Featured

An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change

For the Climate Change “Experts” to be correct, Mother Nature has to be wrong. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is just that, Catastrophic. The theory is that Anthropogenic CO2 is basically a doomsday bomb. From the geologic record, we know this is nonsense, and that Mother Nature has produced CO2 in vastly greater quantities than Man could ever hope to produce and life thrived. CO2 is, after all, the molecule on which all organic based life is derived. For some reason, the climate “experts” seem to believe that the physical properties of Anthropogenic CO2 somehow differ from those of Naturally produced CO2, they don’t.

How then, would Einstein go about disproving the myth of CAGW? He would use a “thought experiment.” Einstein solved the theory of relativity by simply watching a clock while riding a train and imagined what things would be like if the train was traveling near the speed of light. We will do the same here in regards to climate change.

The Achilles Heal of the Climate Alarmists is that their “theory” treats the atmosphere almost like a closed system. That is why they focus on global temperature. The argument is that CO2 is “trapping” heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a gradual increase in temperatures. This assumption isn’t even close to true, the atmosphere has no insulated ceiling, thus freely allowing energy to enter and exit. Most importantly, energy is in flux, and different wavelengths of Electro-Magnetic Radiation have different physical properties. The key to the thought experiment is to then demonstrate the climate system in a thought experiment. To do this we will use the giant water bucket popular at water parks.

Energy is in flux, it enters the system at a certain rate, and it leaves the system at a certain rate. You can fill your car up with gasoline in 10 minutes with a large flow capacity hose, and then slowly allow fuel to drain out through a low flow capacity fuel injector and drive your car for hours. The climate alarmists use a linear model for the climate theory. The Sun’s energy is constant they say, CO2 increases, CO2 reduces the outgoing Longwave Infrared Radiation, therefore temperatures increase. That is their theory in a nutshell. It is a masterpiece in sophistry.

The problem they have with that theory is the energy flux of the atmosphere is highly nonlinear. Energy accumulates in the oceans during a “La Niña”, and then is belched out into the atmosphere during an “El Niño. The energy flux is absolutely enormous, with the ocean temperatures varying up to 4°C over a cycle, and therein lies the problem.

(Source) (Source)

Sea “surface” reaches down about 100m. (Source)

The difference between day and night temperatures of the oceans can also vary greatly. BTW, note how the very surface is COOLER than the water immediately below it. That is evidence CO2 and wind are actually working to COOL the oceans because the wavelengths CO2 absorbs don’t penetrate the surface of the oceans. (More below)

diurnal sea temp

(Source)

Enormous amounts of energy are required to warm the oceans, and enormous amounts of energy are released when the oceans cool. The specific heat of water is 4.186 joule/gram °C, where a joule is a W*Sec. The marginal contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 (Difference between 270 and 410 ppm) is a whopping 0.94 W/m^2. (Source)

co2 anthropogenic

That means that Anthropogenic CO2 can warm 1gm of water 1°C every 4.186/0.94 or 4.45 Seconds over an area of 1 m^2. A m^3 of water weighs 1,000,000 gms. It would take 4,450,000 seconds, or 1,250 hours or nearly 2 months for Anthropogenic CO2 to warm a m^3 of sea surface water  1°C. To put things in perspective, at high noon on a clear day, the oceans are being bathed by 1,000 W/m^2 by incoming solar radiation. (Source) It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours. On a cloudy day, the incoming solar radiation may only be 100 W/m^2, so the variations are enormous, yet still dwarf the contributions of anthropogenic CO2. A similar example could be done using the time it takes CO2 to replace the energy lost from just one cloudy day.

Here is the best evidence I’ve found that the sun is warming the oceans, not CO2. The warming trend has occurred along with a decrease in cloud cover over the oceans. Note how both charts of Low-Level Clouds and Temperatures “kink” or “dog-leg” around 1999. CO2 shows no relationship with temperature at all, but water vapor does.

With that background, we can now design the Einstein Thought Experiment. Assuming Mother Nature isn’t an imbecile, we would have to assume that she built safety valves in her system to ensure no catastrophic events ever happen. She did that is various ways 1) the El Niños act as pressure valves and 2) CO2 shows a logarithmic decay in its absorption of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR). The Water Park Giant Tipping Bucket is a great demonstration of how the climate system works, and why CO2 is truly irrelevant. The Bucket is filled by an enormous pipe that can fill a 1,000-gallon bucket in about 10 minutes, so the flow rate is about 100 gallons/minute. The major fill pipe is the solar radiation of 1,000 W/m^2 in the climate system. CO2’s contribution to the climate system would be like hanging a garden hose over the side of the bucket with a flow rate of about 0.1 Gallons/minute. By the time CO2 has poured 1 gallon into the giant bucket, the bucket pours all CO2’s water out and things start all over again. Because the bucket is continually dumping out all the accumulated water/energy, CO2’s contribution can never actually “accumulate” in the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough time between cycles for CO2 to have a material impact.

There is also one additional twist to the above thought experiment. CO2 shows a logarithmic decay of its absorption between 13 to 18µ LWIR. To understand this, imagine that the garden hose isn’t drooped across the top, but is piped in at the bottom of the bucket. At first, when the bucket is empty, CO2’s water easily flows into the system, but as more and more water gets into the bucket, the back pressure grows, and less and less CO2 water is piped into the bucket. Eventually, no additional CO2 water will make it into the bucket, no matter how much CO2 water is in the filling tank. 0 to 410 ppm CO2 added 7.85 W/m^2 to the system, doubling CO2 from 410 to 820 will only add an additional 1.88 W/m^2.

If you think of the bucket filling and overflowing without tipping as a catastrophic event, there is no way for CO2 water to ever prevent the bucket from tipping, so it can never cause a catastrophic event. As long as El Niños exist, CO2 will never be able to cause a catastrophic event.

There appears to be another safety valve Mother Nature created that I don’t fully understand, but it highlights how many aspects of the climate are counter-intuitive. When the incoming solar radiation is REDUCEDthe amount of radiation that actually reaches the earth’s surface actually INCREASES.

The solar radiation coming to the Earth (and individual hemispheres) is reduced (Fig. 2). The anomaly value of the solar radiation coming to the Earth surface (in respect to the mean for 1961 – 1990) from 1850 to 2013 is 3.49Е+07 J/m2. The difference of solar radiation coming to the equatorial zone and polar regions of the Earth (and hemispheres) is increased for this period by 5.83Е+07 J/m2 (relative to the mean for 1961 – 1990). The SST temperature on the Earth and individual hemispheres is increased.

(Source)

Additionally, in reality, CO2 is more likely to cause surface evaporation. The latent heat of evaporation is 2.26 j/g, so CO2 is more likely to pull heat away from the ocean surface than to add to be because H2O readily absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR likely triggering evaporation. The following chart demonstrates that 13 to 18µ LWIR doesn’t penetrate the oceans to any depth, so those factors combined with a blowing wind aiding evaporation further makes the case that CO2 cools the oceans, it doesn’t warm them. Visible radiation clearly penetrates and warms the oceans, especially very high energy blue light.

Lastly, climate alarmists make it sound as if all W/m^2 are created equal, they aren’t. A W/m^2 of blue light is likely to warm the deeper oceans, a W/m^2 of 13 to 18µ LWIR will never reach that depth. A W/m^2 from an LED Flashlight will travel to outer space without warming anything. Only when a W/m^2 is absorbed and converted to thermal energy does a W/m^2 result in an increase in temperature, and different wavelengths have different absorptive properties.

The above article would make a great High School Science Fair Demonstration.

Post Publish Edit: This seems to validate the theory detailed above…and we’re not climate scientists or experts.

An ocean of inconvenient truth
The estimated increase in ocean heat content during 1990-2015 is the same as that between 1921–1946, according to a study in the PNAS. Change in atmospheric CO2 was ~70 ppm (1990-2015) vs. ~10 ppm (1921-1946). (Source)

More evidence CO2 does not warm the oceans. Ocean temperatures have not increased with an increase in CO2. (Source)

sst

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Advertisements
Featured

Let’s Get Ready to RRRRuuuummmmbbbbbleee!!!!! Climate Change Cage Match

How did the longest running show on TV address this exact same situation?

https://www.mrctv.org/embed/535857

Meet the Press Bans Real Science From Climate Debate; Science is Settled

Follow the debate on Scott Adam’s Twitter Account:

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Democrats are Determined to Repeat the Failure of France and Europe and Destroy the Trump Economic Miracle

USA Green

HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE LINING UP BEHIND WHAT COULD BE THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT IN DECADES

  • Democrats are lining up to support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal.”
  • The proposal could be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society or New Deal.
  • Ocasio-Cortez’s plan could cost tens of trillions of dollars.

Democrats are increasingly lining up to support a “Green New Deal,” which, while vague on details, could end up being the largest expansion of government in decades.

As it stands, the “Green New Deal” is more aspirational than actual policy. Indeed, it takes its name from the New Deal of the 1930s, and its main backer, incoming Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, compared it to the Great Society of the 1960s.

More than 40 Democratic lawmakers support the “Green New Deal” as part of a broad plan to fight global warming and bring about what they see as “economic, social and racial justice.” A poll found most Americans supported the deal, but knew little about it. (Source)

What has the World Gotten for its Climate Change Dollars? Absolutely Nothing

The Cuban and Venezuelan Economic Models they seek to copy are complete disasters.

Six months after being appointed as the new president of Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel will preside over ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of a revolution while facing a stagnant economy and growing citizen protests. Six decades into its socialist experiment, his government is still trying to figure out how to satisfy the basic necessities of its population.

With minimal economic growth in 2018 and continuing shortages of basic staples like flour at year’s end, experts say the government is failing under his leadership. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

These Stats Ignore the Cost of Crime and Lost Job Opportunities; Welfare Savings Alone Justify the $5 Billion to Build the Wall

Listening to the Democrats you would think they sleep with their doors wide open, leave their keys in their car’s ignition, and don’t use passwords for their on-line bank accounts.

President Trump could pay for “The Wall” with Welfare Savings alone. Democrats would rather grow our ranks of the entitled and dependent. Republicans argue for a merit-based immigration system, Democrats argue for a political based likely Democratic Voter based immigration system. Which do you think is best for America? More Republicans working to pay taxes or more Democrats voting to bankrupt the Nation? The numbers simply don’t lie.

Welfare checks should be redirected to construction companies and the recipient can pick up their check after 40 hours of working to build the wall. Workfare, not welfare, and current welfare recipients can learn some new and useful job skill in construction.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it. (Source)

Democrats won’t protect our borders and our citizens, but they sure will fund our enemies.

How Obama Secretly Gave Iran Access To Billions Of Dollars — And Enabled Terrorism (Source)

Was Obama’s $1.7 billion cash deal with Iran prohibited by U.S. law? (Source)

Donald Trump says Iran got $150 billion and $1.8 billion in cash. That’s Half True (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

IPCC Demands $240/gal Gasoline Tax While France Burns

6904014-6451503-image-a-5_1543740426350

IPCC Demands $240/gal Gasoline Tax!

(Source)

FRANK: I think — I think most Americans think that the earth is warming. I think there’s a legitimate debate to be had on whether that is man made and, if so, to what extent. But we at Americans for Prosperity, we are an economic group, and we are trying to point out the high cost of the so-called solutions out there. We’re talking about $8-a-gallon gasoline. We’re talking about millions of people losing their jobs. And that’s what we’ve been…

COLMES: And the way to solve that problem is to have renewable energy sources. Because the short-term solutions, like speculating on oil. And when Al Gore said — you want to talk about the messenger. I want to talk about the message. Gore said that we should be able to produce all of our electricity with earth-friendly carbon-free power, do you disagree with that?

(Source)

Aren’t High Gas Prices Part of What Gore Believes In?–Kemp in IBD (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

While France is Burning; Progressives Push a Green Bill of Rights

6904014-6451503-image-a-5_1543740426350

Tone Deaf beyond belief. When Progressives find themselves in a hole, they don’t ask for a ladder, they ask for a bigger shovel. BTW, the FDRNew Deal” was found largely Unconstitutional, highly racist and resulted in the Great Depression. It took the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor to end the madness.

