Are young Americans growing out of the climate religion?
In a healthy sign, young adults aged 18 to 29 are much more skeptical now than they were five years ago. A 17% decline in the number who think climate change was mostly or entirely man-made is a major fall, especially in a large survey of 5,400 people.
Across all age groups American belief that climate change was mostly or entirely man-made fell from 60% in 2018 down to 49% in 2023. The fall was almost entirely in Democrat and Independent voters.
Republican voters were much more skeptical to start with and haven’t changed at all, which EPIC described as “stable” because that sounded a lot better than “skeptical”.
Democrats are persuaded by scientists, storms, and hot weekends, Republicans, not so much:
Source: EPIC
Suggestible people who are primed to see hurricanes, floods and heatwaves as evidence of man-made climate change will believe they were influenced by the weather. Obviously, it’s circular too: those primed to believe a normal downpour is a rain-bomb will also believe they have experienced “extreme events”.
Source: EPIC
The only thing this graph shows is that the profoundly unscientific trick of calling every event “climate change” works like a form of mass hypnosis on about 20 – 30% of the population.
Hardly anyone acts like we are facing an existential threat
In other news, despite 74% of Americans thinking climate change is happening, and 50% thinking it is mostly man-made, most Americans can’t be bothered, or didn’t want to pay the cost of using electricity made from renewables.
…
In other words, three quarters of Americans use an electricity supplier that is probably mostly fossil fueled or nuclear.
Only a third of Americans are even willing to spend $10 a month on climate change:
Follow the money.
It’s only a phone survey, not an invoice, but 70% of Americans don’t want to spend a mere $2.50 each week to save the world from climate change. How much do they care?
Despite this resounding lack of passion on the part of voters, the Uniparty will continue to offer climate policies at elections which most voters don’t want or barely have an interest in.
Let’s start using these poll results to hammer the disconnect.
h/t Climate Depot with thanks to The Liberal Patriot.
REFERENCES
The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (April, 2023). “Americans’ views on climate, energy policy and electric vehicles” [https://apnorc.org/projects/americans-views-on-climate-energy-policy-and-electric-vehicles/] Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago
This nationwide poll was conducted by The AP-NORC Center and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) from January 31-February 15, 2023, using TrueNorth®, which combines a sample from AmeriSpeak, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago, with a non-probability panel sample. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 5,408 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 1.7 percentage points. A full topline is available at www.apnorc.org.
The slow learners don’t like it when they realise that they will be paying more for lots of things. Enjoy living with your parents for decades, kids.
361
They’re mostly socialists at heart, so they believe ‘somebody else’ is going to foot the bill.
371
Exactly.
Here is a perfect example of just that.
Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks has a meltdown over being forced to pay for charging stations at her condo.
This is from a podcast of Megyn Kelly…enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-VNbqFBUI&t=297s
81
Reality is beginning to bite.
201
Only in America, the rest of the world is totally brainwashed.
‘Nearly 60% of young people approached said they felt very worried or extremely worried. More than 45% of those questioned said feelings about the climate affected their daily lives. Three-quarters of them said they thought the future was frightening. Over half (56%) say they think humanity is doomed.’ (BBC 2021)
92
And in America, they have even formulated these beliefs with White House resident Biden living at the place where a President normally lives but no real President.
Just imagine where America could be if they actually had a President in charge, e.g. Trump.
121
Donald had his day in the sun and some big ideas to smash down the AGW facade, but they amounted to very little.
Is there a Republican who thinks like us on climate change?
34
Tom Cotton, Jim Jordan
31
They are lukewarmers and don’t pass muster.
Donald knew the whole story because William Happer was his science adviser, but after a year he walked feeling disgruntled.
43
I don’t believe that Donald knew what he was up against with the corrupt Deep State not to mention the RINOs. Second time round we all know the DOJ, CIA, FBI are totally corrupt and need rebuilding from scratch. There is a need for succession planning on who comes after Donald, such as DeSantis, Lake or Ramaswamy to ensure the job is completed.
