Why Co2 Can Not Cause Further Warming...

[Billy_Bob]

One of the warmists favorite things about CO2 is the fact that in an argon filled tube and with varying concentrations of CO2 it reflects radiated warmth back to the surface. CO2 however saturates a low levels and does little in increasing that reflection of heat. As the saturation grows it displaces water vapor and allows long wave infrared radiation to escape at night when water vapor would be most effective in heat retention.

Lets look at the LOG (or rate of diminishing returns) of this trace gas and the experiment vs reality.

The left hand column is degrees Celsius and the top is parts per million of CO2. At 260PPM CO2 had expended 95% of its warming capability in our atmosphere. At 380 PPM we had only recorded 0.2 Deg C rise in 1990. Today at 399ppm with the globe cooling we show and empirical rise of 0.0 Deg C for that rise over the last 60 years.

The rate of CO2 rise has remained constant up until ten years ago when it dropped 0.8 on average per year from 2.6 PPM to 1.8 PPM. That drop coincided with oceanic oscillations going cold and ocean uptake of CO2 increase.

What this tells us.

First thing it tells us is that temperature and CO2 are not linked. There are atmospheric processes which offset or null the base warming rate of CO2 found in the lab. Empirical (observed) rates of increase are 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling above 260PPM. Increase in CO2 does not result in runaway warming as shown by the paleo climate record.

Second thing this tells us is that CO2 in a lab environment reacts differently in the earths atmosphere. The two plots on this graph show GCM models and empirical evidence. Note the deflection at 260ppm.

The third thing this tells us is that our current level of 399PPM, if doubled would only result in another 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise as seen over the last 100 years. This is important because GCM (Global Climate Models) use this number to determine rate of heat increase and the reaction of water vapor to that increase. (aka: Climate Sensitivity) The Current cooling trend shows the total decoupling of water vapor from that equation using CO2 as the driver. The current IPCC rating of 1.0 to 1.8 Deg C per doubling of CO2 is laid waste as to high by empirical evidence. The EPA's rating of 4.0 to 6.1 deg C per doubling is pure fantasy and contrived numbers to push a liberal agenda.

What we are left with is a negative forcing in water vapor. As CO2 further increases in our atmosphere the night time long wave black body radiation will increase causing further cooling. Further increase in CO2 will now result in a zero net gain of heat retention.

Its simple physics.. And empirical evidence...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature

As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the miniscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[6].

I was reading this article a while back and looking at the citations to support it when i realized that everything the IPCC and US EPA is doing is for show and the destruction of the US economic system. Its not a new revelation, but it shed light on the Obama dream of structural and fundamental change of the US. In order for the people to accept a communist style leadership and control you must destroy the capitalist system. You must make it fail and collapse. The new EPA regulations are exactly the driver needed to complete the collapse.

We either fight back or knell and kiss the masters ring... I AM AN AMERICAN AND BOW TO NO ONE!

This article shows the irrelevance of CO2 in the global system and the percentage of CO2 we could actually affect and that the warming is less than 0.4 deg C out to 1000PPM. It amazes me how ill informed most Americans are about what their government is doing to them.

 

[Crick]

You could have had a serious technical discussion going here if you hadn't decided to tip your hat and show us all that you were driven here in a tiny bus full of right wing whack jobs wearing funny suits, giant shoes and big red noses.

Among (many) other points, I note that as one moves to the right, both your model and your "actual observations" are still rising. And your sensitivity results fall within the IPCC's range.

 

[skookerasbil]

You could have had a serious technical discussion going here if you hadn't decided to tip your hat and show us all that you were driven here in a tiny bus full of right wing whack jobs wearing funny suits, giant shoes and big red noses.

Among (many) other points, I note that as one moves to the right, both your model and your "actual observations" are still rising. And your sensitivity results fall within the IPCC's range.

But lets point out that the IPCC's "range" data has repeatedly been rigged........so..........so..........

 

[skookerasbil]

Articles IPCC s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming

 

[skookerasbil]

Anyway.....at the end of the day, the debate on this topic is a bit moot.......a huge plurality of the American public think the scientists are fucking with the data so..........