The Green Climate Deal

I see that Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mr. Bernie Sanders are pushing something called a “Green New Deal”, so I thought I’d take a look. The Hill has a piece entitled “Progressives say dire climate reports point to need for ‘Green New Deal’“, and the Atlantic magazine has an article on it headlined “The Democratic Party Wants to Make Climate Policy Exciting“. Make climate policy exciting? Well, I guess so, but only if you consider economic suicide exciting …(Source)

More

Have you ever noticed that all proposed solutions for climate change require massive expansions of government control, reduced reliance on free market entrepreneurship, and the surrendering of our national sovereignty to global entities that are hostile to the United States and its founding principles? (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Models of a Truly Settled Science will all have the Same Results

Run the above experiment 1 billion times and you will get 1 billion identical outcomes. Now, look at the “settled science” of climate science. They have multiple models, none of them agree, and worse, they don’t accurately reflect reality. The only thing “settled” about climate science is that the climate experts don’t have a clue as to how to model the climate.

Don’t take it from me, listen to the true experts.

Many new scientific papers affirm climate model results conflict with one another, diverge from observations, and aren’t fully rooted in established physics. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science

Lab.PNG

The benefit the Climate Alarmists have is that Climate “Science” isn’t a physical science, it is a computer and political science. Climate Scientists deliberately don’t perform experiments to validate their “science.” They write computer programs and collaborate with environmental and political groups to sway opinions. The proof that climate science is pure nonsense is that their computer models and theory don’t accurately reflect observational data. Don’t take my word for it, that is the opinion of one of if not the greatest mind living today, Freeman Dyson.

Freeman Dyson on Climate Change; “Those People Don’t Look at the Observations, They are in a World of Their Own.”

The challenge then becomes for someone outside the Climate Science community to develop an irrefutable experiment that debunks the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, or CAGW. An experiment that can withstand scrutiny, be replicated countless times and demonstrated in every classroom worldwide. I think I have that very experiment.

The experiment is surprisingly simple. Just recently a Peer-Reviewed Climate Science article was debunked by a non-climate science statistician. Steve McIntyre found mathematical flaws in the Peer-Reviewed IPCC embraced Hockey Stick as well. Math and statistics aren’t requirements to succeed in Climate Science, reaching the conclusion that CO2 is the cause is all that matters.

HEADLINE-GRABBING GLOBAL WARMING STUDY SUFFERS FROM A MAJOR MATH ERROR

That flawed article, however, provides the basis for the Nobel Prize Winning Science Experiment. All the Climate Alarmists agree that the oceans are warming due to CO2. A CO2 driven warming of the oceans is critical to the CAGW theory. If CO2 isn’t warming the Oceans than the CAGW theory is invalidated.

The whole experiment then boils down to answering the question “Can CO2 cause water to warm?” It is that simple. Surprisingly that question hasn’t been definitively answered in this “settled science.”

Background:

  • The oceans are warming
  • CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through absorption/radiation/thermalization of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation
  • 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation does not penetrate the oceans to any significant depth, it is completely absorbed in the surface “microlayer”
  • CO2 does not cause warming, 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation does

With that background, we can then design the experiment.

  • MODTRAN provides the calculations needed to identify the marginal changes in W/M^2 of downward IR back radiation generated by additional CO2 (Link)
  • Calculate the W/M^2 for Pre-Industrial CO2 of 280 ppm, the current level of 400 PPM and doubling at 800 ppm using the “Looking Up” calculation
  • Shine the calculated amount of W/M^2 of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation onto a body of water enclosed in an insulated container with a blackbody absorber for a lid
  • Record the rate of temperature change to see if the sample with the additional 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation applied cools at a slower rate than the control sample
  • The control atmospheric environment needs to have 280 PPM CO2 for all samples
  • The additional W/M^2 or 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation represents the effect of additional CO2 being added

Here are the necessary MODTRAN Calculations and W/M^2 Values:

The “Control” has CO2 of 280 ppm in the atmosphere and Downward IR Heat Flux 368.636 W/m2

The “Current” has CO2 of 400 ppm in the atmosphere and Downward IR Heat Flux 369.264 W/m2 (+0.628 W/M^2 over control)

The “Double” has CO2 of 800 ppm in the atmosphere and Downward IR Heat Flux 371.148 W/m2 (+2.512 W/M^2 over control)

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Experiment Equipment:

  • Enclosed space with 280 ppm CO2 representing per-industrial Downward IR Heat Flux
  • 3 insulated containers of water raised to 10°C above room temperature
  • A blackbody lid (Egg Crate Foam soaked in a charcoal slurry)(This represents outer space)
  • IR Light Source and 13 to 18µ filter

The Experiment:

  • Warm the water sample to 10°C above room temperature
  • Place the water in an insulated container with a blackbody absorber as the lid
  • Place it in the control environment of 280 ppm CO2
  • Record how long it takes to cool to room temperature
  • Repeat, but for each new sample shine the needed amount of additional 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR
  • Collect data to identify the marginal change in cooling rate for additional amounts of 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR
  • Repeat the experiment using room temperature water and record if the additional 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR can actually cause a measurable warming
  • Convert the findings from W/M^2 of 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR to ppm CO2
  • Publish your findings either proving or disproving that CO2 and 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR can, in fact, warm water (slow cooling)
  • Collect your Nobel Prize in Science for validating or invalidating the CAGW Theory
  • Finally “settle” this science

Because Climate Scientists aren’t required to develop computer models that actually reflect reality, they will be able to indefinitely promote their cause. They will never run out of bogus computer models and excuses. Their believers already believe them without valid computer models or supporting physical observations. It is the ideal Anti-Science Cult, packaged as real science. What is needed to shatter the Global Warming Myth is an irrefutable reproducible experiment. The first thing the Romans did when they conquered a nation was to destroy their temples to shatter the belief of all its followers. To prove to the people that the Romans were more powerful than their gods. Real scientists need to step up and develop an experiment to shatter the Temple of Computer Servers and end this Cult of Climate Change. Their weapon needs to be the scientific method.

This experiment could possibly be run using a CO2 laser.

A second experiment would be to demonstrate that nights with a full moon are statistically warmer than nights without a moon. If CO2 can cause climate change so can the moon.

A Full Moon’s Irradiance is 1/6th that of CO2 in W/M^2

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson

(Source)

Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists. We here at CO2isLife have done the exact same thing and reached the exact same conclusion. We believe that anyone that takes an objective look at the data, science, and theories and compare them to the conclusions reached by the climate alarmist, they too would reach the exact same conclusion. The observations don’t support the conclusions and the models don’t reflect reality. Those are simply irrefutable truths. The correlation and R-Squared between CO2 and Global Temperatures are basically non-existent.

We at CO2isLife have been promoting a common sense theory behind global warming that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. The theory is simple:

  1. The oceans are warming
  2. The oceans control the global climate
  3. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere above the oceans
  4. CO2 and the LWIR wavelengths that it radiates (13 to 18 microns) don’t warm water
  5. Visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 microns do warm water
  6. More visible radiation much reach the oceans to cause warming
  7. That can happen through fewer low clouds, a hotter sun or both

That simple theory explains far more about the recent warming than CO2 and is supported by the data.

The problem with the CO2 caused climate change is that CO2 and temperatures don’t correlate. CO2 is a smooth near-linear variable and temperatures are all over the place and highly variable. Most important however is that temperatures have different characteristics over different time periods. CO2 doesn’t, it just increases in a nearly linear fashion since the start of the industrial era. In other words, temperatures don’t zig when CO2 zags. Temperatures zig a lot, and CO2 doesn’t zag much, and when it does it is mostly in the same direction, up.

As demonstrated above, global temperatures don’t “trend” upward like CO2, they appear to “step.” Looking at the above chart, temperatures appear to “trend” sideways between 1979 and 1997, a 20 year period. The 13-month average is the same in 1997 as it was in 1980. The lowest levels reached in 1993 were lower than the lowest levels recorded in 1979.

Something strange then happens in 1997, an El Niño spiked temperatures, which then started a slight upward “trend.” The 1997 El Niño peak was surpassed by the 2016 El Niño peak, and the bottom reached in 2012 was above the bottom reached in 1999. So for some odd reason, there was no warming between 1979 and 1997 while CO2 increased from 335 to 360 ppm, and then steady warming between 1997 and today. Two very distinct periods, two very distinct temperature variations, and yet CO2 increased during both periods. CO2 can’t be the cause. CO2 can’t cause no change in one period and then change in another period. The physics of the CO2 molecule are constant.

Given that irrefutable evidence, one would discount CO2 and go looking for a variable that has a dramatic change starting in 1997. When you do that, guess what you find? Low level clouds, the clouds that result in cooling, started a dramatic decline in 1997 which continues to this day.

Imagine that, if you stop blocking sunlight from reaching the oceans the oceans will warm, and with it the globe as well. Who woulda thunk it? Clearly not the Einsteins staffing our climate “science” departments. Bottom line, if you aren’t searching for the real answer you will never find it. If clouds, or lack thereof,  are the real cause of the warming, then the funding would get slashed for the climate change departments and research. I doubt these unethical climate alarmists are going to publish research that will put them out of a job. Would you?

I’m pretty sure that if more people would take the time to look into this nonsense there would be a lot more headlines like the following. It appears “Peer Review” has some holes in it. Funny how it took a “climate contrarian” to catch the mistake.

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study (Source)

Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Share this Video with your Climate Change Kool-Aid Drinking Progressive Professor or Teacher

Capitalism is clean and efficient, Socialism if wasteful and dirty. Progressive’s solution is to expand socialism. Focus on problems what can’t be solved or even quantified. Basically, waste money because people have been convinced that it will do some good. People used to sacrifice virgins for the same reason, and the outcomes are the same. Tremendous waste/loss and absolutely no benefit.

“Why do we have more trees today in the Northern Hemisphere? Because we burn coal and not trees.”

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

6 Charts That Prove Results Don’t Matter to Progressives

Ignoring the fact that Progressives elected a person that they believed could stop the seas from rising, Obama not only failed on the economy, but he also failed on the environment.

At an extreme cost, Obama’s agenda did nothing to alter the trend in CO2.

At extreme cost, Obama’s agenda did nothing to alter the trend in atmospheric temperatures. (Source)

GlobalTemp

At extreme cost, Obama’s agenda did nothing to alter the trend in sea level. (Source)

SeaLevel.png

Social Issues he failed as well.

(Source)

Race Relations

(Source)

(Source)

No wonder Progressives hate President Trump. Every day he is undeniable proof of just how big a failure their agenda is. They live a lie and President Trump proves it to them every single day. Impotent people don’t like people reminding them that they are impotent.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Real Climate Science is Finally Figuring Things Out; Its the Sun Stupid

We here at CO2isLife don’t have Ph.D. in Climate Science, we have Ph.D.s in Common Sense and Masters in Honesty and Fairness. The whole purpose of this Blog is to expose what we view as nothing short of Scientific Fraud perpetrated by the “Consensus”  of Climate Science Departments. We believed that if a group of amateurs could do a better job explaining the climate than the experts we would produce credible evidence that the entire field of Climate Science as defined by the “Consensus” is a fraud.

Years ago when we looked at the real science and physics behind the climate it was easy to identify the major factors that drive climate change and none of them were CO2. The key observation was that the oceans were warming. It takes enormous amounts of energy to warm water, energy simply not contained in the 13 to 18 Micron Long Wave IR that CO2 absorbs and emits.

To warm the oceans you need more radiation to reach the oceans. To accomplish that you need either 1) A warmer sun 2) fewer clouds blocking radiation from reaching the oceans or 3) both. The climate model truly is that simple. It is a simple input/output model. The oceans are the thermostat of the earth. The oceans are the hypothalamus of the earth. Understand the oceans and you understand the climate. Climate Scientists study the climate when they should be studying the oceans. A warming atmosphere is a symptom of a warming ocean. Blaming a warming atmosphere on CO2 is like blaming a fever of a person’s sweat. Climate Scientists are simply barking up the wrong tree.

Well, guess what? Some non-Consensus Real Climate Scientists have also looked at the data and they have reached the exact same conclusion we did here years ago. The sun drives the ocean temperatures which in turn warms the atmosphere. What is really nice about this new research, however, is that they have made a forecast that we will be able to use to validate or invalidate the theory.