50
Don’t believe any thing from the BBC about climate change, they are staunch followers of the UN church of Climatology and push its doctrine wherever possible.
51
Extreme weather is the narrative that the MSM keep pushing as ‘proof’ of global warming.
Every event, anywhere in the world that is ‘extreme’ is pushed into our faces, regardless of the science, in their attempts to say “told you so’.
Notice how we are told to be concerned about a possible 1.5-2 degree increase over 200 years is a climate disaster, but that somehow a 2-4 degree increase in the 50 years that ended the Little Ice Age was not?
The truth is self evident.
So what is the true purpose of our governments tackling this non-crisis?
Is it to push mankind back into serfdom, leaving our ‘betters’ to rule as they once did?
Is it an attempt to deconstruct democracy – the very tool that gives them the authority to act?
We are entering Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World where ‘we will own nothing and be happy’ – where ‘happy’ is code for miserable.
351
In listening to Richard Lindzen, a most distinguished US physicist and specialist in upper atmosphere physics I heard a bombshell. He states that traditional meteorology says increased temperature means decreased storms.
So the whole business of increased temperature means more extreme weather, while plausible, is against the entire body of history in meteorology. Which is why almost no one who identifies as a climate scientist is actually a meteorologist. They are not welcome in Climate Science, which apparently is not about the weather.
221
That’s great news.
But they have to have false beliefs in something.
Ask the same group whether it’s possible to “change gender” and many will tell you that it is possible. Or that “men” can get pregnant. Or they can’t define what a “woman” is.
Or ask them if they think the current covid “vaccines” on offer are safe?
Or whether they believe in freedom of speech for people with alternative opinions to themselves. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/08/people-want-free-speech-for-themselves/
Or if they believe in free enterprise / capitalism?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx
271
IMO, the colossal failure of Covid policies, the abject denial of Covid vax side effects, gender lunacy, January 6th hyperventilating, and all the rest of the wacky narratives that have been pushed over the last few years have opened people’s eyes to how fraudulent many of the narratives being pushed by ‘elites’ onto the unwashed masses truly are. And now people are beginning to question everything, including the fire-and-brimstone climate apocalypse rhetoric. And once they begin to even take a cursory look under the hood, they realize that the science is doesn’t even remotely support that rhetoric.
191
Curious that simultaneous with the loss of faith in the Great Climate Change and Pandemic parallel narratives, largely a reaction to the lockdown and vax mandate fiascos …
they demand that we eat bugs.
I think I’ll have a Bud Light with mine.
161
I doubt that anyone alive can actually point to how the climate has actually changed in their life time…
.. and back it up with measured facts.
A degree or so of warming, maybe, perhaps.. is barely noticeable.
Sea level rise is barely noticeable.
Data says extreme events are not really increasing, just the MSM noise about them.
So, I ask everyone …. in what way has the “climate” changed in your life time ??
351
It’s surely insane to assert, that over more than 4 billion years, Earth’s climate has never changed.
It’s also insane to believe that Earth’s climate can be adjusted by adding or subtracting a little CO2.
191
And by subtracting a little CO2, all the problems that are supposedly caused by climate change will go away.
For example, climate change causes floods, and as seen in the great floods of October 2022, the floods caused road damage, therefore climate change causes road damage. So be reducing CO2 by a little, if that’s possible, climate change will be stopped, so the floods and road damage will also be stopped. Except that the floods may not have been the only contributing factor to the road damage.
Over the last couple of years I have frequently driven along the Goulburn Valley Highway between Shepparton and Seymour, two lanes each way. I noticed that potholes often appeared after heavy rain and that nearly all the potholes occurred in the left lane each way. The damage was more widespread due to the October floods. The left lane of course is where most the traffic, including heavy trucks, is driven. So perhaps the construction of the road has a lot to do with the damage, rather than climate change.
