Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bringiton, Jan 31, 2021.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I am objectively correct: the atmosphere is opaque to the relevant wavelengths up to the effective emission altitude. Denying facts of objective physical reality cannot alter them, sorry.
    No, that's just a repeat of your invariable post hoc fallacy that absurdly claims all global climate phenomena of the past century have been caused by anthropogenic CO2.
    It has risen because the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years has returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.
    You have not been able to demonstrate that even one single statement I have made is false.
    Oh, the irony....
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Attentive readers are aware that that claim is objectively false.
    Attentive readers are aware that that claim is objectively false.
    But one that is more accurate than more complex models based on objectively false and absurd assumptions.
    Which had already proved anti-fossil-fuel hysteria wrong -- indeed, Angstrom proved it wrong several decades earlier.
    No, you made that false claim, though it had already been empirically falsified.
    There was nothing wrong with the methodology. You just have to reject it because it proves your anti-fossil-fuel scare campaign is bull$#!+.

    Whatever. Preach to your cult here. That'll change things. Really it will.
     
  3. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I have been discussing the paper below and its basic flaw of assuming all other atmospheric constituents remain at their current values while varying
    atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from 10 ppm to 1600 pm.


    The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures
    David Coe, Retired from Codel International Ltd, Bakewell, England
    Walter Fabinski, Retired from ABB Automation, Frankfurt, Germany
    Gerhard Wiegleb, Department of Electrical Engineering (Research Group for Environmental Monitoring), University of Applied Sciences Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
    Received: Aug. 2, 2021; Accepted: Aug. 11, 2021; Published: Aug. 23, 2021


    Does it seem reasonable to you that the Earth's global mean surface temperature (GMST) would only be 3.2 degrees Celsius cooler if atmospheric
    carbon dioxide levels were at 10 ppm and all other atmospheric constituents remained at their current valued? Is it valid to assume that water vapor
    is a constant and not a variable for this type of analysis which is used to derive climate sensitivity when we know that water vapor depends on temp-
    erature and even small changes in temperature can produce a very large positive water vapor feedback? Why is there no discussion of this assumption
    anywhere in the article? The authors discuss other assumptions that are not as significant as this one. Even if water vapor was allowed to vary, I still
    would have doubts about the accuracy of this type of simplistic analysis and the results might only be good for a rough estimate of climate sensitivity.

    A formula that approximates the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide is valid over the 200 ppm to 1600 ppm range and is given by 5.35 X ln (C/Co) = delta F.
    delta F is the change in radiative forcing. If we raise atm. carbon dioxide levels from 200 ppm to 1600 ppm we would get 11.1 watts per square meter
    of radiative forcing. In order to find out how much the GMST would rise after equilibrium we would have to multiply that delta forcing by the climate sensitivity
    or use a climate model. Using a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 would give us an increase in the GMST of 9 degrees K. The graph
    below gives us an increase of 1.4 degrees K. A climate sensitivity close to 3.0 degrees C. is considered a very reasonable value by the majority of climate
    scientists and is backed up by many studies including empirical studies and studies based on the physical changes associated with climate feedbacks.
    What would we expect if the CO2 concentration rose from 10 ppm to 200 ppm? I don't know but the GMST should change much more for that range than
    for the 200ppm to 1600 ppm range. The delta change in radiative forcing should exceed the change calculated from the formula 5.35 X ln (C/Co) because
    the change would be a little more linear for low concentrations of carbon dioxide. If we use that formula we get 16.0 watts per square meter of radiative forcing
    but the actual value would be higher. We should see over a 13 degree C. or Kelvin (it doesn't matter which one we use) delta change from 10 ppm to 200 ppm.
    The graph below shows less than a 3 degree C. change.

    If water vapor was a variable in their model the graph would show much larger temperature changes because water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and
    adding more of it certainly produces more downward flux at night. We know that nights have been getting warmer relative to days because of increasing
    levels of absolute humidity.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The water vapor feedback alone would result in a climate sensitivity slightly higher than 2.0 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 and if we add in the albedo positive feed back and the cloud positive feedback the climate sensitivity can't be much less than 2.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not a flaw, just a simplifying assumption.
    It's possible if 10ppm is enough to close the CO2 window. I would suggest you are belaboring this point because you can't address the gravamen of the paper's results.
    Yes, because the water vapor equilibrium is quite insensitive to temperature.
    That is false. What we know for certain is that there is no large water vapor feedback. If there were, climate would not be stable.
    Because it is irrelevant.
    No, that one is very insignificant, as already explained.
    No, that's just some made-up nonsense based on ignoring the saturation of IR absorption by water vapor and pre-industrial levels of CO2.
    If you define "climate scientist" as anyone who is on-board with the anti-fossil-fuel scare campaign.
    No, that's false. It isn't backed by any credible empirical research. It's based on nothing but computer models, fake data, cherry picking, and post hoc fallacies.
    You are flogging a dead horse. The graph is irrelevant to actual climate for CO2 levels below ~200ppm because they are impossible.
    No, because the effect of temperature on water vapor concentration is so small and the effect on its IR absorption even smaller.
    No, that's just another post hoc fallacy. Nights have been getting warmer because of human nocturnal energy use, contrails, etc.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it wouldn't. That's just made-up nonsense with no basis in credible empirical science.
    Nope. The albedo feedback declines with temperature and the cloud feedback is negative.

    A word to the wise: you really need to start bringing at least a smidgeon of skepticism to the table, Mike.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2021
  7. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup. CO2 has strong response when it's moving up from the level of whale dung, but once it's up to our current levels of 0.04% it's has very little effect on temperature despite the hysterical claims of that loud segment of the hair on fire left.\

    Communist China Tells Climate Czar Kerry No Cooperation on Climate Change Unless U.S. Shuts Up About Human Rights.