The Millennial Turning Point – Solar Activity and the Coming Cooling

Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity MTP and the varying climate metrics. The temperature peak is about 2003/4 – lag is about 12 years. The arctic sea ice volume minimum was in 2012 +/- lag = 21 years. Possible sea level Millennial Turning Point – Oct 2015 lag = 24 years +/- (see https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ ) Since Oct 2015 sea level has risen at a rate of only 8.3 cms/century. It will likely begin to fall within the next 4 or 5 years. For the details see data, discussion, and forecasts in Figs 3,4,5,10,11,and 12 in the links below. (Source)

If the above forecast holds true, it will go a long way to discrediting the entire “Consensus” model of CO2 drive climate change. Al Gore et al have forecasts that conveniently extend beyond the expected lifetime of the reader. The above forecast can be invalidated in a few years.

Follow the Forecast using these sources:

Colorado ENSO (Source)

Colorado Sea Level (Source)

Colorado Sea Level Graph (Source) (Warning)

KNMI Climate Explorer (Source)

Global Temperatures (Source)

NASA Sea Level (Source)

Original Journal Article (Source)

In conclusion, if a group of non-Consensus Scientists can create a better model than the “Consensus,” then the “Consensus” is simply wrong. The inspirational goal of CO2isLife was to highlight a model that is far superior to the “Consensus” CO2 model. Finally, we have some researchers publishing some research quantifying this model so that we can either validate or invalidate this model.

Featured

Finally Some Common Sense; Cloud Cover Down Temperature Up

We at CO2isLife don’t have Ph.Ds in Climate Science, but we do have Ph.Ds in common sense. We have continually made the argument that to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans.

Understand the Oceans, Understand the Climate, NO CO2 Needed

The theory is very simple.

  1. The Oceans are warming
  2. CO2 and 13 to 18 Micron Long Wave IR doesn’t warm water
  3. Visible light is required to warm the oceans
  4. The warming of the oceans must be due to more incoming visible radiation reaching the oceans
  5. Clouds are the greatest barrier to visible radiation reaching the oceans
  6. Cloud cover must be shown to have reduced during periods of warming
  7. There are no theories that explain how CO2 can alter the clouds
  8. There are theories that Cosmic Rays alter the cloud cover
  9. It is easy to demonstrate visible radiation warming water in a lab

Dr. Spencer in his new books provides evidence to support the theory that we non-climate scientists have been promoting for years. (Source)

Isn’t it funny how people seeking the truth seem to keep reaching the same conclusion? You won’t find this common sense in Climate Science Departments.

Scientists Have Found The ‘Missing Link’ From Sunspot Activity To Cosmic Rays-Clouds To Climate Change

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

The Ever Changing “Settled” Science; How Can a “Settled” Science need Continual Updating?

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2000 CO2 Sensitivity 4.25°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2005 CO2 Sensitivity 3.75°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2010 CO2 Sensitivity 2.75°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2015 CO2 Sensitivity 0.50°C

(More)(Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

The Smartest Kids in the Room Can’t Explain Global Warming’s Green House Gas Effect

Does it seem strange to you that the smartest kids in the class, the kids that can explain the quantum mechanics supporting the greenhouse gas effect, can’t adequately explain how Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) and CO2 can warm the earth? This Video made by TEDEd does a phenomenal job explaining the quantum mechanics involved, but then they forget to mention the most important metrics.

Here are the important facts they failed to mention:

  1. CO2 only absorbs LWIR of 2.7, 4.3, and 15 Microns.
  2. Earth emits LWIR around 10 Microns
  3. The only LWIR spectrum applicable to CO2 and the Greenhouse Gas Effect is 15 Microns
  4. 10 Microns has a blackbody temperature of about room temperature of 64°F/18°C
  5. 15 Microns has a blackbody temperature of about -112°F/-80°C

How does LWIR Electromagnetic radiation convert to thermal energy? Molecular Vibrations

666 cm-1 wavenumber is 15 microns and is associated with the “bending” of the CO2 molecules. The 2.7 and 4.3 Micron absorption bands are related to the stretching and are not involved in the atmospheric absorption.

This graphic shows the absorption spectrum of CO2, which is transparent to incoming visible radiation (0.4 to 0.8 microns)

CO2GHG

What makes a potent Greenhouse Gas is a “permanent dipole” or bend. CO2 doesn’t have a bend, unlike the extremely potent Greenhouse  Gas H2O.

Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole

Because CO2 doesn’t have a Permanent Dipole, it only absorbs the three above mentioned wavelengths, allowing it to absorb only a small amount of radiation.

The Mechanism:

LWIR of 15 Microns gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule, kicking the CO2 Molecule’s electrons into a higher energy state, causing them to bend back and forth. This movement is thermal energy, the LWIR electromagnetic radiation is changed in form into kinetic energy which can be measured with a thermometer. (Remember, Energy can be neither created or destroyed, it can only be changed in form)

In the video, it claimed that the CO2 molecule radiates LWIR back to earth resulting in warming. That isn’t the Greenhouse Gas Effect, and LWIR of 15 microns won’t even warm ice. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the thermalization of the LWIR causing warming of the surrounding atmosphere.

Why CO2 isn’t significant is because it is a trace gas. CO2 is 410 parts per million or 4.1 parts per 10,000, or 0.00041 or 0.041% of the atmosphere. If you look at a 100,000 seat stadium, with each person representing a molecule in the atmosphere, CO2 would represent 41 people. If 41 people suddenly went into epileptic seizures, would their kinetic energy be able to significantly alter the kinetic energy of the other 999,959 people in the stadium? Absolutely not. Being only 0.041% of the atmosphere, its impact is greatly diffused to basically nothing.

More importantly, the energy associated with 15 Microns isn’t even warm enough to melt ice. Ice emits LWIR of a shorter wavelength than 15 Microns. In other words, the 41 people aren’t having violent epileptic seizures, they are having slight shivers.

Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Can’t be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice

In Conclusion, 1 out of every 2500 molecules vibrating at an energy level consistent with -112°F/-80°C isn’t going to warm anything to any significant amount.

More on this topic:

Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earth’s Lower Atmosphere; You Can’t Absorb More than 100%

Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

See, We’re Not Nuts, CO2 does Cool the Atmosphere

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Can’t be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice

BB CO2

In order to melt ice, sufficient energy (Latent Heat) must be added to the system to surpass the energy required for a phase change (Solid to Liquid). (Source) Melting ice is endothermic, meaning the ice absorbs energy during the phase change from solid to liquid. The problem here is that CO2 only emits longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns. A blackbody of temperature -80 Degree C emits those wavelengths. In other words, if the only energy reaching liquid water is longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns, it will FREEZE!!!

BB Ice 2.PNG

How do we know that? Because Ice emits longwave Infrared radiation between 6 and 18 microns, with a peak of 10.5 microns. If longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns could melt ice, ice would melt itself. The existence of ice pretty much proves the CAGW Theory to be a complete joke, and CO2 certainly isn’t causing sea ice or glaciers to melt. The hotter an object gets, the peak level of radiation moves to the left, i.e. the wavelength shortens. 10.5 microns is hotter than 15 microns. The earth emits around 9.5 to 10 microns which is room temperature. Very hot very high energy visible light is between 0.4 and 0.7 microns.

Lastly, any University Chemistry or Physics Lab could validate this with an experiment. You won’t find that experiment published in any Climate Change Journals.

Simply put, the physics of the CO2 molecule simply don’t support the case that CO2 can cause much warming. (Source)

More Reading:

Arctic Sea Ice not cooperating with doomsday climate predictions (Source)

Internet Vs. The Ministry Of Truth (Source)

10 New Reconstructions Show Today’s Temperatures Still Among The Coldest Of The Last 10,000 Years (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earth’s Lower Atmosphere; You Can’t Absorb More than 100%

The one thing I’ve learned about Climate Science is that the “experts” do everything to avoid the actual science supporting the Greenhouse Gas Effect. To isolate the impact of CO2 on the climate one must understand the physics of the CO2 molecule and the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

This is the radiative profile of the CO2 molecule. Note the -80 Degree C and 15 micron peak in the following graphic.

  1. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the Greenhouse Gas Effect and the thermalization of longwave IR between 13 and 18 Microns, with a peak of 15 Microns. Every observation much be related back to that single mechanism for CO2 to be the cause.
  2. Energy is transferred through the atmosphere by three mechanisms; Conduction, Convection and Radiation. Conduction and convection dominate the warm water vapor rich and dense lower atmosphere. Radiation dominates the upper atmosphere.
  3. Because the lower atmosphere is tightly packed, kinetic energy is easily passed from one molecule to the other. The radiative path is also very short relative to other altitudes, meaning that the molecules can momentarily “trap” more radiation resulting in warming. That is why high levels of water vapor in the lower atmosphere is so important. Water vapor traps and converts huge amounts of outgoing longwave radiation into thermal kinetic energy.
  4. At higher altitudes, the molecules have wide separations representing large windows for radiation to easily pass. That is why CO2 works to cool the stratosphere. A molecule in the stratosphere radiating towards earth is radiating into a traffic jam, with an increasing number of radiation absorbing molecules in its path the closer it gets to earth. It is unlikely that the radiation from a stratospheric molecule will be able to pass the gauntlet of ever-increasing molecules and smaller and smaller windows to get to earth. On the other hand, a stratospheric molecule radiating towards outer space is facing the opposite of a traffic jam, with the spacing between cars increasing the farther away it gets, and the windows keep getting bigger and bigger. That is why radiation is best for cooling, not warming. It most efficiently transfers heat out of the atmosphere and it does it near the speed of light.
  5. The earth emits radiation centered around 9.5 to 10 microns, or about room temperature. CO2 thermalizes radiation between 13 and 18 microns, which is consistent with a black body of temperature between -50 and -110 degree C. CO2 absorbs the far right (cool end) of the IR spectrum emitted by the earth.

With that understanding, we can then examine CO2’s role is altering the earth’s lower atmosphere’s temperature. To do that we need to look at a “gas cell” filled with various amounts of CO2, and then shine a light of 13 thru 18 microns into it and measure its absorption.

We will start with the pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm. What we find is that at that concentration, 100% of the longwave IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns is absorbed by the altitude of 150 cm, or about 5 feet. 13 and 18 microns with a peak of 15 microns has a wave number of 666 in the following graphic. The peak reaching 1 represents 100% absorption, or 0% transmission. The take home is that by an altitude of 5 feet, the pre-industrial CO2 Greenhouse Gas Effect is saturated.

GC280

Now we have to measure the change in the saturation altitude to understand the impact of the additional 130 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age. This literally is the only effect CO2 has on changing the climate. Once again, you can’t trap more than 100%, and pre-industrial CO2 saturates by 5 ft. All CO2 can do by increasing its concentration is to make the radiative windows smaller so that the outgoing radiation gets “trapped” sooner (closer to earth).

What do we find when we change the gas cell to today’s CO2 level of 410 ppm? We find that 100% saturation occurs at 120 cm, or about 4 feet. That literally is the only relevant contribution the post-industrial CO2 makes to the climate. Saturation occurs 1 foot closer to the earth.

GC400

Another way to look at it is to plug in 280 ppm for the saturation level of 410 ppm to see how much less radiation is being trapped. As you can see, about 98% of the radiation is being absorbed by 4 feet, and the remaining 1 foot absorbs the final 2%. That is it, that is the contribution of post-industrial CO2 and you are being told that that small change can cause catastrophic climate change.

GCDiff

In reality, that slight change is completely immaterial because the lower atmosphere is so well mixed through conduction and convection, minor changes in the saturation level are irrelevant. Take a thermometer outside and measure the temperature at 4 ft and then again at 5 foot and you will record identical temperatures. Once again, CO2 doesn’t trap more heat, it simply traps the heat sooner. You can’t trap more than 100%. That is why all these claims of CO2 causing catastrophic climate change are complete and utter nonsense.

Additionally, remember, the above example isolates the impact of CO2. It is a minor trace Greenhouse Gas, with a very narrow absorption band. Just look at the absorption spectrum of all Greenhouse Gasses, and the breadth of what water vapor absorbs, and you quickly realize this focus on CO2 is completely absurd. Additionally, water vapor also absorbs longwave IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns. It just saturates at a higher altitude.

If we decide to look not only at the impact of CO2, but the entire atmosphere including water vapor, the impact of CO2 is simply drowned out by water vapor and other factors. If, using 280 ppm CO2, we program MODTRAN to be looking down from 0.01 km and measure the Upward IR Heat Flux, we get 446.508 W/m2.

This is the IR Profile of the pre-industrial lower atmosphere.