101
No more insane than believing in Virgin births , walking on water , resurrection from death , . . . . and so on.
31
I have had conversations with older people who grew up in the 50s, and 60s and they usually say its warmer with milder winters now than they remember growing up. Well of course, the 50s, 60s, and 70s, were a period of cooling with comparitively severe winters. Which followed the period of warming from 1910 through most of the 40s.
People assume a causal relationship to co2 because of the media narratives and the celebrated junk science. But the correlation is clearly broken by these observations and records.
91
I grew up then, but in Adelaide, South Australia. Nobody I know says any such thing, on the contrary, summers are remembered as being hotter and winters warmer too – but the summer effect takes precedence. Recent snow seasons here (not SA of course) have been long and strong, summers have all been very cool since 2019/20. This autumn has been very cool and moist. It all proves nothing, but no way does Australia appear to be warming. Unless you work for BoM of course. Or the ABC.
61
For me, it got warmer as I migrated from ‘Pomgolia’ to ‘Sunny Australia’.
30
The climate hasn’t changed , but the weather has been much better for grass growth in summer for over 20 years now.
I think that I prefer floods to droughts , but ENSO will continue to deliver both.
30
As I was young, living in Berlin, I realised later, that to the end of the 60ies, the weahter patterns changed.
Less snow in the winters less warm in summer and more rain. Means, before we had often eastern, continmental climate, later we were dominated more from Atlantic Climate.
That was, btw. one of the reasons to move to Southern France. 😀
151
Hanging around Potsdam in Summer with its high humidity and the attendant mozzies and sandflies you could think you were in the tropics. Then you get hammered by a thunderstorm that rages all night. Such is climate. Autun or Beaune would suit better.
22
This is good news, but it won’t slow down the con merchants and liars.
Just think what most voters would make of Dr Koonin’s accurate + winning debates against the likes of Dessler and other left wing extremists.
And would they not be influenced if they understood that deaths from extreme WEATHER events had dropped by 95% + since 1920? Under 2 billion at risk then and 8+ billion today.
Wouldn’t they also be amazed that NOAA now agrees with the lower UAH V6 temp data in the troposphere?
Think what they’d understand if they were told that Africans now had a life expectancy of 64 yrs, up from just 36 yrs in 1950.
And would they not be further amazed if they knew that Africa’s population had increased from 227 million in 1950 and over 1434 million today?
IOW where’s their CC CRISIS or EMERGENCY or Biden’s EXISTENTIAL THREAT?
AGAIN here’s the link to Ross McKitrick’s analysis of the latest NOAA lower troposphere temperature study.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/14/ross-mckitrick-the-important-climate-study-you-wont-hear-about/
251
Most people are hard wired to disaster scenarios and think the worse and seek to blame someone or something. The Gauls lived in continual fear of the sky falling in.
91
Neville,
A reminder on UAH for Australia
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahapr2023.jpg
Geoff S
31
Thanks again Geoff and certainly no overall warming for Aussies over the last 11 years.
10
AGAIN here’s Willis Eschenbach’s updated “where’s the emergency” from WUWT.
Note he has updated the global fires graphs and Aussie fire graph etc and note the 2019 to 2020 finish. Just unbelievable what people don’t understand.
How many voters would change if they really checked and understood the data for themselves?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
70
The only “climate change” to worry about is the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of global cooling.
They don’t teach real history any more but if they did, people would know that civilisation thrived during naturally warm times such as the Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval warm periods. Global warming is the best thing for civilisation.
During periods of global cooling such as the Little Ice Age, there is war, poverty and disease. Incidentally, Tony Heller has shown how the LIA has been erased from some supposed temperature records.
Chinese civilisation is particularly sensitive to natural cooling. While they are profiting handsomely from supposed global warming through seeing increased manufacturing costs for the West and profiting from solar panel sales to naive Westerners, they know we are heading toward global cooling and they know that has severe consequences for them. Hence the main reason they are buying agricultural land all over the world.
