The air force had two problems: bombsights for the massive strategic bomber force which could fly much higher than WWII planes did not work properly. Heat seeking missiles also did not work as they were designed to. The problem turned out to be the IR emitted by the surface that would cool the surface if the IR could reach space. Studies into this validated the AGW theory. So do studies using satellite observations of the globe.
From 1940 to the late 1970s there was some mild cooling. This was sulphite/sulphate (SO2/SO3) emissions by industry. These aerosols reflected away some of the sunlight hitting the atmosphere. These emissions also caused acid rain (SO2 + H2O —> H2SO3, sulphurous acid while SO3 + H2O —> H2SO4, sulphuric acid.) Clean Air Acts stopped the increase in the emissions and started them declining. CO2 emissions were still rising and so AGW resumed warming the globe (had been doing that but the sulph-ite-ate emissions were masking this warming.) To show that climate scientists did not believe in the MSM (fake news indeed) hysteria I cite the first modern radiative-convective numerical model developed by Manabe and Wetherald in1968 when scientists, according to idiots ( Booby) were convinced we were headed for an ice age.
Nah, AGW validated in the late 1940s climatologists worked on AGW.
There are a couple of stupidities I come across all the time;
1. Mankind’s emissions are small and can’t make any difference. Mankind’s emissions currently are 36Gtons CO2 a year, nature’s more like 567Gtons—but natural emissions are reabsorbed in spring as plants start growing and putting on leaf—this is the carbon cycle. Less than 50% of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by plants and oceans, the >50% that are left increase the total amount of atmospheric CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 currently is a tad over 30% and rising.
2. The other form of this is “CO2 is a trace gas and can’t make any difference.” These silly deniers do not want to drink a glass of water with “just” 0.04% (418ppm) of strychnine so their denial is not all that genuine
From Twitter, a perfect rebuttal (sorry, did not note the Tweet address so no link!)
Settles that!How do people believe this nonsense?
An excited CO2 molecule at sea level, will on average, collide with another air molecule 6,000,000,000 times a second.
After the first hundred thousand it will have lost all absorbed energy and be ready for the next absorption.
3. Seas are outgassing CO2. A statement made in ignorance. Yes, the seas are warming, a tiny amount compared to air but seas are much more massive and water has a high specific heat. What else is happening? CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere so the partial pressure of CO2 (written as pCO2) is increasing and it is increasing faster than the warming of the seas acts to outgas CO2.
Think of ocean acidification. While some CO2 is held as non-dissolved CO2 most mixes with the water: CO2 + H2O —> H2CO3 and this dissociates into H+ ions or HCO3+ ions. An increase in H+ concentration (or as HCO3+) is acidification and we know the oceans are acidifying.
Oh so much boring crap debate on Twitter “The oceans are alkaline and will stay alkaline” etc. An increase In H+ ions is acidification regardless of the actual pH of ocean waters. pH—the power of hydrogen ion.