MODTRAN 280.PNG

If we then change only the CO2 level from 280 to 410 ppm to reflect the marginal impact of industrial era CO2, we discover that the change in Upward IR Heat Flux is a whopping 0.00 W/m2. There is absolutely no change what so ever to the lower atmosphere with the addition of 130 ppm industrial CO2. None, nada, zip, the Upward IR Heat Flux remains completely unchanged at 446.508 W/m2.

MODTRAN 410.PNG

I have yet to find an atmospheric calculator, modeler or Meteorology textbook that shows that CO2 has any impact at all on the atmosphere. Only when you get into the Climate Science Department does CO2 suddenly play a significant role in the climate, and their models are completely worthless.

Much has been written about CO2 causing the Sea Ice to decline. Al Gore claims melting glaciers will flood Manhatten. The only problem is, the LWIR emitted by CO2 won’t melt ice. Longwave IR between 13 and 18 microns has a black body temperature of -80 Degree C. The graphic of the Spectralcalc output is above. The blackbody radiation of 0.00 Degree C Ice has a peak radiation of 10.5 microns. In other words, Ice emits higher energy radiation than CO2 does (shorter wavelength radiation has higher energy). That isn’t a joke. Climate alarmists claim that energy that won’t even melt ice can cause catastrophic global warming. Sorry, climate change.

BB Ice.PNG

In conclusion, either the SpectralCal and MODTRAN Programs are lying to me, or the Climate Scientists are, and I tend to trust the calculators.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists

mlo_full_record jpg

Chart #1: This is the chart on which the entire CO2 driven climate change fraud is based. It is also the chart that will ultimately be used to prove the fraudulent nature of the NASA, NOAA and HadCRU data “adjustments.” CO2’s increase in near-linear and it is this linear trend that will ultimately undermine the CO2 driven climate change fraud. The reason will be explained later in this posting.

Chart #2: This is an 800,000 year ice core record of temperature and CO2. The first thing to note is that climate change is the norm. Never in 800,000 has the climate not been changing. If Al Gore and his policies were somehow able to stop the climate from changing, it would be the first time in 800,000 that that has happened, and extremely unnatural.

The second thing to note is that every previous temperature peak was higher than today’s temperatures and occurred at LOWER CO2 levels. In other words, record high CO2 didn’t result in record high temperatures.

The third thing to note is that there is no linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, and what relationship does exist has temperatures LEADING CO2. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 would suddenly increase shortly before the ending of an ice age and there is no mechanism by which CO2 would suddenly decrease before the start of an ice age. CO2 can’t explain the most significant points of the glacial intra-glacial cycle. CO2 simply can’t be the Climate Control Knob the alarmists claim it to be.

Chart #3: This is a 600 million year history of atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. The first thing to note is that NEVER in 600 million years has CO2 resulted in catastrophic warming, even when it was as high as 7,000 ppm, or nearly 18x the level that it is today. The second thing to note is that no matter what CO2 is doing, temperatures seem to stay between 12 and 22°C. The last thing to note is that we are in a CO2 drought, and near the lowest levels of the past 600 million years. Plants begin to die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm. As above, there is no linear relationship between CO2 and temperatures.

Chart #4: If something is understood, it can be modeled. Well, the IPCC Climate Models FAIL at a 95% confidence rate, and the rate is INCREASING. A monkey throwing darts at the WSJ would do a better job of modeling the Stock Market than the Climate Models do the climate. The fraud is obvious in that 100% of the Climate Models overestimate the temperature increase. That isn’t evidence of a sound and settled science, but of an systemic bias and failure. The reason I say this is a fraud goes back to Chart #1, the linear rate of increase of CO2.

Additionally, as the models’ failure grew, the IPCC’s confidence in their theory also grew. That is basically the scientific method flipped on its head. No real science behaves that way. Results like the IPCC models would result in any real science looking into causes other than CO2, which their models do a good job ruling out as the cause.

Chart #5: Climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The alarmists use the core model of ΔT = f(ΔCO2). It is a direct, linear, and essentially single variable model. That is how they can claim man is responsible for ALL the industrial era warming. CO2 they claim is the only disruption to the climate system that can explain the warming, and that CO2 is 100% attributable to man.

Sounds good, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t what is important, it is the amount of energy that the excess man-made CO2 absorbs/ thermalizes that is important. If you have a 5-gallon bucket with a hole in it, it doesn’t matter how large the bucket is, it won’t hold much water. Well, the absorption of energy by CO2 shows a logarithmic DECAY with an increase in concentration. (Source)

Mother Nature isn’t stupid, she designed CO2 with a natural off switch. A certain level of warmth is needed for life to survive, so the first 280 ppm (Pre-Industrial) of CO2 trap 258 W/M^2 of outgoing LWIR. The additional CO2 attributed by man, the additional 130 ppm up to the current 410 ppm, traps only an additional 2 W/M^2, and that is rounded up. Anyone seeking the truth can experiment with various CO2 scenarios using the program MODTRAN (Click Here)

Because the marginal absorption of energy by CO2 isn’t linear, I can say with 100% complete certainty that the IPCC Models will NEVER in all CAPs be even close to being correct. Never, and I can make that bold of a statement without having a Ph.D. in climate “science.” Anyone that takes 2 seconds to understand the basics of the CO2 molecule would reach that exact same conclusion. (Source) (More Info)

Chart #6: Highlights how ground measurement data from NASA has been “adjusted” over time. Why I say the “adjustments” aren’t done in good faith is because of the way they are adjusted. The adjustments are systematically applied to result in a more linear and steeper incline of ground temperatures. Why I say the “adjustments” are fraudulent is because that isn’t what you would expect if CO2 was the cause of the warming. As Chart #5 demonstrates, CO2’s relationship with temperatures isn’t linear. A linear increase in temperatures disproves CO2 as the cause and proves there must be some other factor. The climate alarmist then manufacture untestable  and unexplainable “feedbacks” to justify the linearity. As we will see, those feedback claims crumble under scrutiny as well. (More Info)

Chart #7: In Climate Science there are 3 main data sets. Satellite (UAH), Balloons (RSS) and Ground Measurements (NASA GISS). Two of the data sets confirm each other, and one is an outlier. The Climate Alarmists, of course, choose the highly “adjusted” NASA GISS ground measurements over the highly more accurate balloon and satellite measurements.

By far the most accurate temperature data we have are from satellite and balloon measurements. In the above graphic, you can see that actual atmospheric temperatures are in no way linear and in no way tied related to CO2. That data clearly shows temperatures are extremely correlated with water vapor and ocean cycles, which are in turn related to the sun and the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible radiation.

The Red RSS V7 TCWV line is atmospheric water vapor and the other lines are atmospheric temperature. Water vapor and atmospheric temperatures are almost indistinguishable. The reason you most likely have never seen this before is because we don’t debate this issue in public, and charts like this totally destroy the CO2 drives temperature myth.

Chart #8: Ground measurements have known corrupting forces, largely water vapor, and the Urban Heat Island Effect. The above graphic highlight the best example I’ve found to demonstrate the Urban Heat Island Effect. It highlights two different weather stations separated by only a small lake. On one side is a great deal of urban development, on the other side no development at all to speak of. It is the perfect location to isolate the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect. What we find is that the one side of the lake, undisturbed by urban development, shows actual COOLING over the past 80 years, or at least between 1930 through 1995. (A period including Al Gore’s hottest 10 years in history) The other side impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect shows distinct warming. Climate Alarmists use this obviously corrupted data to implicate CO2, when in fact, it is really measuring the Urban Heat Island Effect and has nothing to do with CO2. (More)

(Source)

Chart #9 and 10: The other problem with ground measurements is that water vapor saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the lower atmosphere. The CO2 “signature” isn’t even measurable until you are at an altitude of 3.5km or above. 100% of all ground measurements are taken in the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 has absolutely zero impact. By relying on the “adjusted” ground measurements, Climate Alarmists are allowed to claim warming, and attribute it to CO2. In reality, the only warming in the lower atmosphere is due to greater sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and oceans, water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect and intentionally biased data “adjustments”, not CO2.

Chart #11 and 12: The regrettably small graphics above are MODTRAN results of the lower atmosphere under conditions of 400 ppm and 800 ppm. The graphics record the outgoing LWIR of 417.306 W/M^2 for both levels of CO2. (Click Here) What that means is that the ground measurements are taken at the level where it is impossible to measure the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature because it is dominated by water vapor. CO2 is irrelevant to the lower atmosphere, so once again, the linear adjustments NASA applies make even less sense. The reason you haven’t heard of MODTRAN is because the more people that know how to use it, the less credibility the Climate Alarmists have. It is hard to win a public debate when your position is that the calculator is wrong.

Chart #12 and 13: The impact of CO2 on temperatures is also absent from the ice core records of the Holocene. Temperatures didn’t increase with CO2 over the Holocene, THEY FELL. Temperatures have been falling for the past 3,500 years, during a time when CO2 was increasing, and in fact is now at a record level for the Holocene.

The other oddity about Climate “Science” is that it doesn’t rely on the Scientific Method, Experimentation and Reproducibility, the hallmarks of any real science. If it did, this debate would have been over a very long time ago. If one tests the hypothesis “Man if not causing climate change” using ice core data, that hypothesis isn’t rejected, not even close. Simply calculate the mean and standard deviation of the temperature of the Holocene before the industrial age, then calculate the mean temperature of the Industrial Age. You will find that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the past 150 years of temperature variation. Simply eyeballing the above chart will tell you that, no need for a calculator.

Chart #14: The other major problem with ground measurements is that it is an apples and oranges dataset, combining different regions over different time periods, using different instrumentation. To control for the ground measurement location and instrumentation issues, we select the longest single continuous record of instrumental temperatures, Central England. If you control for measuring instrumentation and location, what you find is that temperatures are volatile, but by no means showing an uptrend or relationship to CO2. The Central England record goes back to 1650, and temperatures were below that level as recently as 2010. There are also other long-term data sets that show no warming as well. (Click Here)

Chart #15: It is easy for Climate Alarmists to cherry pick data sets to make an alarmist’s claim. (Source) This is especially true regarding the “adjusted” data over the past 30 years. The problem is, there is a major reason the earth would have a “fever” over the past 30 years, and it has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with clean air. As the air has been cleaned of its volcanic and other particulate matter, more sunlight has been reaching the earth’s surface. CO2 has nothing to do with the recent warming.

Chart #16: The reason I can say the recent warming is due to the sun and not CO2 is because the oceans are warming. It takes vast amounts of incoming warming VISIBLE radiation to warm the oceans, especially from the blue end of the spectrum. The physics of the CO2 molecule are related to a narrow band of the IR spectrum between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths simply don’t penetrate or warm water and don’t carry much energy anyways. The black body temperature of thermalizing those wavelengths in a bone-chilling -50 to -110°C.

Chart #17: Those wavelengths won’t even melt ice, let alone warm water. Ironically, the climate alarmists use the warming oceans as their best evidence that CO2 is the cause of the warming. (Click Here)

Chart #18: If you line up the Sun’s radiation, CO2 and Temperatures, it becomes apparent that something other than CO2 is driving atmospheric temperatures, namely the sun and related ocean cycles.