A graph of political catastrophes vs precipitation and temperatures in China can be seen at:
https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d0f76684970c-pi
I posted a link to the above on Farcebook but they removed (censored) the image from displaying.
131
And when we likely do get global cooling, Western Civilisation won’t survive as we will have shut down all the power plants, at least in the more stupid countries such as Australia who are fanatical followers of the anthropogenic global warming fraud and that shuts down power plants and doesn’t even have the foresight to mothball them.
There is no viable replacement for a coal, gas, nuclear or real hydro (not SH2) power plants. The net available on-demand energy will decrease by the output capacity of every power plant destroyed.
Australia’s next working power station will be removed from service April 28th and destroyed soon after that. How exciting…
111
Thankfully climate changes slowly, so we have plenty of time to get things right before a mini ice age sets in.
30
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
110
Surely we all know that CO2 is a simple, stable molecule that does not, of itself, generate any heat energy. Consequently it cannot raise the temperature of anything whatsoever. As with everything else in the environment it transfers heat energy from hotter sources to cold via conduction, convection and radiation in an effort to achieve thermal equilibrium.
The IPCC has deliberately used the misleading name “backradiation” to infer that the outgoing Earth’s radiation, absorbed and re-emitted by the atmospheric CO2, is directed towards the Earth’s surface when, in fact, it must be scattered in all directions of 3-dimensional space with the major portion directed away from the Earth, thereby cooling the Earth.
It also makes the incorrect claim that there is “short wave in and long wave out”. Apparently they are unaware that 51% of the incoming Sun’s radiation is in the infrared range. Consequently the “greenhouse gases”, another deliberately misleading name, scatter part of the incoming Sun’s radiation out into space leaving the Earth cooler than it would be if it received the full, unfiltered range of the Sun’s radiation. This shows that the clamour about “NetZero” is inconsistent as less radiative gases in the atmosphere will cause more of the Sun’s radiation to reach the Earth’s surface making it hotter, not colder as proposed.
It has been known for years that climate data shows that atmospheric CO2 change occurs after temperature change so it is impossible for the later CO2 change to cause the earlier temperature change. The data also provides an explanation for this effect, namely, there is a highly significant correlation between the atmospheric temperature and the rate of generation of CO2 which is a consequence of well-known Henry’s law whereby higher ocean temperatures cause the effervescence of the some of the vast amount of CO2 dissolved in the seawater.
An effort at a comparison between the temperature of planet Mars, atmospheric CO2 concentration 95.2%, and Earth, CO2 0.042%, a factor of 2,270 less, indicates that after an attempted adjustment for the differences in distance from the Sun, surface rotational speed, and atmospheric density, the Earth is hotter not colder than Mars. This is to be expected given the large difference in mass, Earth 9.3 times greater, and density, Earth 1.4 times greater than Mars, resulting in a far hotter core temperature for the Earth relative to Mars. Surely this is a damning repudiation of the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming.
With incorrect statements such as above coming from the UN IPCC, it is obvious that it is not a competent scientific organisation. This has always been the case as the UN body was primarily set up by Canadian representative to the UN, Maurice Strong, a millionare, colleague of the Rockefeller’s, a member of the World Economic Forum and an avowed Communist. His aim was to cause an economic collapse of the capitalist nations via the demonization of fossil fuels, the source of the cheap, reliable energy that drove the success of the capitalist system. The UN IPCC is well past its use-by date and should be disbanded as it is a political body not a scientific endeavour to discover truth.
230
Succinct, a devastating condemnation of the hoax and something that virtually nobody will ever understand or act upon. How tragic.
41
First paragraph is dynamite.
Just wondering what Will J. or Mr. b.nice would say about this; “it must be scattered in all directions of 3-dimensional space ”
🙂
21
Protons have directional energy.. ie momentum…
It takes energy to deflect/emit it through 180 degrees, but none to deflect/emit it through zero degrees.
