Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

Already done. Please see post #141.

 

Once again why do warmist/alarmists make false claims that climate realists deny warming?

I say it here, it has been warming since the late 1970's, it has warmed since 1920 and it has warmed since the late 1600's.

Lets see if you repeat the falsehoods again......

 

Who here has denied that the highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years has warmed the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years? Or are you just disgracefully makin' $#!+ up again?

That the earth has warmed is empirically demonstrable. That atmospheric CO2 has increased over the same period of time is also empirically demonstrable. The claim that the latter must have caused the former is nothing but a bald post hoc fallacy, and has been empirically falsified.

"Repudiated" but never refuted....

I don't always have time or energy to answer right away, but I have not gone anywhere. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

My comments in the OP are indisputable facts of atmospheric physics that no one here has come close to refuting with either credible empirical data or valid scientific reasoning.

 

The radiative forcing for a doubling of carbon dioxide is a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter and that is very significant. It is closer to
3.8 watts per square meter and that is enough to cause catastrophic warming with a high probability. That could cause a 3 degree C. rise in
the global mean temperature relative to the mid 18th century. That much temperature rise is enough to destabilize both Greenland and
West Antarctica with a high probability. It is irrelevant what percentage this 3.8 watts per square meter number is relative to the total
downwelling radiation. How can you believe that such a simple argument that you are making is something that every climate scientist
ins't aware of?

 

Have you read the scientific report that the "No Tricks Zone" uses to draw their conclusion?

Where did they come up with this graph? It isn't accurate or consistent with atmospheric science. How did this article get published?

 

Of course it's not consistent with "consensus" atmospheric science. That's the point.
References
[ 1 ]
Zhong, W. Y., and J. D. Haigh (2013), The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide, Weather, 68 (4), 100–105, doi: 10.1002/wea.2072.

[ 2 ]
G. Myhre et al, Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2013).

[ 3 ]
H. Harde, Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2, International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 2017, Article ID 9251034.

[ 4 ]
W. A. van Wijngaarden & W. Happer, Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases. Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics arXiv: 2006.03098 (2020).

[ 5 ]
S. E. Schwartz, Resource Letter GECC-1: The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change: Earth’s Natural Greenhouse Effect, Am. J. Phys. 86, (, 565-576, (201.

[ 6 ]
S. E. Schwartz, Resource Letter GECC-2: The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change: The Intensified Greenhouse Effect, Am. J. Phys. 86, (9), 645-656, (201.

[ 7 ]
K. E. Trenberth, J. T. Fasullo and J. Kiehl, “Earth’s Global Energy Budget”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 90, no. 3, pp 311-323, 2009.

[ 8 ]
Stevens, B., S. C. Sherwood, S. Bony, and M. J. Webb (2016), Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, Earth’s Future, 4, 512-522. Future, 4, 512–522 doi: 10.1002/2016EF000376.

[ 9 ]
D. J. Wilson and J. Gea-Banacloche, Simple Model to Estimate the Contribution of Atmospheric CO2 to the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect, Am. J. Phys. 80 306 (2012).

[ 10 ]
I. E. Gordon, L. S. Rothman et al., The HITRAN2016 Molecular Spectroscopic Database, JQSRT 203, 3-69 (2017).

[ 11 ]
U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 1976.

[ 12 ]
A. L. Buck (1981), New equations for computing vapour pressure and enhancement factor, J. Appl. Meteorol., 20: 1527-1532.

[ 13 ]
Hermann Harde, "Radiation and Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere: A Comprehensive approach on a Molecular Basis", International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 2013, Article ID 503727, 26 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/503727.

[ 14 ]
H. Harde, Radiative and Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere: A Comprehensive Approach on a Molecular Basis, Int. J. Atm. Sci. 503727, (2013).

[ 15 ]
M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood and K. P. Shine, Radiative Forcing of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide: A Significant Revision of the Methane Radiative Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614 (2016).

[ 16 ]
I. M. Held and B. J. Soden (2000) Water Vapour Feedback and Global Warming, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 25:441-475 (Nov 2000).

[ 17 ]
K. W. Thoning, A. M. Crotwell, and J. W. Mund (2021), Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow, Alaska, American Samoa and South Pole. 1973-2019, Version 2021-02 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML), Boulder, Colorado, USA.

 

Once again I post this to show how small the CO2 warm forcing really is:

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.


LINK

 

If you assume there is no water vapor or other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

No it isn't. Your claim is just false. There is no credible empirical data or physical argument that supports such absurd scaremongering.

Which comparison datum was somehow coincidentally also the lowest global mean temperature in the last 10,000 years.

Except that CO2 cannot produce such an effect.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”-- Upton Sinclair

 

You really do believe that simply repeating an unsupported belief often enough will make it so. I suggest that you not attempt that with gravity.

Your peculiar theory does not explain the directly observed stratospheric cooling, the decrease in OLR in the GHG bands, or the increasing backradiation. Since your theory does not explain the observed data, your theory is wrong, no matter how elegant it is, or how fervent your belief in it is.

 

Perhaps you missed this.
New Atmospheric Science Publication Finds Quadrupling CO2 Would Lead To Only 1.0°C Increase!
By P Gosselin on 29. August 2021

Share this...
“No climate emergency,” scientists say…”increasing levels of CO2 won’t lead to significant changes in earth temperature”
Increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.