HUGE plurality........ 69 Say It s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports trade

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11.gif.html][/URL]

 

[Crick]

You could have had a serious technical discussion going here if you hadn't decided to tip your hat and show us all that you were driven here in a tiny bus full of right wing whack jobs wearing funny suits, giant shoes and big red noses.

Among (many) other points, I note that as one moves to the right, both your model and your "actual observations" are still rising. And your sensitivity results fall within the IPCC's range.

But lets point out that the IPCC's "range" data has repeatedly been rigged........so..........so..........

You state that as a fact. Let's see your proof.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You could have had a serious technical discussion going here if you hadn't decided to tip your hat and show us all that you were driven here in a tiny bus full of right wing whack jobs wearing funny suits, giant shoes and big red noses.

Among (many) other points, I note that as one moves to the right, both your model and your "actual observations" are still rising. And your sensitivity results fall within the IPCC's range.

And then you miss the fact that water vapor, not attributed in the graph, is found to be a negative forcing, not a positive forcing. After missing that salient point you go off on a rant of pointless alarmist drivel.. You dont want a discussion you want your point of view only..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You could have had a serious technical discussion going here if you hadn't decided to tip your hat and show us all that you were driven here in a tiny bus full of right wing whack jobs wearing funny suits, giant shoes and big red noses.

Among (many) other points, I note that as one moves to the right, both your model and your "actual observations" are still rising. And your sensitivity results fall within the IPCC's range.

But lets point out that the IPCC's "range" data has repeatedly been rigged........so..........so..........

You state that as a fact. Let's see your proof.

Let me see... The IPCC at one point had the same sensitivity levels as the dillusional EPA in the US does, in fact that is where it began. The fact that you are incapable of finding that information tells me you are either a paid shill or you are ignorant of basic facts..

 

[Crick]

That's not proof.

Just as an aside, do you actually know how to show a link to another URL here? I only ask cause you can't tell from your posts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's not proof.

Just as an aside, do you actually know how to show a link to another URL here? I only ask cause you can't tell from your posts.

the answer to my question is; paid shill... Not only are you unwilling to look for yourself you are content to eat what is shoveled your way by your handlers...

 

[Crick]

If you make a claim, particularly an extraordinary claim, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence, not mine. This is the third or fourth time you've accused me of being lazy because I won't look up evidence you should have presented in the first place. The only thing these comments do is make you look like a lazy person attempting to push a view for which they can find no evidence.

You've become almost famous around here for posting claims often bordering on the absurd; including comments and numbers that LOOK as if they must have been pulled from some sort of reference. But you identify no reference either in your initial posts or when asked to do so. Those are not good practices for which to be known.

 

[Billy_Bob]

YOU have quoted the IPCC filth assessment report many times. The numbers for climate sensitivity are contained within it. As are their original findings in AR3 and AR4.

The EPA endangerment finding, which you have quoted many times, also has these numbers.

I am amazed that you would play this silly ass game knowing where the numbers are found and that they are correct. You recognized the graph as the study published by the IPCC in a previous post and how it showed the near zero yet rising rate of CO2 while failing to recognize that water vapor is a negative forcing above 400ppm.

You are either obtuse or intentionally defiant because the science does not fit your preconceived agenda. I guess if I was pulling these numbers from my ass, my ass would be the IPCC and EPA. A funny bit of irony... And not at all intentional on your part.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What I find rather interesting is the IPCC and its scientists never took into consideration how long wave IR would react to removal of water vapor from the near ground atmosphere. Once that water vapor is displaced the area of IR most prominent at night is allowed to escape much more rapidly.

They obviously did not follow the energy flow. Now that the true forcing levels are finally being admitted by some to be much lower than they first initially believed we are starting to get a handle on what will happen to earths energy budget.

The IPCC's current stand on radiative forcing of CO2 is now "best estimate" and no hard value is given. That in and of itself should speak volumes about the 'science'.

 

[Billy_Bob]

• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

"Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University."

It seems that everything I have been showing is now coming out of the mouths of others in my field. The essay in the Wall Street Journal pretty much obliterates the IPCC catastrophic warming BS. And his information on the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is still on the old info held by the EPA...