The probability is much higher that it will continue in the same general direction, ie outwards, going with the general NET FLUX which is related to the altitudinal cooling.
Of course, CO2 doesn’t emit much below about 11km altitude anyway, and the mean free path of that frequency at the surface is some 10 metres.. so not one bit of it will ever get anywhere near the surface.
20
🙂
Protons?
When an excited electron drops down to its original orbit the surplus em energy is emitted: but protons?
Photons, so emitted, are a wave form that’s subject to the whim of the local electromagnetic field.
20
Or an energized CO2 molecule will smack into a non GHG molecule and give up the energy as kinetic energy thus warming some N2 or O2 molecules and the air around it. This is how IR ends up warming a layer of the atmosphere through greenhouse gases.
The heat will get to space eventually, it’s just a question of how long it takes. Delay the heat escaping and you get localized temporary, minor (and probably beneficial) warming.
40
“This is how IR ends up warming a layer of the atmosphere through greenhouse gases.”
Please show the measurements of this happening.
And what layer, at what altitude?
Sorry, but the temperature gradient is controlled by the pressure gradient… immediately.
10
c’mon b.nice there is no mechanism where energized CO2 molecules can steer away from and avoid the N2 and o2 molecules that make up most of the sky. It’s the default brownian motion thing and collisions are random.
The temperature depends on the pressure and the speed of the molecules. It’s basic physics. Vibrational energy can be transferred to kinetic energy.
It works in reverse too. Eventually those warmer O2 or N2 molecules will smack into a GHG molecule and the energy will be transformed back to it and released as an IR emission. This is how the GHG molecules eventually throw that energy out to space.
Like I said, it’s the delay that matters.
12
Hi Jo,
That’s the theory.
The actual situation has a few controlling factors.
“This is how the GHG molecules eventually throw that energy out to space.”
Sadly, for the IPCCCCC, the only quantitatively relevant “greenhouse gas” is water and it’s primary energy/control features are at the conversion points where water goes to ice or to a vapour in the atmosphere. The energy movements there are way above anything that poor old CO2 could be held accountable for.
Any energy that CO2 releases is miniscule and intensity can be gauged from the fact that it’s orbiting electrons drop back at an altitude of about 11,000 metres where the temperature is about minus 38°C.
Up to that point, as you say, it’s just another part of the gaseous atmosphere where kinetic/bumping is the go.
But even before we get to discussing this we should be examining the larger picture.
What’s actually happening?
Where I live, in summer time the daily temperature can cycle through more than 10 C°.
When the Sun goes away the energy it has deposited is rapidly lost to deep space at night. CO2 is basically irrelevant in this.
The Sun did it.
00
So, no measurements of the “layer of CO2 warming” ?
Within the atmosphere, bulk air movement transfers far more energy than radiation.
Where is the scientific evidence of this “delay”?
“The temperature depends on the pressure and the speed of the molecules. It’s basic physics.”
Which is controlled by the gravity based lapse rate, continuously… It is basic physics, yes.
10
“it’s the delay that matters”
How long is this so-called “delay” ?
Where are the measurements of this “delay”. ?
Energy flow in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature and pressure differentials.
10
of course I meant photons ! D’oh
long day in the lovely sun !
10
AGAIN tiny King Island wind generation is chaotic, solar hopeless and RELIABLE diesel as ALWAYs is supporting the entire system.
And less than 2000 people live on the island.
BTW I’m going to watch the battery at night to see how long it lasts.
https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island
71
Battery is still flat, as usual.
41
Let readers here know if you notice any pattern of activity from the battery. To a casual observer it seems like it does nothing useful.
51
Notice in the chart they have an entry labelled “demand response”.
