Rigby5
Diamond Member
Well let's take a look at the roll CO2 palys in our atmosphere...
I was debating a Tony Heller article in another forum, and it highlighted why CO2 drives nothing and is irrelevant in our atmosphere.
Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic | Cowboy State Daily
Anthony is not known for being either "all in" or "all out" in regard to CAGW. Anthony is a very smart man and one I would consider a friend. He, like me, is a realist. So, let's do a realist point of view on CO2.
The CO2 effect is less than half of the expected log warming. This means the atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. This means the Climate Sensitivity equation is roughly 0.3 to 1 (observed rise in temp vs expected rise from CO2 alone). We expected 1.8-2.1 deg C from CO2 alone and we have seen just 0.6 deg C.
The atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. When we add in the natural variation components, it drops to less than 0.07/1. This places it in the Margin of Error and insignificance. Dr Heller is correct, CO2's influence is near zero and cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.
We should be focusing on particulates and getting them out of our emissions not CO2, as it is incapable of driving anything.
Below is the LOG of CO2, a gas in our atmosphere.
View attachment 741895
When you look at this graph there is a temperature axis and a PPM axis for CO2. When you look at 280ppm and then to 410ppm you can determine, from the two points, the expected temperature rise from the gas itself without any other forcing applied. One must remember, when doing climatic forecasting, that there are other drivers which do not stop functioning.
When we look at the global rise as a whole, we must then reduce the potential from CO2 by the other known drivers.
The expected temperature rise, from CO2 alone, is 2.1 deg Celsius. (280ppm to 410ppm)
To date we have seen just a 1.1 deg Fahrenheit rise in average temperatures or 0.6 deg C.
The resulting Climate sensitivity equation is then 0.3 for each 1.0 deg Celsius (expected rise) written as 0.3/1.0. Remember, we must now reduce this number by the known other drivers. 96% of all warming is not from CO2 emissions.
.3/.04 = 0.012 The Margin of error in this is +/ - 0.07. This means that the potential of CO2 emissions to warm, is well below the MOE for this trace gas in our water driven atmosphere. When we look at the overall atmospheric warming the action potential of CO2 is dampened, by empirically observed evidence.
Dr Heller is correct in his assumptions that CO2 has no ability to adversely impact our atmosphere given its current makeup. That is CO2, by the numbers.
The end result is 0.024/1. This represents CO2's portion of the warming given the expected log value.
0.024 deg C is the warming contribution to our atmosphere when the expected from CO2 alone was 2.1 deg C. When we place these numbers into context and account for other active drivers in our climatic system, CO2's ability to warm is exposed.
CO2 is not the boogie man the alarmists want you to believe it is. This is why it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The moment we learned that CO2 was being dampened and that there was no enhancement driving water vapor temperatures, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis died a sordid death and was falsified by empirically observed evidence.
Originally posted here: CO2 - By The Numbers, Why it is Statistically Irrelevant in our Atmosphere.
Sorry. but this is entirely wrong.
The whole discussion about "greenhouse gases", is actually incorrect use of the terms.
Global warming is NOT the result of "greenhouse gas" effects.
Greenhouse gas effects are about the heat retained by individual molecules in the atmosphere.
That is not what is causing global warming.
What causes global warming is the carbon in the very upper atmosphere boundary layer to space, where the carbon converts photonic energy that could leave the planet, into vibratory heat, that can not leave the planet.
The amount of heat that CO2 can hold at sea level is totally irrelevant, since water vapor holds about 20 times more heat. But water vapor is totally irrelevant to global warming, because it can't get to the upper atmosphere boundary to space, since it condenses out at those cold temperatures.