Chart #19: Another piece of evidence working against the climate alarmists are the sea level measurements. Recently the sea level data is getting the “adjustment” treatment similar to the temperature data. (Source) By using the same approach we used with the Central England Temperature dataset, we can use with sea levels as well. Recently newspapers were littered with alarmist headlines about 3 Trillion Tons of Ice from Antarctica Vanishing since 1992. (Source) The impact of the rate of change of New York City sea level was immeasurable, in fact, it looks like the current level was recently below that of 1992. Facts are if temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea level would, in turn, be increasing at an increasing rate. It is a second derivative problem across the board. The problem for the climate alarmists is that sea levels aren’t increasing at an increasing rate. Battery Park, at the South end of Manhatten, shows the same rate of change/slope since 1850.

dvtemp

Chart #19: Believe it or not, record high daytime temperatures is not a sign of CO2 global warming. The Greenhouse Gas Effect thermalizes OUTGOING longwave IR radiation. Record temperatures require new energy being added to the system, and that comes from the Sun. If you are setting record high temperatures the most likely causes are clear skies and a hot sun. Recently the jet stream has been slightly altered, as has the Hadley Cell, which has allowed more sunlight to reach both the surface of the earth and the oceans. More sunlight reaching the oceans and surface can explain record high daytime temperatures and the warming oceans, neither of which CO2 can explain. (Read More)(And More) (And More)

Chart #20: Believe it or not, the real impact CO2 has on the atmosphere is to COOL it. That isn’t a TYPO, CO2 actually has worked to COOL the atmosphere, and the above graphic proves it. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is measured by the amount of outgoing Long Wave IR measured in W/M^2. The Blue in the above graphic represents more energy leaving the atmosphere or a greater outgoing flux. The amount of Blue exceeds the amount of Red, so CO2 has actually worked to COOL the layer of the atmosphere where we can isolate the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, the water vapor free Stratosphere. Even if the Stratosphere did warm over that period, there certainly is not a linear trend to the stratosphere, either warming or cooling. (Read more)

Chart #21 and 22: CO2 is a constant 400 ppm all the way up to 80 km, Water Vapor is basically out of the atmosphere by 10 km. Over that distance, temperatures fall with altitude in the Troposphere as Water Vapor decreases and CO2 remains constant, temperatures then “pause” in the tropopause close to the temperature that CO2 thermalizes LWIR between 13 and 18µ of -50 to -110°C. That is the best signature you can find for CO2, and it is to prevent temperatures from falling below a certain temperature, not to warm it. Temperatures then warm with altitude in the stratosphere largely due to the creation of Ozone, CO2 remains constant. Temperatures then fall again in the Mesosphere, and temperatures don’t fall below the magic -50 to -110°C until you are above 80km where CO2 starts to decline below 400 ppm. Temperatures then “pause” again, before warming again in the Thermosphere WHERE CO2 is decreasing.

Clearly, from the physics of the CO2 molecule (thermalizing LWIR between 13 and 18µ generating energy consistent with -50 to -110°C) and knowledge of the temperature profile of the atmosphere, CO2’s main role in the atmosphere isn’t to “warm” but to put in a temperature “floor” between -50 to -110°C. CO2 is present in all layers of the atmosphere, largely at a constant concentration of around 400 ppm, yet temperatures increase AND fall as if CO2 has no impact at all. The best CO2 signature one can find in the atmosphere is the Tropopause, where CO2 prevents temperatures from falling below -50 to -110°C. CO2 is the only major Greenhouse gas present, so the Troposphere is a natural “control” for CO2.

Chart #23: Climate data is constantly being “adjusted,” so it is difficult to put any credibility in it, especially the ground measurements. Climate scientists will have a “consensus” during one period, and then “adjust” the data to get different results, and the “consensus” remains. Oddly, it doesn’t shake the confidence of the researchers in their ability to measure global temperatures, their confidence actually grows.

The problem is, those “experts” have one of the worst records of predictions in scientific history. Even after “adjusting” the data to improve the results of their models, they still fail. One of the favorite targets of the experts is the polar ice cap. They are constantly making dire predictions of melting ice caps, ice-free Arctic, rising sea levels, etc etc. When all we have to rely on is data, it is hard to know who is telling the truth. Fortunately, we no longer have to rely on the experts, we now have photo documentation. (Source)

Al Gore and Jim Hansen can make claims that we will have an “ice-free Arctic” by the end of 2018 all they want, and we can easily test their accuracy by simply looking at the “near-real-time” computer graphic or photo. Now people have the ability to answer the question, “do I believe the Experts of my lying eyes?” My bet is that most people will trust their eyes over the experts, especially after doing it for a while. I’ve done so and rarely have I found the experts to be even in the ballpark, let alone correct. Climate Science’s obsession with CO2 guarantees their predictions will always be inaccurate. They are like the auto mechanic that keeps replacing the oil filter when your car needs new spark plugs. They simply don’t understand the problem, so they will never be able to fix it. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation. (Source)

Old Photos and Newspapers exist as well:

h/t Real Science

Chart #24: This is the infamous “Hockeystick” chart. While consistent thermometer data exists from the mid-1600s, Michael Mann inexplicably chose not to include instrumental data until 1902. The chart abruptly does a “dog-leg” precisely at 1902. Proxy data is mixed with the instrumental data until 1980. Once the proxy data is dropped, the chart does yet another “dog-leg.”(Source)  There is nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule or its rate of change in atmospheric concentration that would explain an abrupt change in trend by temperatures.  Longterm instrumental records like Central England do not show any abrupt “dog-legs.” (Source) Michael Mann also conveniently chose the peak of the Medieval Warming Period to start his graphic, and for some reason erased the Little-Ice Age. The fact that this graphic passed “Peer Review” and was accepted by the IPCC and “Consensus” should give any fair-minded individual pause in trusting these organizations and groups.

Chart #25: This is a chart of the temperature reading from the stations closest to Glacier National Park. The glaciers in the part are in fact disappearing, but the majority of the disappearance occurred before the mid-1940s, before the surge in CO2. Most importantly, there is no warming trend in Glacier National Park to implicate CO2. The Kilimanjaro Glacier is at 19,340 feet, thousands of feet above the freeze line. The Kilimanjaro Glacier never experiences temperatures above freezing, and yet its glacier is disappearing. The Kilimanjaro Glacier and many like it are disappearing not due to warming, but to changing humidity in the air. Dryer air can cause “sublimation” which is the process that makes ice cubes disappear if left in the freezer too long. Climate Alarmists routinely identify natural phenomenon and falsely attribute them to man-made CO2. I personally would like to hear Google’s explanation as to how ice “melts” in sub-zero temperatures.(Source)

Chart #26: Believe it or not, CO2 is a weak, a very weak Greenhouse Gas. (Source) The potency of a Greenhouse Gas is determined by its molecular structure. Molecules like H2O have a permanent “dipole” or bend to their structure. The bend allows the molecule to have many vibrational states, which correspond to various wavelengths in the LWIR spectrum. From the above graphic of absorptivity of various Greenhouse Gasses, Water Vapor is almost indistinguishable from the total atmospheric absorption. That is why people that know what they are talking about always say Water Vapor is by far the most potent Greenhouse Gas.

CO2, on the other hand, has no permanent “dipole” and is only affected by 3 very narrow bands of LWIR, 2.7, 4.3, and 15µ, with peek 15µ (13µ to 18µ band) being the only band of importance regarding the earth’s Greenhouse Gas Effect. The problem is, water vapor also absorbs 15µ, and it has a much much much higher atmospheric concentration. Water vapor can be as high as 4 parts per hundred, CO2 is measured in parts per 10,000. CO2 is commonly reported at 400 parts per million. Water vapor simply saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the Troposphere, making CO2 simply insignificant. The first the CO2 signature is measurable is up over 3.5 km when water vapor starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.

The other important point is that the earth emits LWIR with a peak of 10µ, and CO2’s effect starts out near 15µ, the “cool” very low energy end of the IR spectrum. What CO2 does is provide a temperature floor, preventing temperatures from falling below -50 to -110°C, it really doesn’t warm the atmosphere at all, temperatures just stop falling once you reach the Tropopause and CO2’s main effect is expressed.

Chart #26, 28 and 29: CO2 warms the atmosphere, it doesn’t warm the oceans. The Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice don’t melt from above, they melt from below. (Source) There are only a few months out of the year that the temperatures are above freezing, so even if the Arctic is warming, warming from -30°C to -28°C won’t melt ice. The reason the Arctic Ice is melting isn’t because of the Greenhouse Gas Effect, it is because visible radiation is reaching and warming the oceans, resulting in predictable and long-established Natural Trends in ocean cycles. Cycles like El Niño and La Niña existed long before the industrial age began. If you can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you can’t explain how CO2 is the cause of the melting ice caps.

Chart #30 and 31: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form. The Greenhouse Gas Effect takes cold Electromagnetic Radiation from the longwave infrared spectrum the “thermalizes” it , changing its form from cold EM to Hot Kinetic energy. Different molecules absorb different wavelengths, and CO2 absorbs LWIR, 2.7, 4.3, and 15µ, with peek 15µ (13µ to 18µ band) being the range important to the Greenhouse Gas Effect.

The above gas cells demonstrate the absorption of LWIR 15µ by CO2 for both the pre-industrial and current levels of CO2. The one of the right shows that 100% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by about 4 ft into the atmosphere for the current level of CO2. The one on the left shows that 98% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by 4ft with the pre-industrial level of CO2.

The reason Climate Science relies on computer models is that when you rely on empirical evidence, like gas cell outputs, you discover that the marginal effect of industrial era CO2 is that 2% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed 1 foot lower in the atmosphere. Pre-industrial CO2 saturates at 5 ft, current level saturates at 4 ft, but under both situations, at least 98% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by 4 ft. Basically, additional CO2 has no marginal impact on the lower atmosphere. (Source)

Chart #32: OK, we’ve saved the best for last. The whole approach to Climate Science regarding CO2’s impact on the climate should be focused on controlling for the factors of water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect, the Sun and other factors other than CO2 that may impact temperatures. Only when you isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures can you honestly begin to understand its role in changing the climate. To do that we scoured the data sets looking for a way to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures.

That data set is the Tropopause Layer above the extreme South Pole. There is no water vapor in that layer, the sun’s role is reduced, and there is absolutely no Urban Heat Island Effect. The extreme South Pole Tropopause DataSet is the ideal control for isolating the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. If CO2 was going to warm any layer of the atmosphere, its fingerprint would be found there. (Source)

What does one find when they study the ideal dataset controlled for all factors other than CO2? What does one find when they finally can isolate and identify the impact CO2 has on atmospheric temperatures? One finds that CO2 has absolutely no warming impact what so ever on atmospheric temperatures. None, nada, zip. You are more likely to find a little green elf riding a rainbow-colored unicorn than to find warming in that dataset. CO2 simply doesn’t warm the atmosphere like the alarmists claim, and that data proves it.

The above charts and analysis detail why Climate Alarmists won’t debate this topic in public, and why the social media attempting to be the arbiters of the truth is so dangerous. They have bought into the Big Lie manufactured by the Progressive Left. The Social Media outlets should be forums for discussion so we can better understand the world in which we live, not a place for one side to force their opinions on the other. Instead of censoring, shunning, attacking, slandering and labeling people that disagree with “consensus,” the Social Media Firms should be facilitating public dialog and debates. The very fact that most Americans have never seen a debate regarding climate change should be concerning for everyone give the extreme costs of the proposed publicly funded policies.

If YouTube, Facebook, and other Social Media truly want to be a force for good and really want to get to the truth, this was written to be the basis for a public debate. I welcome the Climate Alarmists trying to refute the claims we’ve made, all of which are exquisitely sourced and supported by hard facts and data. If the Climate Alarmists want to explain why MODTRAN and NASA Satelite Data is wrong, I welcome their explanation.

Please like, share, subscribe, comment and forward to your Elected Representative, Child’s Teacher, and/or your Favorite Newspaper. Help start the debate that the Social Media is trying to stop. Fight the power, spread the word. Share this post everywhere you can. Demand the Debate, Fight the Censorship of Climate Realists.

#Start the Debate #Climate Change Debate Bring It #Only Cowards Censor over Debate

More on this Topic:

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

Climate “Science” on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled

To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?

If Society Can’t Trust Scientists, Who Can They Trust? Climate Sophist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool

Sea Level Sophistry In San Francisco; Climate Alarmists are Playing the Judge as a Fool

Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry

Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

Climate Data Fraud Is Rampant; Simply Line Up The Charts

Real Science; How Does Ice Melt in Sub Zero Temperatures?

The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann

An Actual Climate Debate; Mann vs Curry Pt Deux

Featured

The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann

hockey_stick_TAR

Please Share this Post with as many sources as possible and reblog.

Recently there was a debate featuring Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Curry, Dr. Moore and Dr. Titley. This debate followed the structure of just about all other debates on Climate Change. Each participant gave their presentation and then went into Q&A. Dr. Curry posted her presentation on her website. (Click Here) It is an extremely fine presentation, but unlikely to sway too many opinions when matched against Climate Sophist Michael Mann. From the review I’ve seen, that seems to have been the case. (Click Here)

Going in, I think it’s unlikely that anyone would find an event such as this sufficient to change a mind that’s already made up. What it can do, however, is introduce a topic, or suggest an idea, that might lead an individual to do some deeper exploring.