I believe that relates to DRED, Demand Response Enable Device whereby the grid operator or Big Brother can take control of certain appliances such as air conditioners to either alter the temperature or turn them off to ration power. In Australia nearly all new A/Cs sold have this feature but connection is voluntary- at the moment.
I wrote an article about it.
https://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2017/April/DRED%3A+they+can+turn+your+aircon+off%21
51
So much of the man made CO2 warming story is obviously wrong, especially 35 years later. Normally that would mean the idea would be laughed out of the media. But the media are behind it, so that doesn’t happen.
But what has been avoided the whole time, even by sceptics, is any proof that CO2 levels are man made.
CO2 levels are natural, we can do nothing about them. Nett zero, carbon credits, windmills are all fantasy.
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 22%
Argon 1%
Water 1-4%
CO2 0.04%
man made CO2 0.001%
What was the problem again?
161
And by the way, people abbreviate it
man made CO2 warming
CO2 warming
CO2
Carbon
and they are against the pollutant Carbon. Diamond for example.
Greenpeace have form here in science ignorance. They banned the element Chlorine, element 17 in the Periodic Table. So why not ban Carbon, from which all living things are made. Otherwise you are a rock or a gas.
141
And by the way, an enormous science field is ‘Organic Chemistry’ which underpins all biology. It is the chemistry of carbon essential for life. Let’s ban it.
101
I would love to have some “carbon pollution”. Please send all your unwanted diamonds to me or transfer your rights to any coal holdings you may have.
Other carbon allotropes in the form of fullerenes, graphite, lonsdaleite, diamene etc. not so much.
41
If anyone is throwing petrol or diesel away it also applies. Prepared to pay 2c per litre for polluting fuel.
31
Greenhouse gases of course, that was the focus at the Kyoto Japan Climate Conference 1997 Agreement signing.
30
But I read recently , that when a man-made CO2 molecule goes up , it stays there for over a 1000 years.
It’s no wonder we’re doomed. 🙂
40
Yes. Man made molecules are pollution. The H2O from combustion as well.
21
“when a man-made CO2 molecule goes up , it stays there for over a 1000 years.”
But “natural” CO2 exchanges daily.
Isn’t it fascinating that the oceans can somehow tell the difference. 😉
10
Meanwhile the annual Australian fueload bush burning season begins. No-one pushing renewables mentions the disconnect with CO2 emissions.
But then, rightly so. Pity fossils still getting hammered.
51
Here’s recent very short interview by Andrew Bolt of Dr Lindzen about their so called EXISTENTIAL THREAT.
He demolishes so of their BS and fraud in just 3 minutes. BTW It takes time to load.
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/few-scientists-would-say-climate-change-is-an-existential-threat-richard-lindzen/video/767f4c094de09c2a97c1f2398919f292
41
From memory it was mentioned that the latest figures show that IPCC modelling is about three times above the records at this point in time.
11
Dearly beloved, with our adversaries climate religion going phut, now is the time for a big-time revival for our freedom.
40
Even without alarmist climate stories in their MSM, they still believe. The ambiguity is noticeable, are the students aware that China is a top tier CO2 emitter.
‘The study, carried out by the China Youth Climate Action Network, surveyed over 5,000 people between the ages of 18-24 at universities across the country, including top-tier and lower-tier establishments and vocational schools. It carried out small group discussions with 37 of the people surveyed. This is one of the most detailed surveys of climate awareness among young Chinese people to date.
‘The vast majority (84%) were aware of the gravity of climate change, and over 40% described it as the most serious global issue today, followed by social inequality (12.9%) and public health (8.3%). This is particularly remarkable, coming in the year of the Covid-19 pandemic.’ (China Dialogue)
30
This article is good news but would like to see a poll here in Oz. This site and a couple of others here are a few to tell the facts unlike the MSM and the AlpBC. A good long look at the ‘history’ of the climate change mob reveal a litany of fake predictions, lies and hypocrisy. If some of the leading supporters truly believed their propaganda and were not make huge sums of money from it why wouldn’t they act? I have never read an article were they don’t have ‘one rule for me and one for thee’ to deal with the so called problem. Such a pity so many Australians believe every word of their fake stories and predictions.
