Re: Who is the judge ?
The physics has been known since the 1800s.
Ah, this is, once again where people confuse a theory, or hypothesis with fact. So picking on the usual suspect-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Arrhenius estimated based on the CO2 levels at his time, that reducing levels by 0.62–0.55 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and an increase of 2.5 to 3 times of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 8–9 °C in the Arctic
Other scientists like Angstrom and even Einstein disagreed with him, and most importantly, so did reality. Like there hasn't been an 8-9C temperature increase in the Arctic.
As for the computer models, there is a saying that all models are wrong, but some are useful. We might not get exact predictions, but there are ones that make sense with physical observations and confirm that the physics is real.
Or not. But then this is the problem with climate 'science'. In normal science, a prediction that has been falsified by observation means the prediction is obviously.. false. But this aspect is the trillion dollar question for actual climate science. What is the answer to Arrhenius's question-
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Which includes the most dangerous word in the English language, "If". Other parts of his theory have also been falisified, ie the practicality of doubling CO2 and then leading to any potentially dangerous global warming. So we know very roughly how much CO2 we've produced since 1850 and how much CO2 levels have increased. We don't know how much of that is due to natural responses to warming. But based on that, and the assumption that temperature response to CO2 is logarthmic, we know that we've already seen most of the warming for this doubling, and there isn't enough carbon to double CO2 again.
And we also know that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas (GHG). The IPCC assigns it a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1. Other GHGs like water vapor or humble H2O have a higher GWP, and we know that CO2 has 4 emission/absorption wavelengths, 3 of which overlap with H2O leaving only a very narrow atmospheric window. Then CO2 dogma (OK, theres some actual physics) assumes that the Sun heats the surface during the day, at night, the surface starts cooling.
Part of that cooling will be via radiative transfer, so a teeny amount will be intercepted by CO2 molecules, and almost instantly re-radiated in a random direction. So assume 50% upwards, the rest downwards, and depending on altitude, that 50% might hit another molecule, never hit the surface, or hit a surface like water.. But IR doesn't penetrate water very deeply and as the water would be cooling, that energy would be lost by evaporation, conduction, convection and all those processes that CO2 dogma glosses over.
But despite CO2 being very bad at 'trapping heat', it is an extremely good proxy for human activity. So climate charlatans use misinformation to justify spending £22,000,000,000 capturing CO2 and dumping it in a hole in the ground. In the process making gas generation more expensive because CCS makes generation less efficient and more expensive, eg-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating
MEA and DEA also require a large amount of energy to strip the CO2 during regeneration, which can be up to 70% of total operating costs. They are also more corrosive and chemically unstable compared to other amines.
And amines are also toxic. And.. where are we going to get the amines from? So MEA is produced by reacting ethylene oxide with ammonia. Ethylene oxide is extremely flammable, explosive and carcinogenic. Ammonia is also very nasty. And they're both produced from hydrocarbons, which our neo-luddites also want to ban.
Which is where misinformation gets very, very expensive. CO2 is so deadly we have to capture and bury it. Because CO2, we've 'invested' billions on windmills. They don't spin all the time, so we've needed more gas turbines. So we've increased dependency on gas, but at the same time, made gas generation more expensive, and we've been banning gas production. And then because our energy is the most expensive in the world, we've been losing far more jobs and causing more misery due to energy poverty than this £22bn make-work scam will ever create.
If we invested that £22bn in building a couple of new nuclear plants, we'd produce a few GW of electricity, would need to burn less gas, would produce less CO2 and wouldn't need to try burying that in a hole in the ground. But that would need politicians with a clue, and instead we've got Starmer and Ed Millibrain.