Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

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

  1. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,485
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sadly for your cult, that's not how the world works. You're the one trying to overturn the consensus, so the burden of proof is on you. Round-earthers have no obligation to refute the claims of flat earthers.

    So, I don't have to do a thing. After all, your paper has been ignored by the scientific community. That will remain the case, unless you can explain why it's so awesome.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,645
    Likes Received:
    2,295
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since it was just published on 23 August, I suggest the word "ignored" is premature.
     
    cabse5, Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but it's the crucial piece that is missing from anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering because it shows why CO2 cannot possibly have a significant effect on the earth's surface temperature.
    Of course. But when they are paid to pretend they don't understand it...
    Name calling, hectoring, goalpost shifting, sneering, deflecting, evading and gaslighting don't make you good at science, sorry.
    You have provided no evidence for such a claim, nor will you ever be doing so.
    How true.
    More accurately, there's nothing there they can refute, so they have no choice but to ignore it.
    I didn't deflect. You did. I explained why that paper is better than anti-fossil-fuel hysteria, and you are now just makin' $#!+ up again to divert attention from the fact that you cannot refute anything in it. You do that a lot.
    You made that up, too. The small cabal of propagandists running the anti-fossil-fuel scare campaign is not "the rest of the planet."
    <yawn> How about you draw on your superior scientific acumen to explain why the paper is wrong?

    Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can't, because you haven't the slightest understanding of the paper, or indeed the first clue about actual science.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency" when there self-evidently and indisputably isn't.
    How true. You are merely a little confused about who is who.
    Then why are you doing it so maniacally?

    It is we who don't have to do a thing but wait for actual physical events to keep proving us right, just as they unanimously have to date.
    Again, it's early days, but it would be a bit surprising if a paper that merely reconfirms Angstrom's 100-year-old demolition of anti-CO2 hysteria garnered much attention.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not given by any means. Estimates of ECS higher than 1C do not take those basics into account.
    Strawman fallacy. No one claimed it is better than every other study, just better than studies that attribute the majority of the post-LIA temperature increase to CO2.
    I didn't say they look only at CO2. I said their estimates of additional CO2's effect on surface temperature are based on assuming CO2's absorption bands are not already saturated.
    Another strawman. I said they were pretending, not assuming.
    Because the monumental oversaturation of CO2's absorption bands by water vapor and other GHGs -- including CO2 -- near the earth's surface mean that additional CO2 is irrelevant to clouds, winds, etc. It's effect cannot be distinguished from noise.
    You made that up. What they did was quite pedestrian, like repeating Angstrom's experiment.
    But it explains why additional CO2 in quantities that could plausibly be emitted by burning fossil fuels is irrelevant to the earth's surface temperature and thus to climate.
    No, that's clearly false.
    No it hasn't. That is nothing but a laughably naive post hoc fallacy.
    No it isn't. It's only a demonstration that anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers are so remote from scientific competence, let alone objectivity, that they think a bald post hoc fallacy can be passed off as scientific analysis.
    Actual physical events will continue to prove me right and you wrong. Take it to the bank.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  6. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The graph below is not accurate or even close to being accurate because the water vapor is held constant at its current value while carbon dioxide
    is allowed to vary from 10 ppm to 1600 ppm. Water vapor is different from other greenhouse gases because its concentration is largely a function of
    temperature and it condenses into water when the air becomes saturated with water vapor. There is an empirical equation that governs the relationship
    between saturation vapor pressure and temperature and it is mentioned in the article that produced this erroneous graph of temperature versus
    concentration of CO2. Notice that the caption above the graph says that it is "assumed that all other atmospheric constituents remain at their current
    values". One cannot make that assumption regarding water vapor. Water vapor is considered a "feedback" whose saturation fraction depends on
    temperature and temperature is not nearly constant as shown in that graph. Water vapor levels will be much lower if CO2 levels are at 10 ppm compared
    to what they are today and the temperature will be much less than 284.8 degrees C. A similar argument can be made if atmospheric CO2 is at 1600 ppm.
    Then, water vapor levels would be much higher than they are today. Anyone with a little understanding of climate science would immediately recognize
    that this graph can't be reality.

    The fact that water vapor cannot be considered a constant for this type of analysis would seem to render it worthless. Assuming that water vapor is a constant
    greatly simplifies the model and the calculations and gives the authors, none of whom are climate scientists, the results that they want to find. They also assume
    a relative humidity of 80% for the entire Earth's surface and their model doesn't take into account clouds, diurnal variations, or seasonal variations.

    Table 2. Variation of earth equilibrium temperature with CO2 concentration, assuming all other atmospheric constituents remain at their current values. CO2 ppm 10 50 100 200 400 800 1600 Temperature Kelvin 284.8 286.2 286.9 287.6 288.0 288.4 289.
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Those references are used to acknowledge others who have contributed to important points in the article. However, none of those references have provided
    any supportive evidence for the assumption that water vapor can be considered a constant while greatly decreasing or increasing atmospheric carbon
    dioxide from its present value. Those reference don't support the conclusions of the article.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Your Strawman fallacies greatly damages your claims which you still didn't elucidate at all.