40
Is it even permissible by the Left to say “man made”?
Won’t that cause their fragile little non-brains to go into meltdown?
Of course, the thinking community has no problem with such a term.
20
Here’s that graph again from the big Lancet 2015 study about hot and cold deaths around the world.
They studied 13 countries and moderate cold was the big killer in every country and hot deaths were much lower.
But very cold Sweden and Canada had lower cold deaths than much hotter Australia and according to an article I read somewhere their home insulation and inhouse warmth was much higher in those two very cold countries.
I think Jo offered an opinion last time I linked to the fact that moderate cold was the biggest killer in all the countries, but now I can’t recall her reasons.
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/79cee7d6-8e9d-4659-a6cf-f334e1403498/gr2.jpg
20
Dams are full in Australia, Sydney Opera House is high and dry, Sydney Harbour Fort Denison high tide mark remains accurate, tipping points reached and passed without event.
Climate hoax?
40
I apologise for disturbing the moderator AI bot.
20
What Will J. or Mr. b.nice would say about this;
“it must be scattered in all directions of 3-dimensional space ”
The energy potential variation of the atmosphere with altitude suggests that some of the energy in the clouds may slow the loss of energy from ground to space at night.
CO2 is watching patiently as water does all the greenhousing.
[Please wait for the moderators rather than reposting the same comment 4 times. It’s a wonder the autospam machine did not swallow you. – Jo]
30
CO2 does not re-emit below about 11km.
Mean free path of CO2 frequency at surface level is about 10 metres..
Think about that.. do some basic maths.
And any collisional loss of vibrational energy is dealt with immediately by the natural convection of the atmosphere, controlled by the lapse rate.
How much of a bushfire’s heat gets “trapped” by all the CO2 emitted ? Convection gets rid of vertical energy changes VERY quickly.
10
CO2 emits at every altitude. A molecule is a molecule.
It’s just that the emissions rarely get to space from the lower zones, instead they end up being absorbed by other GHG molecules and/or getting transformed via kinetic collisions.
00
Jo, the only way that CO2 can “emit” up to 11 km is via the conduction/bumping mechanism you describe.
Gases are very conformist in their behaviour and must follow the rules.
10
https://ibb.co/mBrzRMH
No, CO2 does not get a chance to re-emit below about 11km.
10
Democrats predominantly live in the cities. Republicans not and go out more. Not surprisingly the latter have a better understanding of how nature works.
30
What happened to the run away positive feed back loop of higher temperatures causing more cloud formation causing more heat capture causing more …? Nothing!
What happened to the dreaded ‘limit’ of 350 parts per million of CO2 beyond which life on Earth would for every be disrupted by the kajillions of ‘climate refugees’? Nothing!
And what happened to the poor inhabitants of Tuvalu? Nothing! They’re still very much right there.
A theory is considered true when its predictions are found correct, and considered a-bit-wrong when demonstrably falsified. Where are we now with the THEORY of climate change? – When NOTHING predicted has happened!
30
BTW King Island is relying on Diesel tonight. Since 8 pm the battery is still flat, no solar until after 9 am tomorrow and wind is hopeless.
AGAIN how do you run a country with 26 million people relying on UNRELIABLE, TOXIC W & S and stupid batteries?
https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island
20
but… don’t they use diesel to charge the battery ? Why would it be flat 😉
00
I confess: I am a demon.
00
No longer a shadow of your former self?
00
[…] Democrats, independents and young Americans losing faith in climate religion […]
00
[…] Controls the CO2 Increase*** Ross McKitrick: The important climate study you won’t hear aboutDemocrats, independents and young Americans losing faith in climate religionMontana AG and Gov betray conservativesThink We Can Model the Climate? Clouds Get in the […]
00