A new publication in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences concludes that CO2 climate sensitivity has been excessively exaggerated by IPCC scientists.


. . . .

 

Can you tell us why this study is right, and all the others are wrong? If you can't, you've only given us an appeal to authority fallacy. And since none of those authors have any climate science experience, your authorities aren't very good.

 

It's not "all the others." It's the ones under the control of the anti-fossil-fuel hate campaign.

Garbage.

 

Go it. You have no idea how the study came to its conclusions. What's more, you don't care, not one bit. It said what you wanted to hear, therefore you BELIEVED.

 

You're the one who used the term "unsupported belief." That was obviously wrong.
The peer-reviewed research speaks for itself.

 

It's not unsupported. Falsely claiming it is unsupported cannot erase the facts that support it.

Wrong again. To the (questionable) extent that there is stratospheric cooling at all, it is an artifact of the increase in average final emission altitude and associated decrease in average final emission temperature.

Wrong again. The decrease in OLR is an artifact of the geometry of the increased final emission altitude. Because more GHG-band LR can escape to the sides from the higher average final emission altitude, commensurately less is emitted into the straight-up window satellites measure.

 

That is nothing but groundless speculation on your part. I certainly understand the study better than you.

No, citing the study just wasn't an appeal to authority fallacy. It's called, "providing empirical evidence." An appeal to authority fallacy claims a statement is true because of who made it. Jack did not do that. You are simply makin' $#!+ up.

 

It's right in the abstract:

"The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole."

Studies that estimate the effect of CO2 by pretending there are no other greenhouse gases absorbing in CO2's bands are wrong because there are.

Having "climate science experience" is not exactly a robust recommendation of accuracy, and one doesn't need such experience to use the HITRAN database honestly. In fact, it seems to help if one doesn't have any such "experience."

 

Translation: The science of the paper is too hard for me to understand to counter, which is why I am begging for help from you climate realists......

You have no argument to offer over the paper at all, why don't you just surrender instead?

Repeating after Bring it on:

"The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole."

You say those authors don't have any science experience is in itself a fallacy, apparently what they posted was too hard for you to address, they clearly have a lot more science literacy than YOU do, really you are being foolish here.

 

CO2 doesn't drive temperature change.

C3 Headlines

Global Warming Acceleration Proves NOT To Be An Existential Threat, Per The Empirical Evidence

August 3, 2021

Excerpt:

Global warming is the grand bugaboo for all catastrophic climate change alarmists. In reality, though, this existential threat is without science merit.




LINK

 

Everyone here notice you didn't post any counterpoint to the article, thus you posted nothing of value here.

LOL

 

Then, you can surely explain it for us, in your own words. If you're not faking your supposed vast knowledge of the science, you should be able to do that. It's curious, how you won't.

That's just a small peice of the puzzle. Anyone with basic knowledge of the topic would understand that.

See? This how I know I'm much better at the science than this group. They flop at the basics. I'm not that great. They're just that bad. Have you noticed how that bad handwaving piece is getting zero attantion outside of denier circles? It's in the "not even worth addressing category". Nobody is bothering to refute it, since there's nothing there to refute.

Your challenge, again, the one you deflected from, is to demonstrate why the conclusions of this paper are better than the conclusions of ... basically the rest of the planet. Please proceed. To keep running, that is.

 

Again, that's just a statement of part of the basics. Given that every other study takes those basics into account, that statement does not explain why this supposed study is better than every other study.

Why are you faking a story about how other studies only look at CO2? Come on, if you're going to lie, at least don't lie so badly. If you're not making it up, tell us which studies assume no other GHG's than CO2. Be specific, and back up your claim.

This group didn't bother looking at clouds, winds, continents, ice, currents, dust, oceans, thermals, feedbacks. ... and you're raving about how totally awesome they are? Contrary to what you think, a 1-D model of nothing but motionless atmosphere does _not_ explain the climate.

Oh, there's also the tiny point that reality says the results are kookery. Half a doubling has already raised temps about 1.0C. That's a demonstrated TCS of around 2.0C/doubling. Since ECS is bigger than TCS, any claim of ECS being less than 2.0 is just nuts.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than call names and toss insults. In fact, it looks like ECS can't really be above 1.5, and is likely lower.

 

Ha ha, it was YOU who complained about the article Jack posted in the first place thus it is on YOU to show WHY you think it is bad..... in some detail.

If you know so much as YOU say, then it should be easy for you to tear the paper apart but curiously you didn't even begin to try thus you are all wind and babble.

Your bragging is hollow and childish.

 

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Greenhouse Saturation Research Could Kill The “Climate Emergency”

Posted: September 1, 2021

EXCERPT:

By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~

The “climate emergency” appears to have died, far out on the scientific frontier. Word of this death has yet to reach the mainstream.

Professors William van Wijngaarden (Canada) and William Happer (USA) have published some extremely important research on the radiation saturation of the major greenhouse gases. Their first report is titled simply “Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules”. It makes use of a major breakthrough in radiation physics.

Until recently the estimates of greenhouse potency were based on approximation bands of absorbed radiation wavelengths. Now the authors have done line by line spectral analysis, looking at over 300,000 individual wavelengths within these bands.

LINK