Can the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? ***- Edward Norton Lorenz -***

Hi everyone, I am sure you are having a great time between comments and posts on Hive! Today I am trying to talk in a very simple way about an issue that is really close to my heart and it is about global warming. ## It exists! According to some studies, though, it is not anthropomorphic in origin; so our cars, or anything that produces CO2 does not create a greenhouse gas. I see, you are as interdicted as I am, but according to some studies, it has been proven that the much demonized CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I now try to explain in a very simple way why, and I also point you to the sources I drew on to write this post. ## The greenhouse effect ![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmQHAVMnSLKnMu1GhStcT4RfP2KVnRwvKj2sXEsyMvcYMK/image.png) Source: Wikipedia The greenhouse effect we all know is related to poor heat dissipation from the antroposphere. This is not to be confused with what happens in a greenhouse: in this case there is no heat exchange because convective motions cannot freely occur. In practice inside a greenhouse there is a static nature of the air. To realize this, it is enough to open the doors, and even in the absence of wind, we will feel the air flowing: convective motions have resumed. As for the earth, the scenario is different: convective motions are not hindered by any construction (greenhouse walls), so the system works perfectly; but we are talking about radiation and not convective flows. Of course, this is not ionizing radiation (that of radioactive materials), but mainly infrared and UV radiation. Heat, is an electromagnetic wave within this range. This is why infrared, because it is not visible to the human eye, but we can feel its presence by touch. Basically, heat from the sun enters the atmosphere and heats the earth. Once this process stops (from sunset to sunrise), the earth returns the accumulated heat in the form of infrared radiation. In fact, this is referred to as radiative equilibrium. Now CO2 comes into play, which is the carbon dioxide that is emitted by any combustion. According to the Swedish chemist Arrhenius, CO2, prevents the smooth dissipation of these waves resulting in the warming of the atmosphere. Warning: warming of the atmosphere does not mean warming of the earth's surface. ## The new studies ![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmTDvKYp7JUkViwmFL56d6dF5zKfQGWF9ijCTHjNuwcKn3/image.png)

Source: https://www.attivitasolare.com/nuovo-studio-leffetto-serra-dovuto-alla-co2-utilizzato-nellattuale-ipotesi-del-riscaldamento-globale-e-impossibile/

Now it has been taken as "postulated" this claim by Arrhenius, but some studies are refuting it. The study by Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist who specializes in atmospheric radiative transfer, has recently published a report, where he refutes Arrhenius' assertion. [Here the report](https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf) Very simply he makes a distinction between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases. To understand this immediately, water vapor is a condensing greenhouse gas, while methane is not. Since our climate is based on a hydrological balance (the water cycle in a nutshell) these gases don't come into play because they don't affect this balance. ## On the contrary In fact, they might promote precipitation as an increase in temperatures promotes greater evaporation, resulting in water vapor that condenses to form cloud systems and, subsequently, rainfall. With that, as I asserted at the beginning of the post, climate change is there but it is not to blame for human activities. We are many, we do many things, but if we compare ourselves to the earth we are infinitesimal; therefore, our actions are also such. Everything depends on the sun, it is no coincidence that our solar and heliocentric defining system! ![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmSCci9iCRV35E9WfQGw8NrGFkfHgDSgw6wZuJ1RLFdAk3/image.png) Source: https://www.pinterest.it/pin/158470480617903668/ The opening sentence I inserted on purpose: a few days ago I had the good fortune to be able to talk to an astro-physical researcher who, to my question: >Why, since there are no real studies showing a real greenhouse effect of CO2, do we continue to demonize it? By this he does not mean that we should disrespect our planet be well understood! And the Researcher, in response explained to me that climatology is governed by the laws of chaos, so a small variation in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause cataclysms in the opposite part of the globe. Interesting as an answer, (in fact not the answer to my question) but I'm already reading up on it, these things fascinate me a lot! See you at the next episode!!! >The topic is very complex, so if some passages are not clear, please comment below! I am also open to a healthy debate to understand other points of view as well! If you would like to elaborate, I will also leave you the site from which I drew the sources: it is very technical and takes some physics basics for granted, but it is very comprehensive! www.attivitasolare.com

co2

Experts

Show more authors