, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8-degree. However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase levels off.
Even for an increase in CO2 by a factor of 10, the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5-degree. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15-um CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.”
Alarmists used to talk their way around this absorption spanner in the works by claiming that the remaining “unsubstantial” CO2-driven temperature increase would cause a chain reaction of other factors resulting in what amounted to runaway warming.
However, the clock has long run out on that hokey theory — this prophesied chain reaction has been proven false by observation, and, therefore, it has largely been retired from the discussion.
To conclude, here is one key final point (and accompanying graph) from the Rasool and Schneider paper: “The rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Climate science has become a political weapon since the 1990`s and is well funded financially, as such can we take the Climate Scientists serious, I do not think so!
M.v.g. Ronald