    Your whining complaints about me and others here are boring as well since it is YOU who seems to dislike it but never explain WHY you dislike it, while the others here merely said it is an interesting research worth considering as it seems to show CO2 and other trace to hyper trace gases have little warm forcing left in the tank which over all was small to start with in the first place.

    This published research was posted just 10 days ago....., not enough time for a measured response if anyone will test the paper you make clear YOU can't do that as that requires concentration.......

    Why don't YOU go test the paper after all you did brag:

    Yeah you are soooo awesome and better at the science but the science of that paper you keep dodging is too hard for you to address thus you started with NOTHING you end up with NOTHING!!!

    Your impatience about the paper is noted and quite embarrassing too....,

    Received: Aug. 2, 2021; Accepted: Aug. 11, 2021; Published: Aug. 23, 2021

    LOL

    You haven't once addressed the content of the paper you dislike, but you can't explain WHY you don't like it but you sure pile on the fallacies thinking this is a sign of a mature response when in fact you present NOTHING at all but a lot of wind and babble.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,645
    Likes Received:
    2,295
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suggest you take some more time to study the paper; the authors' reasoning is set out pretty clearly. The references acknowledge prior work on which the authors drew, in accordance with common practice.
     
  10. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I read the entire paper. Have you read it? I pointed out a problem that you don't acknowledge.
    I also emailed the journal that published the article and asked if there had been negative feedback. I pointed out the error committed by the authors.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,645
    Likes Received:
    2,295
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We shall see.
     
  12. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is from Wikipedia"s page on the Science Publishing Group which includes the "International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences" that published
    the article that I have commented on. It is an impressively sounding journal title.

    Science Publishing Group - Wikipedia

    Criticism of publishing practices[edit]
    The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1]
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  13. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So maybe co2 is a blanket which warm the earth?
     
  14. cabse5

    cabse5 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I took one college class in environmentalism in the early 2000s. My take was the class (and the teacher) were radical.

    My biggest and still to this day unanswered question I have about environmentalism and climate change is the worry over too much CO2 in the atmosphere. You know, water vapor constitutes over 95% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...CO2 constitutes less than 5% of all greenhouse gases. If one is truly worried about climate change due to greenhouse gases, why concentrate on CO2 when one should concentrate on water vapor since water vapor has a much higher percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Hum?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  15. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. No it isn't.

    CO2 is a life essential gas that is present in Earth's atmosphere (which is a part of the Earth, btw).
     
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure you "learned" "a lot".

    I believe you. Church of Global Warming adherents are VERY radical people.

    My biggest and unanswered question is WTF even IS "climate change"? Climate is a subjective word and is not quantifiable. How can "change" be determined in something that is not quantifiable? Is there now "more climate"? "less climate"? Is what used to be considered a 'desert climate' now a 'tropical climate'? It's just nonsensical gibberish. -- Plus, these people can't even measure how much CO2 is in the atmosphere to begin with. We don't have near enough CO2 measuring stations to do so, for starters...

    One also needs to define what a "greenhouse gas" is. There is no such thing in existence. A cooler gas is incapable of warming an already hotter surface. Heat does not flow uphill.
     
  17. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are greenhouse gases.
    Google is your friend; science is not your forte.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What are they?? Define them... Define what makes them a "greenhouse" gas as opposed to just a gas.

    Google is a false authority; learn how to think and reason for yourself.

    Science is not YOUR forte.
     
  19. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Projection fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define what makes them a "greenhouse" gas as opposed to just a gas.
     
  21. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A gas is termed as greenhouse gas when it absorbs and emits infrared energy.It's the definition that sets gases such as carbon dioxide and methane apart from other gases.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IR energy comes in many frequencies... only a narrow band of those frequencies can be absorbed by a gas such as CO2... What's so bad about CO2 absorbing a bit of IR energy, which just warms the CO2 molecule somewhat?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  23. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory says it is:
    https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
    [...]
    "You’ve probably already read that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases act like a blanket or a cap, trapping some of the heat that Earth might have otherwise radiated out into space."
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2021
  24. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    CO2 doesn't trap anything, it absorb and release nearly instantly. and leaves the system at about the speed of light.

    The blanket analogy is absurd since most of the OLWR isn't absorbed by CO2 at all, just around 6% is all and when the world warms up so does the increase of energy escape to space occurs.

    CO2 isn't stopping that measured increase to space, the other gases are so trivial that they can be safely ignored.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  25. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for educating me. I knew I shouldn't trust scientists. You let me to understand why the following is BS:

    "When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.
    Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.
    With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.".
     

Share This Page