Footnote: if this article tells us one thing? It tells us that money comes before all else including the wellbeing of the planet and all who live on it, lifeboat planet earth.

Radiant heat is not the problem if it is allowed to escape from the planet's surface and out into space, regardless of the source. Be it the heat sinks of large cities or power plants, be they hydroelectric or nuclear!

If I were to sprinkle coal dust all over the ice sheet of Antarctica, I could seriously accelerate the current ice melt. Given ice reflects radiant heat while coal dust absorbs it!

Ash and soot from smokestack emissions does a similar thing to coal dust just not as effectively.

The black roofs of many Australian homes adds to the heat sinks of many large population centres, whereas the silver of corrugated iron reflects much of it!

Which possibly explains why the old up of the ground, Queenslanders with their verandas all around, were cooler? Given they allowed convection of cooler air to assist that outcome.
Alan B.

AlanB

Spray that in English!

Dan

Dan. I just did!
Alan B.

Yes SR, we know you warmists, who have never been able to find a single bit of proof to your scam would like to shut the discussion down, the truth always has a habit of popping up again doesn't it. Just give us some solid evidence that the scam is true, & all argument will stop.

The ball is in your court as usual & will lie undisturbed as usual.

Then again the misnomer of greenhouse gas. A greenhouse keeps the heat in by stopping convection. No gas does that, & there have been a number of papers showing that CO2 aids convection, & thus COULD have a cooling effect.

Yep, there is that word so beloved by the warmist scam pushers. COULD when you don't have any measurements to show it does. I threw it in so you can feel at home.

Calling Co2 the life-blood of the planet is a tad hyperbolic. But equally the CO2 fetishism that sees it as the fount of all evil is just plain silly, let alone the opposite of true science.

It is very clear that the relatively minor increase in CO2 levels (from 3 parts in 10000 to 4 parts per 10000) has had a significant effect on greening the planet with expansion of vegetated lands in many parts of the world. Again, this is something the CO2 fetishists were prefer wasn't true, and therefore its never really discussed. No COPs to discuss the value of that greening.

Equally, although its true that the so-called natural levels of CO2 (c.280ppm) had a significant warming effect on the greenhouse earth, its equally clear that that effect is diminishing rapidly. This is the reason the CO2 fetishists moved the goal posts. Previously we were assured that we needed to keep temperatures 2c below 1850 levels. But when it became clear that we weren't going to get to that level the limit was changed to 1.5c. There is no science to justify that change.

The great fear was a doubling of CO2 from assumed 1850 levels and much of the scare campaign is based on that with calculations like TCR and ECR being specifically based on a supposed doubling. But its equally clear that even at current levels, its virtually impossible that levels will double this century. Again, that isn't discussed. Inconvenient facts rarely are.

Carbon dioxide is like orange juice, to much can kill you.