    What will John F Fkn Kerry choose?

    "The Chinese are using slave labor to produce solar panels."
     
  8. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I knew 'environmentalists' were lying about the dangers of too much CO2 in the atmosphere but I used logic to reach this conclusion and didn't have the actual data. Thanks for clearing this up.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Definition of Worldview bias

    Taking the opinion of a fringe debunked theorist over accepted science dating back to the end of the 19th century
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Zorro mate - I really really would back away from these fringe conspiracy sites - you DO NOT want to fall down some QANON rabbit hole

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So? Where is your source?
     
  12. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I may be bold enough to answer for the one you're quoting, where's your source?

    I mean, are we supposed to accept anecdotal evidence now? Should we, for example, ascribe to Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine as suitable treatments of Covid due to the 'suitability' of anecdotal evidence?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Has your gaslighting ever worked on ... anyone?

    This isn't a debate. While much of the CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps the H2O absorption spectrum, a significant part of it doesn't. That makes your theory kooky. That would be why the whole planet laughs at it..

    Sure, you'll keep raving here, and the whole world will keep ignoring you, for exactly the same reasons the world ignores flat-earthers.

    And then a big whopping lie. You combine lying with kook science to manufacture your own unique brand of crank pseudoscience.
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not pretty when cults fall apart. The cultists are reduced to screaming how everything is a sinister plot directed at them.

    Anyways, any of you deniers, let us know how an observed ECS of >2.0 squares with the paper's claim of 0.25. I know, reality has never intruded on you before, so it won't bother you now. I just want to see what kind of excuses you dream up.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As is happening to the anti-fossil-fuel cult because actual physical events keep proving them wrong.
    No such ECS has been observed. The claim that it has appears to be merely a reversal of cause and effect based on incorrectly interpreting the variation of CO2 with temperature in the paleoclimate record as CO2 influencing temperature rather than the other way around.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The paper is consistent with recent research. The claim of observed sensitivity greater than 2.0 is not.
    [​IMG]
    Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

    By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017

    Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]
     
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that paper left out a lot of recent research. It's easy to get the result you want if you just leave out all contrary data.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As usual, you have to accuse others of what you are yourself most guilty of. Have you ever managed to convince anyone over the age of nine that there is some sort of climate "crisis"?
    How true...
    But it's still massively oversaturated at pre-industrial levels of CO2, so additional CO2 has almost no effect on surface temperature.
    Nope. If you have 40 wool blankets and one cotton blanket on your bed, doubling the number of cotton blankets won't make you perceptibly warmer.
    Keep gaslighting....
    It is against forum rules to accuse other members of lying. Everything I have said is consistent with the observed empirical facts of objective physical reality. Unlike your anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering.
     
  19. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, what's your specific prediction?

    I predict more warming.

    We'll check back in 5 years.

    This is the problem you deniers have. If we check back at the history of your predictions, they're always laughably wrong. That's why you're so reluctant to even make predictions. You know they're going to fail, because you're just jabbering cult nonsense.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The stability of the earth's climate proves positive water vapor feedback cannot be as large as claimed.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I made my first climate prediction decades ago: CO2 will keep rising, but temperature will not. I can't really get more specific than that because solar activity is the principal determinant of global temperature on the decadal to millennial time scale, and it is not (yet) predictable. Nevertheless, I have been proved right.

    Here's another one: arctic sea ice will not disappear in any summer this century. I made that prediction at the beginning of the century when the anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers were claiming sea ice would all be gone by 2012, 2014, or whenever. So far I have been proved objectively right, while they have definitively been proved objectively wrong. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012, nine years ago, and shows no sign of revisiting that low.

    So here's a prediction challenge for you: in what year will arctic sea ice definitely disappear, or failing that, in what year will it definitely decline to less than the 2012 record low? If it doesn't exceed the 2012 low, in what year will you admit that the post-LIA global warming trend stopped sometime between 2012 and 2016, and therefore was not mainly caused by increased CO2?
    :lol: That's a pretty easy one to make: temperature is always either warming or cooling, and even if there is cooling, it is bound to be followed by warming.
    Based on which deliberately falsified data set? Are you willing to accept UAH?
    Nope. See above. And please don't embarrass yourself by citing temperature records that have been retroactively altered to agree with the CO2-controls-temperature nonsense.
    "A good man always knows his limitations." -- Inspector Harry Callahan

    As I can't predict what the sun will do, I can't predict temperature. But I can predict that temperature changes will more closely track solar activity than CO2.
     
  22. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It warmed and cooled many times with CO2 around the 260-280 ppm level in the last 10,000 years, how do you explain that?

    [​IMG]
    LINK
     
  23. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ha ha, the chart is mostly about the RECENT research and over 20 are listed by link based on actual published papers from 2009 to 2017 with 60 more in another supplied link.

    LINK

    It is obvious you didn't read the post Jack supplied to back up that revealing chart of declining sensitivity.

    You are flailing all over the place.
     
  24. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Satellite data and Radio Sonde data shows that positive water vapor is very small in the tropical atmosphere, it is a failed prediction they stopped talking about....

    LOL
     
    bringiton likes this.
  25. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By the way you missed this from the link Jack supplies because you are too lazy to keep up:

    "Otto et al. (2013), with a TCR of 1.3 C, was co-written by 14 IPCC lead authors and, like Lindzen and Choi (2011) (2XCO2=0.7 K) was featured as one of the referenced ECS papers in the last IPCC report."

    and this:

    "Rasool and Schneider, 1971
    https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2008Q2/591A/Articles/Rasool_Schneider_Science.pdf
    [A]lthough the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. … It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 K. However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
     
    bringiton likes this.

Share This Page