The benefit we now have is that we know Michael Mann’s approach, presentation, and focus. It is like disclosure in a court trial. Recently in the Exxon vs San Francisco Trial Dr. Myles Allen gave his best evidence against CO2 and it was a complete and utter joke. It was pure unadulterated sophistry, 100% completely dependent upon the Judge being newspaper educated on the issue. Climate Sophists like Allen and Mann are 100% completely dependent upon people not looking behind the curtain. Their arguments are as shallow as a dime and as resilient as a paper tiger. Here is a point by point dressing down of Dr. Allen’s court testimony. (Click Here) (Click Here)

It is this cross-examination approach that should be used in debates against Mann and Allen. If the information provided by Dr. Allan and Mann is the best a Climate Sophist can offer, they literally have no arguments at all. Here is what Dr. Mann used in the recent debate. (Click Here)

Speaker Summaries:
Dr. Michael Mann, at ease and confident at the podium, led off the evening by stating his hope for “a robust conversation” on how to address climate change. His presentation was based around the idea that the only debate to be had is on what to do about man-made climate change. Indeed, he stated this position several times, reinforcing it by clarifying that there’s no worthy debate to be had on whether there’s a problem, or that man has caused it. As a justification for this, Dr. Mann explained that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is verifiable fact. Incontrovertible. Well known and agreed upon for over a hundred years.

Of all the claims made throughout the evening, this is the one I found to be the most personally problematic. Clearly scientists such as Curry and Moore aren’t, to borrow a tired phrase, “denying” the basic science of atmospheric and radiative physics. To claim otherwise, or even to imply through omission, that they do so is unfair, untrue, and frankly, does nothing to increase the credibility of the presenter.

At any rate, moving on, as anyone familiar with this subject could guess, Dr. Mann’s presentation centered on his “iconic” hockey stick graph, noting that this year marks the 20th anniversary of its publication. The point he made sure to emphasize with the hockey stick was the “warming spike” of the late 20th century is unnatural, and unprecedented in tens of thousands of years. He noted that 2014, 2015, and 2016 were each record-breaking years for global temperatures, and cited his 2017 paper which ostensibly demonstrated there was only a 1 in 3000 chance that three consecutive years of global warming would be due to natural causes. In the course of his presentation, Dr. Mann made two specific claims: temperatures were now likely to rise by 4 to 5 degrees Celsius and sea levels by 6 to 8 feet.

Michael Mann is a narcissistic megalomaniacal bully. (Click Here) He is the epitome of a participation trophy snowflake. He has been showered with praise and rewards from all his progressive supporters (Click Here) (Click Here), and they have emboldened him into thinking that he can get away with anything, even statistical fraud like “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline.” He is the Scientific equivalent of treasonous FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Click Here). He was put in a position of public trust, and he completely betrayed that trust. (Click Here)

Fortunately, Michael Mann’s “science” is so bad, even the most scientifically illiterate audience would be able to understand the flaws. The Progressive CAGW Theory is a giant house of cards, founded upon Michael Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick” graph. A graph that he is completely dependent upon for his case and credibility. (Click Here) (Click Here)

Dr. Mann’s presentation centered on his “iconic” hockey stick graph, noting that this year marks the 20th anniversary of its publication. The point he made sure to emphasize with the hockey stick was the “warming spike” of the late 20th century is unnatural, and unprecedented in tens of thousands of years.

Therefore the proper way to defeat Michael Mann isn’t to provide arguements that run 100% counter to the manufactured “Consensus.” The proper approach is to demonstrate that the “Consensus” is based 100% upon garbage science, or “Fake Science” as President Trump would call it. The people hate to be lied to, and the mood of the people today makes this approach ideal. The Fake News Media, The FBI/CIA/Justice Department scandal, the manufactured Russian Collusion, the childish/bratish blind resistance, the obstructionist Democrats have awaken America to the complete and utter corruption of the Progressive establishments and way of doing business. Democrats even rigged their own primary. How off the charts despicable is that?

We’ve already dismantled Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” chart in various earlier posts:

Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

Countering the Michael Mann Straw Man Arguments

To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?

Basic Physics Proves NASA GISS Temperatures Don’t Implicate CO2

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

Climate Data Fraud Is Rampant; Simply Line Up The Charts

Hide the Decline Part Deux; NASA is Using Fraudulent Statistical Techniques

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit O

Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures

And the list goes on and on, but for this post, we want to focus on few key points for discrediting the “Hockey Stick” chart.

Every debate on Climate Change should always revert back to the actual science of the GHG Effect. Key points about the GHG are:

  1.  CO2’s only mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of  13 to 18µ LWIR. That is the only mechanism defined by the GHG Effect.
  2. CO2 is a weak GHG, having no permanent dipole. (Click Here)
  3. The LWIR absorption of CO2 shows a logarithmic decay, i.e. its impact on temperatures isn’t linear. (Click Here)
  4. The physics behind the CO2 molecule doesn’t support dog-legs in temperature charts. Its effect is gradual and decays. (Click Here)
  5. H2O saturates the absorption of 13 to 18µ LWIR in the lower atmosphere, making CO2 immaterial to the temperature of the lower atmosphere where all Michael Mann’s measurements come from. (Click Here)

When the above GHG principles are applied to the “Hockey Stick” it crumbles under scrutiny. I doubt Michael Mann’s ego would be able to withstand the onslaught that follows. Michael Mann is truly an emperor with no clothes, a wizard behind a curtain, a con Mann of the greatest degree.

How to Discredit the “Hockey Stick” and trigger Michael Mann into having a public meltdown.

  1. Michael Mann conveniently chose to reconstruct only the past 1,000 years. By Cherry Picking that time period he was able to pick the peak of the Medieval Warming and follow temperatures down into the Little Ice Age, and portray the recent warming as abnormal. Problem is, if you zoom out, the past 116 years aren’t anomalies if applied to the entire Holocene.1aaa
  2. CO2 increased over the Holocene while temperatures fell.1ac
  3. Nothing about the physics of the CO2 molecule would ever support the sharp “dog-legs” of 1902 and 1980. CO2’s effect is gradual and declining. It isn’t the concentration of CO2 that matters, it is the amount of radiation it absorbs.co2_modtrans_img1
  4. CO2 has zero impact on outgoing radiation in the lower atmosphere according to MODTRAN. The reason for this is that H2O saturates the absorption of 13 to 18µ LWIR. Note in the graphics how changing CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm does absolutely nothing to the outgoing radiation. 100% of Michael Mann’s temperature measurements and proxies are taken from the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 has no impact. Upward IR Heat Flux remains at 294.2 W/M^2. (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here)

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  5. The Hockey Stick shows a decline from 1,000 until 1902, and then a sharp reversal in temperature trends. Another dog-leg occurs in 1980. The dog-legs occur exactly when the construction methodology changes. Nothing about the physics of the CO2 molecule would support sharp changes in temperatures in 1902 and 1980. Michael Mann’s chart seems to imply that by changing reconstruction inputs it somehow caused global temperatures to change. If that is the case Michael Mann also suffers from a God complex. (Click Here)
  6. Michael Mann’s chart shows a rapid increase in temperatures post-1902, yet direct observation of tidal gauges, i.e. unadjusted data, shows no acceleration of sea level. (Click Here)SL2
  7. The oceans control the global climate and contain 2,000x the energy held in the atmosphere. To understand the global climate you must understand the oceans. (Click Here). LWIR between 13 to 18µ doesn’t penetrate water, and it won’t warm water. (Click Here) The following chart highlights the ocean’s impact on the N and S Pole. The N Pole is subject to Ocean heat, whereas the S Pole is a land mass. The N Pole shows warming, the S Pole does not. CO2 is 400 ppm at both the N and S Poles.A1
  8. Michael Mann used a bizarre method of selecting and combining proxies and statistical methods prior to 1980. Prior to 1902 Michael Mann used no instrumental data. I repeat, no thermometer data was used in the construction of the “Hockey Stick” prior to 1902. Unfortunately, that isn’t a joke. (Click Here) Observing the longest continuous instrumental record of temperatures from Central England going back to 1650 the reason becomes obvious, there has been no warming since 1740 if you use thermometers instead of Coral, Tree Rings, and Ice Cores. (Click Here)A2
  9. Michael Mann also used instrumental data what was corrupted by the well known Urban Heat Island Effect. If you select data sets to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and atmospheric CO2 you discover that all of the warming post-1902 Michael Mann claims is due to CO2 vanishes. (Click Here) (Click Here) In reality, Michael Mann produced a chart demonstration of the Urban Heat Island Effect and falsely attributes the warming to CO2. (Click Here) That is sophistry, not science.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  10. CO2 doesn’t lead temperates, it lags temperatures. This is clearly demonstrated in the ice core record. CO2 simply doesn’t drive temperatures. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 would increase before warming to end an ice age and no mechanism by which CO2 would decrease before temperatures to start an ice age. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and never caused CAGW, why would this time be any different? (Click Here)1937 co2
  11. It takes a great deal of heat to melt ice. LWIR between 13 to 18µ is very low energy radiation. (Click Here) Many of the claims Michael Mann will make about glaciers melting are in areas with sub-zero temperatures year round. Michael Mann should be challenged to explain how ice melts in sub-zero temperatures. (Click Here) (Click Here)
  12. The most accurate instrumental data is satellite data, and it clearly shows the variability of temperatures tied to ocean cycles, not CO2. CO2 doesn’t cause El Niños and La Niñas.1aa
  13. Climate models tying CO2 to temperatures failed miserably. The problem is Michael Mann and his ilk are trying to force a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature that simply doesn’t exist. CO2 is a near linear variable, CO2’s absorption of LWIR shows a logarithmic decay, and temperatures are highly non-linear and almost random. A linear relationship simply doesn’t exist and no amount of data “adjustments” will change that fact. (Click Here) If something is understood, it can be modeled. Micheal Mann and his ilk haven’t been unable to model the CO2 drives temperatures theory, even after adjusting the data. (Click Here) (Click Here)

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  14. Climate change is the norm. Never in the past 600,000 years of Ice Core Data has the climate not been changing. Michael Mann needs to identify where in the last 600,000 years climate wasn’t changing, and to identify where the ideal climate would be. If he can’t answer those questions, all this is for naught. He should also be asked to proves that a certain level of CO2 would deliver the desired result. The benefit of having so much climate data is that no matter what level he chooses for the optimum CO2 level, there are data sets out there showing highly variable climates for those levels.24_co2-graph-021116-768px
  15. After spending trillions of dollars fighting climate change, Coal has the same energy share as it had 20 years ago. (Click Here) As highlighted above in the CO2 graph, the trend in atmospheric CO2 has also remained unchanged. Basically, we have gotten absolutely zero measurable benefits from alternative energy. (Click Here) Michael Mann needs to be asked is this a wise use of our public dollars? (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here) (Click Here)
  16. The “Hockey Stick” isn’t the only problem with climate data. (Click Here) (Click Here) Tony Heller over at Real Science does a remarkable job tracking the fraud. (Click Here)
  17. Satellite temperatures closely track the ocean temperatures as demonstrated above. LWIR between 13 to 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm water. The oceans have been warming, and the cause is the increased transparency of the atmosphere. (Click Here) (Click Here)twostratospheres1
  18. As noted above, CO2 has no measurable impact on the lower atmosphere where Michael Mann gets all his temperature readings. The reason for this is that H2O, by far the most potent GHG, can reach levels of 4 parts per 100. The atmosphere has a maximum density near the earth surface, so conduction and convection play a large role in the transfer of energy. The atmosphere thins, cools and precipitates H2O with altitude. As the atmosphere thins, radiation starts to play a much more important role. Radiation is extremely rapid heat transfer, traveling at the speed of light. Once the stratosphere is reached, CO2 is the only remaining major GHG, representing 400 ppm in a very thin atmosphere. Because of the thinness of the air, and scarcity of CO2 molecules, CO2 actually works to COOL the atmosphere by assisting the transfer of energy out of the atmosphere. That isn’t a typo, CO2 cools the only layer of the atmosphere where it has a major impact. (Click Here

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

     

  19. Lastly, and possibly most damning, is that the “Hockey Stick” suffers from extreme heteroscedasticity. The distal variation is much higher than the proximal variation. In the year 1,000 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to +0.4, in the year 1902 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to -0.2, and then post 1902 the behavior totally changes with the introduction of instrumental data. Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures. (Click Here) Why this is so damning is that the extreme variation identified in the “Hockey Stick” occurred with extremely stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply can’t explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years. CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0. If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable, even though CO2 has increased over 30%. If Michael Mann understood his own chart he would understand that it does far more to rule out CO2 as the cause of warming, than it implicates CO2.