Source

We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dr Koonin has just let Pandora out of her box. He has allowed everyone to see the lies and deceptions being used.. disclosing that we only rose 1.4 deg F over 100 years despite the CO2 output show how little we affect the earths warming by our emissions. This next week is going to be brutal..

 

[Billy_Bob]

That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate.

Dr Koonin then goes on to some how manage the fact that there has been no warming and despite the rise in CO2. He believes that man is still the main factor due to his use of fossil fuels. The reality of the hoax is that it is the very “basic physics” of the formerly “settled science” that is in error. It is indeed a hoax even though he wants to try and sugar coat the turd.

He opens Pandora's box but then try's to just leave it open a little..

 

[SixFoot]

One of the warmists favorite things about CO2 is the fact that in an argon filled tube and with varying concentrations of CO2 it reflects radiated warmth back to the surface. CO2 however saturates a low levels and does little in increasing that reflection of heat. As the saturation grows it displaces water vapor and allows long wave infrared radiation to escape at night when water vapor would be most effective in heat retention.

Lets look at the LOG (or rate of diminishing returns) of this trace gas and the experiment vs reality.

View attachment 32135

The left hand column is degrees Celsius and the top is parts per million of CO2. At 260PPM CO2 had expended 95% of its warming capability in our atmosphere. At 380 PPM we had only recorded 0.2 Deg C rise in 1990. Today at 399ppm with the globe cooling we show and empirical rise of 0.0 Deg C for that rise over the last 60 years.

The rate of CO2 rise has remained constant up until ten years ago when it dropped 0.8 on average per year from 2.6 PPM to 1.8 PPM. That drop coincided with oceanic oscillations going cold and ocean uptake of CO2 increase.

What this tells us.

First thing it tells us is that temperature and CO2 are not linked. There are atmospheric processes which offset or null the base warming rate of CO2 found in the lab. Empirical (observed) rates of increase are 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling above 260PPM. Increase in CO2 does not result in runaway warming as shown by the paleo climate record.

Second thing this tells us is that CO2 in a lab environment reacts differently in the earths atmosphere. The two plots on this graph show GCM models and empirical evidence. Note the deflection at 260ppm.

The third thing this tells us is that our current level of 399PPM, if doubled would only result in another 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise as seen over the last 100 years. This is important because GCM (Global Climate Models) use this number to determine rate of heat increase and the reaction of water vapor to that increase. (aka: Climate Sensitivity) The Current cooling trend shows the total decoupling of water vapor from that equation using CO2 as the driver. The current IPCC rating of 1.0 to 1.8 Deg C per doubling of CO2 is laid waste as to high by empirical evidence. The EPA's rating of 4.0 to 6.1 deg C per doubling is pure fantasy and contrived numbers to push a liberal agenda.

What we are left with is a negative forcing in water vapor. As CO2 further increases in our atmosphere the night time long wave black body radiation will increase causing further cooling. Further increase in CO2 will now result in a zero net gain of heat retention.

Its simple physics.. And empirical evidence...

Speaking of higher CO2 concentrations. Note the near-identical root structures and stark differences in vegetative growth. What are the lethal levels of atmospheric CO2? I'd like to stay just under those while I'm still working my land.

 

[Crick]

That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate.

Dr Koonin then goes on to some how manage the fact that there has been no warming and despite the rise in CO2. He believes that man is still the main factor due to his use of fossil fuels. The reality of the hoax is that it is the very “basic physics” of the formerly “settled science” that is in error. It is indeed a hoax even though he wants to try and sugar coat the turd.

He opens Pandora's box but then try's to just leave it open a little..

What basic physics do you believe to be in error?

And when you use the term "hoax", you are stating that some individual or group has knowingly presented a falsehood for personal gain. Who do you believe has done this and what gain did they receive for doing so?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You could have had a serious technical discussion going here if you hadn't decided to tip your hat and show us all that you were driven here in a tiny bus full of right wing whack jobs wearing funny suits, giant shoes and big red noses.

Among (many) other points, I note that as one moves to the right, both your model and your "actual observations" are still rising. And your sensitivity results fall within the IPCC's range.

But on Earth, actual observations show temperatures have not risen in 2 decades