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In conclusion, future debates including Michael Mann should not be directed at providing an alternative to Michael Mann’s position, they should be directed at exposing him as the fraud that he is, and proving that the research that supports his position is the greatest piece of scientific garbage ever produced. The above talking points presented in a public debate would go a long way towards erasing Michael Mann, the Peter Strzok of the Scientific Community, from the record books and arena of those trying to influence public policy and doing serious scientific research. (Click Here) Law firms are likely to seek Michael Mann out as they seek to loot our energy industries, and that should be enough evidence of his credibility or lack thereof. (Click Here) The only reason Michael Mann has any credibility at all is because the majority of the population is unaware of the facts covered in this article. The more people know about the real science behind Climate Change, the less power Michael Mann will have to deceive them.

Be sure to click on all links to get the full understanding of just how corrupt and fraudulent Michael Mann and is research truly is. Its simply can’t be fully explained in a single posting. With the FBI scandal in the headlines, now is the perfect time to expose corruption in another institution critical to our society, the institution of Science. As a reminder, Eisenhower warned America about people like Michael Mann. (Click Here) (Click Here)

Additional Concise Descriptions of the Science:

Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher

Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming

High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd

Bill Nye, The Sophistry Guy: The Truth is Out There, Only No One is Listening

Sea Level Sophistry In San Francisco; Climate Alarmists are Playing the Judge as a Fool

Venus’ High Temperatures Aren’t Due to the Green House Gas Effect; More Climate Sophistry

The True Face of Science Denialism: NASA Geologist “Scientist” Denies 600 Million Years of Geologic History

Science History; Eugenics was the Progressive Science Theory Du Jour in the early 1900s

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit A

Exhibit A: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart

edc_thumb

Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.

Talking Points:

  1. Climate change is the norm. Never in the 800,000-year ice core record is climate not changing.
  2. Four Temperature Peaks in the last 400,000 years were all above today’s temperatures and occurred at lower CO2 levels.
  3. Every glaciation began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent a glaciation.
  4. The current record high level of 400 parts per million(ppm) CO2, a full 33% above any previous level on the chart, has failed to carry temperatures to a record high.
  5. For any cause and effect relationship, the cause MUST lead the effect. CO2 does not lead Temperature, it follows it by 800 to 1,500 years. This video does an exhaustive review of the research. The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking. (Must Watch Video Clip)
  6. There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.
  7. There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.
  8. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.
  9. In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore discusses how his classmate challenged the “consensus” of the continents never having been joined. The teacher mocked Al’s friend for challenging the “consensus.” The arrogant and close-minded teacher spouting the “consensus” view was wrong. Today, Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists are acting like the closed-minded and very wrong Teacher. Albert Einstein, Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo, and Galileo aren’t remembered for agreeing with the “consensus,” they are remembered for shattering the “consensus.”
  10. Because the data collected are “proxies” they represent smoothed averages, so the actual true peak temperature or CO2 levels aren’t actually known. Every data point in the Ice Core data represents a time span that can exceed 1,000 years or more. In data lingo, we would say that this data isn’t very “granular,” and doesn’t provide a lot of specific details. It is extremely possible, in fact highly likely that the actual peak temperatures exceeded the level represented in the chart.
  11. The error bars are not included on the chart so it is impossible to true understanding of just how accurate/reliable those numbers are.
  12. Along with this chart, Al Gore presented many more questionable findings in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
  13. No other climate variables are presented on the chart. There may be far more explanatory variables that are excluded, such as the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface, cloud cover, cosmic rays, average humidity, particulate matter in the atmosphere, orbit of the earth, tilt of the earth, “wobble” around the axis of the earth, location of the earth is the galactic orbit, etc etc. In other words, Al Gore and the climate alarmists only provide you with enough evidence to reach the conclusion they want you to reach. For instance, I could show you a chart of the government debt and global temperatures and they both fit together pretty well. As the debt increased, so did temperatures, but that chart is pretty meaningless, and represents nothing more than a coincidence. In other words, correlation does not prove causation.
  14. The honesty and integrity of Al Gore and his “friend Lonnie Thompson” are questionable.
  15. Climate has been extremely variable for the past 800,000, and none of the volatility was due to anthropocentric CO2 prior to 150 years ago. Natural causes clearly dominate the variation in climate, most of which are poorly understood.
  16. The data in the chart combines proxy ice core data for the historical record, and instrumental data for near-term up to the current. Those data sets appear to have different volatility characteristics, and is most likely due to the instrumental data being more “granular.” The problem is that this data set isn’t consistent, and is some ways is a combination of apples and oranges. The temperature from the ice core is taken from one location, whereas thermometer data is taken around the globe.
  17. Here is another chart that shows more information than Al Gore’s. From this chart one can see the problems with ice core data. The farther back in time one goes, the dust data seems to dilute, unless for some reason dust concentrations were different during past ice ages. We are also near a record low, which would imply that more visible/warming radiation is reaching the earth. From this chart, it is more logical to conclude that less particulate matter is what is causing the warming than CO2. Maybe that is why Al Gore fails to present the data.

co2tempdust

18. This chart demonstrates the variability of the Holocene in greater detail.

dansgaard-temperature2

19. This chart highlights how dust, particulate matter, and solar output are extremely important to global temperatures.

climate-changes

Featured

How Do You Know Climate Alarmists Are Lying? Their Lips Are Moving

Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting.

Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

Claim #1: Few Challenges Facing America – And The World – Are More Urgent Than Combating Climate Change.

Response to Claim #1: Climate Change has always occurred, and it has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 once reached 7000 ppm and there was no catastrophic warming. The earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4000 ppm, or 10x the level it is today. Never in the history of the earth has the climate not been changing. A changing climate is the norm, not the exception, and man’s ability to stop climate change is about the same as man’s ability to stop the seasons, and night and day. Fighting climate change is the Quixotic venture of all Quixotic ventures. Terrorism, unfunded pension liabilities, job displacement, poor inner city schools, poor inner-city healthcare, run away college inflation, China blackmailing the US with their US Debt holdings, cleaner water, protecting natural treasures, rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, job training, energy independence, promoting freedom worldwide, etc etc etc. If fact, fighting climate change ranks near dead last on the public’s priorities.

Claim #2: The “Science” Is Beyond Dispute.

Response to Claim #2: Real Science is never settled, and real science relies on experimentation and application of the scientific method. Climate “Science” claims to be “settled” and relies on unprovable hypothesis where CO2 can cause both warming and cooling, and uses computer models in place of the scientific method. What evidence the slimate clientists do present to support their hypothesis, fails miserably. None of the IPCC Computer Models accurately model CO2 and Temperature, and 100% of them overestimate warming. That is evidence of a systemic bias, not evidence of sound science. Real scientists would use the results on the computer models to change their conclusion that CO2 drives climate change.

Claim #3: The Facts Are Clear

Response to Claim #3: If the facts were clear, the computer models would be producing results that support the conclusion that CO2 is driving climate change. They don’t. To complicate this matter, the data supporting these “facts” are highly “adjusted.” Also, how can the facts ever be clear when CO2 can cause both warming and cooling? Who decides which is better, and what is the desired outcome? Do the climate alarmists claim they can manufacture a stable global climate? That is absurd.

Claim #4: Sea Levels Are Rising

Response to Claim #4: When haven’t sea levels been increasing? Sea levels have been increasing since the end of the last ice age, and the rate of change is near the lowest in the past 15,000 years. A rising sea level is evidence that we are no longer in an ice age, not that we have produced too much CO2. If the global temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea levels would be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t. There is no evidence that sea level rate of change has been accelerating. Even if sea levels are accelerating, and temperatures are accelerating, that still doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause. There are plenty of periods in world history when temperatures and sea levels have accelerated without CO2 being the driver.

Claim #5: Coastlines Are Shrinking

Response to Claim #5: See Response to Claim #4. Coastlines are shrinking, and they are also growing. Earthquakes, tectonic plate shifting, volcanic activity, construction, etc etc etc all work to shape the coastlines and they have nothing to do with CO2. The oceans are warming and expanding. That will increase the sea level and shrink the coastline, but the wavelengths CO2 absorbs won’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation warms the oceans.

Claim #6: We’ve Seen Record Drought

Response to Claim #6: Drought isn’t even an expected outcome of a warming globe. Warmer air holds more water vapor. Droughts haven’t been getting worse, in fact, according to NASA, the earth has undergone substantial greening. CO2, after all, is plant food, and plants are huge producers of air humidity.

Claim #7: We’ve Seen…Spreading Famine

Response to Claim #7: This is the most absurd claim. CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields. That BTW is about as settled as science can be and easily demonstrated in a lab. Higher CO2 is the answer to ending famine, not the cause. If there is famine today it is due to a food distribution problem, not a food production issue. Most likely, the cause of famine is a war, tyrannical government or other man-made causes blocking the delivery of food to needy people.

Claim #8: We’ve Seen…Storms That Are Growing Stronger

Response to Claim #8: The evidence simply doesn’t support this claim. Tornados have not been becoming more frequent or strong, and they certainly aren’t tied to the rate of change of CO2. Once again, warming isn’t evidence that man is causing the warming. Unless you can explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, there must be some other factor causing the warming. The most likely cause is simply fewer clouds over the oceans allowing more visible radiation to reach the oceans.

Claim #9: We’ve Seen..Storms That Are Growing Stronger With Each Passing Hurricane Season

Response to Claim #9: Hurricanes are actually growing less frequent and less severe, and once again, any trend isn’t tied to CO2. Almost all claims that current weather events are getting worse crumble under analysis. If you want to learn about extreme weather read the Bible, or study the history of the collapse of the Bronze Age.

Claim #10: Climate Change And Our Dependence On Foreign Oil, If Left Unaddressed, Will Continue To Weaken Our Economy And Threaten Our National Security.

Response to Claim #10: That is true, but the solution isn’t building wind and solar farms.  Blocking the Keystone Pipeline, fracking and drilling simply prolonged and worsened our position and strengthened the terrorists. President Trump’s position of promoting US Energy DOMINANCE by drilling, deregulating, opening Federal Lands and promoting revolution in Iran is an infinitely better approach. An approach that will actually deliver results.

Other nonsensical claims made by the climate alarmists also crumble under analysis.

  1. Polar Bears aren’t being harmed by global warming, in fact, their populations are growing. BTW, polar bears thrive in warm zoos and have survived countless periods of growing and shrinking Arctic ice. The Arctic was ice-free in 1959, before the surge in CO2.
  2. Here is a list of many other nonsensical claims made by the climate alarmists, and the supporting research was largely paid for by tax dollars.
  3. Universities are centers of higher learning.
  4. Climate Activists Suffering From Factophobia… Host Of Studies Show No Drought/Forest Fire Trend
  5. Alarmists Were Scrambling To Show Cold Winters Fit The Global Warming Model, Then A New Study Came Out

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

This is How You Get Everyone to Agree on Global Warming; Brainwash and Rob People of Critical Thinking Skills

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Fact Checking Chuck Todd of Meet the Press

U.S. Media Bans Scientific Dissent – Claim Wildfires, Floods, Droughts, Hurricanes Are Human-Controlled

What does the (banned) scientific evidence say?
1. Most of the U.S. has been cooling overall since the 1930s
2. Climate models, media wrong on the emissions-extreme weather link
3. No evidence that humans have unleashed climate “tipping points”
4. Extreme weather events have not increased
5. U.S. (and global) hurricane frequency, intensity have decreased
6. U.S. (and global) flooding events have decreased
7. U.S. (and global) drought events have decreased
8. U.S. (and global) wildfire frequency have decreased
9. Financial losses/deaths from extreme weather have decreased
10. 90% of the Holocene had more retreated/absent glaciers than today
11. Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling and gaining mass this century
12. Since 1958, Greenland/Antarctica melt contribution to sea levels is just 1.5 cm
13. More global land area above sea level today than in the 1980s
14. 89% of the globe’s small islands have stable or growing shorelines
15. Long-term (80+ years) global sea level rise acceleration not significant

Chuck Todd works as both a reporter, host, and censor. How does someone in the press keep his job after such a decision?

(Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Visual Demonstration of How H2O Vapor Dominates the GHG Effect

h2o 1

The above graphic is of a “Looking Up” from the surface calculation from MODTRAN. (Source). Note that the Water Vapor Scale is set to 0.00. CO2 is clearly the dominant GHG in the absence of H2O. Note the 89.176 W/ m^2 for all GHGs combined less H2O. Now look at what happens when H2O is added to the mix. Note how the W/m^2 jumps to 369.264 W/m^2.

h2o 2

Now, both of the above graphics are for 400 ppm CO2, about the current level. Let’s take a look at what it looked like Pre-Industrial Era. The CO2 added by man adds 0.94 W/m^2.

h2o 3

Now if we change the setting to looking down from 0.1 km, and compare 270 ppm to 400 ppm CO2, we see that Anthropogenic CO2 results in a 0.00 W/m^2 change in outgoing IR Heat Flux. That is because CO2 absorbs LWIR between 13 to 18µ at a lower level than H2O, but H2O does eventually capture all the LWIR between 13 to 18µ just at a higher altitude. You can test that using the GasCell at SpectralCalc. (Source)

h2o 4

Here is a GasCell for H2O. It basically absorbs most of the 13 to 18µ/Wave Number 666 by about 50 meters.

gas cell 1

Here is the Gas Cell for CO2. It absorbs most by about 30 cm.

gas cell 2

One last chart to clear up some confusion. I often post that -80°C ice will emit LWIR with a peak of 15µ. Here is the chart. The LWIR absorbed by CO2 is consistent with a temperature of -80°C. The point is to highlight how low energy this radiation is relative to the grand scheme. Yes, the W/m^2 matters no matter what the wavelength, but the physical properties of the wavelengths matters as well.

black body 1

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Understanding the W/m^2 of CO2; The Flux Conundrum

The entire foundation CAGW is based upon is that the change in outgoing LWIR “trapped” by manmade CO2 will have catastrophic consequences. There are serious problems with that concept, but to understand the flaws, one must understand the basics.

CO2 absorbs, radiates and “thermalizes” LWIR between 13 and 18µ, that is the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change. CO2, through the “thermalization” or conversion of EM radiation to kinetic/heat energy, warms the atmosphere. Thermometers don’t measure EM radiation, they measure the kinetic energy of the atmosphere.

What then is a Watt? A Watt is a flow of energy, much like a hose may be a 40 gallon/hour hose. Under a certain pressure, a hose may allow 40 gallons to flow through it in an hour. The bigger the hose the greater the flow or “flux.” Using that analogy, a Watt is defined as a unit of Power equal to 1 Joule/second.

What then is Power? Power is the rate at which work can be done or energy per unit of time.

What then in Work? Work, in physics, is a measure of energy transfer that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force at least part of which is applied in the direction of the displacement. If the force is constant, work may be computed by multiplying the length of the path by the component of the force acting along the path.

What is a Force: Force = MA or Mass x Acceleration, this is Newton’s 2nd Law

What is a Joule? A Joule is a unit of work or energy equal to the work done by a force of one newton acting through a distance of one meter.

Okay, now that we have the basics, let’s go take a look at how all this comes together. We will use MODTRAN to do the calculations. (Source)

We will start with MODTRAN set to:

  1. Looking down from 70km
  2. Tropical Atmosphere
  3. No Clouds or Rain
  4. Ground Temperature of 299.7°K

Using those initial settings, if I change CO2 to 0.00 ppm I get an outgoing Upward IR Heat Flux 329.7 W/m2.

If I then change the CO2 to the Pre-Industrial 270 ppm I get an Upward IR Heat Flux 300.404 W/m2. This means that 29.3 W/m^2 less energy is leaving the atmosphere by the height of 70 km relative to when CO2 was 0.00 ppm.

If I then change the CO2 to the current level of 410 ppm I get an Upward IR Heat Flux 298.394 W/m2. This means that 31.31 W/m^2 less energy is leaving the atmosphere by the height of 70 km relative to when CO2 was 0.00 ppm.

Man’s contribution to the energy balance is therefor the difference between Per-Industrial and current levels of CO2. The net contribution by man, assuming that he is 100% responsible for the additional CO2, is a whopping 2.01 W/m^2. From that, we learn man’s contribution to the energy balance attributed to CO2 is 2.01/31.31, or about 6.4%.

Once again, all those numbers can be checked using MODTRAN (Source)

Now, the argument goes that CO2 is the cause of warming because it is a constant additional 2.01 W/m^2. Because it is a constant amount of additional radiation, and CO2 only increases as long as man continues burning fossil fuels, the climate has no choice but to continue to warm, thus the name CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

That sounds really scary until you understand that W/m^2 is a flux. Climate alarmists act as if the energy gets “trapped” in the atmosphere. That is pure nonsense, it is always working its way out to outer space. Energy is like a river flowing from the surface to outer space. Green House Gasses act like small dams in the energy river slowing this flow. The sun heats the earth during the day, energy is inflowing, and then at night, the energy flows back out to outer space.

That is the basic concept, but remember that this is an inflow/outflow model, and many things other than GHGs can alter that dynamic. CO2, as noted above, is responsible for 2.01 W/m^2, but what does that really mean?

The latent heat of fusion of ice is 337 joules/gram

The specific heat of water is = 4.186 joule/gram °C which is higher than any other common substance.

The CO2 provided 2.01 W/m^2 could melt 1 gm of ice every 168 seconds (337/2.01). Every m^2 in the Arctic would have 1 gm of ice melt if the temperature is 0.00°C or above due to anthropogenic CO2. Does that seem very alarming? Considering the period of time the Arctic is ever above 0.00°C is very short. There are 3785.4118 gms in a Gallon. So it would take 168 x 3785.4118 = 634,668.55 seconds, or 10,577.81 minutes, or 176.30 hours for the marginal CO2 to melt a single gallon of ice over a m^2. Trust me, CO2 isn’t going to melt the Arctic at that rate.

How about the oceans? The vast oceans are enormous. CO2 can warm 1 gm of ocean 4.186/2.01 =  2.08 seconds. That means CO2 can warm a gallon of ocean 1°C every 1819.91 seconds or 30.33 minutes. There are 264.172 gallons in a m^3, so 1 gallon represents the very top 0.39 cm of the m^3 of ocean. It would take 129.408 hours to warm the entire m^3 by 1°C, and this assumes no cooling due to evaporation.

Now that we have that background, let’s look at other factors. Set MODTRAN to 410 ppm CO2, and change the settings to cumulous clouds. The Upward IR Heat Flux is 269.726 W/m2. The clear sky has Upward IR Heat Flux 298.394 W/m2, so the difference is 28.668 W/m^2, or 14x the radiative impact of Anthropogenic CO2. 1 day of cloud cover is the equivalent of 14 days of Anthropogenic CO2.

That, however, isn’t the biggest problem for the climate alarmists. Remember, W/m^2 is a Flux. Temperatures rise and fall as energy enters and leaves the system. That means once a temperature is reached below a previous low temperature, past energy has been removed. The best analogy I can think of is a safety valve on a boiler. Pressure (temperature) builds to a point to trigger the safety valve, and once triggered, gas is released to lower the pressure. Once the valve is triggered all the previous energy/pressure gets released, then the whole process starts all over again.

Now, imagine the boiler has 2 hoses leading into it, one that has a flow rate of about 40 gallons an hour (Water Vapor) and another that has a flow rate of about 1 gallon per hour (CO2). Both hoses are turned on high, so 41 gallons per hour of water are sent into the boiler. The water boils and reaches a point that triggers the safety valve. Steam leaves the system and the water level drops. Water then flows back into the boiler and the process starts all over again. Temperature is analogous to pressure. The pressure never reaches a level above the trigger point. All the 1 gallon per hour hose does is help speed the cycle up by a slight amount, it does not result in higher pressures.

CO2 and the energy it provides 2.01W/m^2 has well-defined warming rates and energy flow. If it takes 129.408 hours to warm m^3 of water by 1°C, if that water cools by 1°C, it will take another 129.408 hours to get back to where it started. If temperatures fall below a previous temperature bottom, all the previous energy has been lost. That is why these references to Pre-Industrial CO2 are nonsensical, as is average temperature. If one day has a low-temperature of 18°C and the next day is 15°C, all the historic impact of CO2 has been removed.

How is this relevant? Well, the climate system acts like the boiler with a safety valve. The safety valves are called El Niño and La Niña. Incoming visible radiation warms the oceans, the temperatures increase, and eventually, the oceans belch out a bunch of energy in the form of El Niño and the temperatures drop resulting in a La Niña, then the entire cycle starts all over again. From the temperature charts, it is obvious that El Niños drive the climate, not CO2.

How, if CO2 was the cause of the warming, could current temperatures be BELOW the level of temperatures in 1987? How could temperatures ever fall? Clearly, from the above chart, temperatures remained in a range between 1979 and 1997 storing up energy from visible radiation. The oceans then belched out accumulated energy in the 1998 El Niño, and temperatures then remained in a range until the 2016 El Niño. The rates at which CO2 could warm the oceans and replace the energy lost through an El Niño are fixed and quantifiable, and there simply isn’t enough time for CO2 to replace the energy lost through an El Niño.

Now, in reality, looking down from 70km isn’t very useful. What we are really interested in is how CO2 impacts the lower atmosphere where the Arctic Ice and glaciers are. To do that, change the setting on MODTRAN to “Looking Up” from 0.00 km (The Surface). This gives one the reading of the IR Heat Flux coming back to the surface. When you enter those settings, the Downward IR Heat Flux is 369.264 W/m2 for 410 ppm and Downward IR Heat Flux 368.322 W/m2 is for 270 ppm, so in reality, the relevant amount of energy associated with Anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the 2.01W/m^2 used above, it is actually less than 1/2 that value at 0.94 W/m2. Basically, every time period mentioned above should be more than doubled.

But wait, just what does 0.94 W/m2 really mean in the grand scheme of things? Is this amount of energy really material to the system, even over very long periods? Not really. Daylight has a peak irradiance of the surface of around 1,000 W/m^2 on a clear day. This means that 1 hour of peak solar radiance is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of Anthropogenic CO2’s irradiance. (Source) That is actually a low value. Wikipedia places the value at 1,120 W/m^2. Considering just the Northern Hemisphere and various factors, that value can drop to 300 W/m^2 in the winter, 150 on a cloudy Winter day, and 50 on a foggy winter day. (Source) The day to day, hour to hour, season by season variations of energy reaching the surface of the earth are enormous, dwarfing the impact of even a constant 0.94 W/m2. A single sunny HOUR can add more energy to the system than nearly 2 months of Anthropogenic CO2.

That, however, isn’t the important aspect. Remember, W/m2 is a flux. A single cloudy HOUR in the summer, when W/m^2 drops from 1,120 W/m^2 to 600 W/m^2, will release the amount of 21 days of Anthropogenic CO2 back radiation. It would take 21 days for CO2 to replace the energy lost from just 1 HOUR of clouds in the summer. Climate alarmists make it sound as if the energy budget can go nowhere but up, which is complete nonsense. The climate system has release valves, and the rate of energy replacement by Anthropogenic CO2 is so small and slow that it is immaterial in the grand scheme of things.

The oceans control the climate. They are the Earth’s hypothalamus or thermostat. Define the oceans and you define the climate. Our climate models shouldn’t be modeling the atmosphere, they should be modeling the oceans if they truly want to model the climate. As noted above, it takes Anthropogenic CO2 129.408 hours to warm m^3 of water by 1°C using the inflated value of 2.01W/m^2. Daylight can warm that same amount of water in 14 minutes. 14 minutes of clouds can remove the amount of 64 hours of the effect of Anthropogenic CO2. Once again, because the energy replacement rate of CO2 moves at glacial speed, it is like a Tortoise in a race against a Hare. By the time Anthropogenic CO2 even starts to replace the energy lost by a single cloudy day, another one hits. That is why temperatures don’t travel in a straight line like atmospheric CO2 does. Once temperatures drop below the previous low levels, the system resets, and all previous contributions from Anthropogenic CO2 are lost to outer space.

Because of the time rates associated with CO2, Anthropogenic CO2 simply can’t be the cause of temperature volatility, and it certainly can’t be the cause of increasing temperatures. There is nothing about CO2 that regulates the amount of energy lost through an El Niño. Once a previous temperature low is exceeded, the system simply resets, and any impact of historical CO2 is lost.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Dow Drops 660 Points Day Nancy Takes Power; Markets off Nearly 20% Since Election

pelosi

What is the easiest way to stop the Trump Economic Juggernaut? Elect Democrats. They can screw up anything. Democrats wiped out nearly 2 years of gains since the election. This past election was very expensive to those who have 401(k)s. The Wall costs $5 Billion, investors have lost trillions because Democrats want to make it a political issue.

snp 500 election

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment