Basic Physics Proves NASA GISS Temperatures Don’t Implicate CO2

CO2

The above chart shows CO2 increasing from 300 ppm in 1910 to 411 ppm today. The following chart from NASA GISS shows temperatures increasing from -0.4°C to +1.0°C today, for a total change of 1.4°C over the last 108 years. I ignore the period of 1880 to 1910 because there is no explanation of how increasing CO2 could actually cause temperatures to fall. CO2’s only known mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR. Thermalization results in warming, that is it. “Climate Change” is a term designed to confuse the issue, allowing CO2 to continue to be the cause without ever defining a mechanism by which it can actually cause climate change in any direction other than warming.

1aaaa

The problem this chart faces is that it is rather linear. Temperatures increased 0.5°C between 1910 and 1940, and temperatures increased 0.5°C between 1970 and 2000. Temperatures then accelerated between 2000 and today, increasing 0.5°C in just 18 years.

Why is that a problem? Because the physics of the CO2 molecule and the GHG Effect simply don’t support CO2 causing a linear increase in temperatures, and certainly not an acceleration in temperatures. CO2 shows a logarithmic decay in its W/M^2 radiation with an increase in concentration. The MARGINAL impact of CO2 decreases with each additional molecule, much like putting multiple layers of black paint on a window. The first coat blocks most of the light, and each additional coat blocks less and less light.

co2_modtrans_img1

Unlike climate alarmist sources that like to make definitive statements without providing any supporting documentation or methods (Click Here), we at CO2isLife like to provide readers with the tools needed to do the research in order to gain a full understanding of the issue. For this project, we will be using MODTRAN, the program NASA and the Air Force use to model the atmosphere for aerospace engineering. MODTRAN allows you to measure the change in W/M^2 of Upward IR Heat Flux generated by additional amounts of CO2.

Starting in 1910, CO2 was 300 ppm. According to MODTRAN, the Upward IR Heat Flux consistent with that level of CO2 is 299.901 W/M^2. This is our baseline.

300.PNG

In 1940, CO2 was 310. According to MODTRAN, the Upward IR Heat Flux consistent with that level of CO2 is 299.744 W/M^2. So 0.167 W/M^2 resulted in a 0.5°C increase in temperatures. Note how the CO2 ppm change was 10 ppm. So a change in 10 ppm CO2 resulted in a 0.5°C increase in temperatures.

310

Nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule or the GHG Effect can explain the temperature pause between 1940 and 1970. Climate alarmists simply ignore these inconvenient observations because there are no answers that can implicate CO2.

Starting in 1970, CO2 was 325 ppm. According to MODTRAN, the Upward IR Heat Flux consistent with that level of CO2 is 299.525 W/M^2. Note how the 15 ppm increase in CO2 between 1940 and 1970 did absolutely nothing to atmospheric temperatures.

325

In 2000 the CO2 level was 370 ppm. According to MODTRAN, the Upward IR Heat Flux consistent with that level of CO2 is 298.897 W/M^2. So whereas 0.167 W/M^2 resulted in a 0.5°C increase in temperatures between 1910 and 1940, a 0.628 W/M^2 change between 1970 and 2000, or a change almost 4x as what occurred between 1910 and 1940, resulted in the same 0.5°C increase in temperatures. CO2 also increased 45 ppm, or 3x the increase between 1910 and 1940. How can almost 4x the trapped energy result in an identical change in temperature? Is this new Physics? Have we repealed the laws of thermodynamics?

370

Lastly, the current level of CO2 is 411 ppm. According to MODTRAN, the Upward IR Heat Flux consistent with that level of CO2 is 298.394 W/M^2. This is a change of 0.503 W/M^2, which is less than the 0.628 W/M^2 change between 1970 and 2000, yet the temperature change is identical. The CO2 level increase, however, was almost identical, 45 ppm vs 41 ppm.

There is nothing regarding the CO2 molecule or GHG Effect that would allow for 1) equal changes in temperatures for equal changes in CO2 ppm 2) equal changes in temperatures for different changes in W/M^2 3) periods of falling and flat temperatures or 4) a linear relationship between CO2 ppm and atmospheric temperatures. Unless we have repealed the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics, NASA’s temperature chart doesn’t implicate CO2 as the cause of the warming.

411

Under no circumstance can you increase CO2 and not have the W/M^2 fall (trapping heat/thermalization). In other words, an increase in CO2 can only result in warming.  Climate change just a euphemism for “our model can’t explain that.” BTW, this approach also debunk’s Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Chart.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Basic Physics Proves NASA GISS Temperatures Don’t Implicate CO2”

  1. Point One:
    The notion that the earth’s surface is 33 C warmer with a “greenhouse” atmosphere is rubbish.
    The 15 C aka 288 K is a wild ass guesstimate for only the land area’s surface temperature. (IPCC AR5 Glossary)
    The -18 C aka 255 K is an unrelated-to-the-surface & with-atmosphere theoretical “what if?” S-B BB equilibrium temperature calculated from the globally averaged 240 W/m^2 OLR at ToA (100 km).
    The lunar papers by Volokin and Kramm clearly confirm that the earth without an atmosphere and 30% albedo will be hotter not cooler.

    Point Two:
    A fanciful up/down/”back” GHG radiation energy loop attempts to explain a physical mechanism behind this erroneous 33 C warmer premise, an explanation involving copious amounts of QED handwavium.
    This loop violates thermodynamics by 1) creating energy out of nowhere, 2) moving energy from cold to hot without additional work, 3) moving energy in a perpetual 100% efficient loop.
    The upwelling radiation is not a physical fact, but a theoretical “what if?” S-B ideal BB calculation.
    The allegedly “measured” up/down welling radiation is an illusion due to IR instruments not properly corrected for the actual emissivity. (Think of VW et. al. “tweaking” emissions tests.)

    Point Three:
    No GHG energy loop = No RGHE = No human/CO2 role in climate behavior, sea levels, ocean pH, sea ice & caps, polar bears, etc.

    Like

  2. NASA GISS is an alternativ reality version of earths temperature history, and only accepted by hard core CAGW believers. At least go with HadCRUT4 – Hadley still have some credibility left.

    Like

  3. If MODTRAN is reasonable why does a NASA site for the 40 year anniversary of NIMBUS missions show a graph with a positive anomaly for radiation emitted to space over the period from 1979 to 2004. Further why do they exclude data from the mission start to 1979 ?

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

    Surely, the whole hypothesis of energy trapping causing surface warming is entirely inconsistent with a positive anomaly for emissions to space while CO2 levels are increasing and this is entirely inconsistent with the MODTRAN results suggesting the emissions should be decreasing.

    Still not sure why you focus on CO2 emissions between 13 and 18 microns though.

    Surely all of the radiation modeling is based on blackbody radiation theory which is really based on the emission of continuous spectra – that is what they observed in the cavity oven experiments. Gases do not emit continuous spectra and therefore it is debatable if Planck’s and the SB equations are even applicable.

    Like

    1. I focus on 13 to 18 because those are the wavelengths CO2 absorbs with regards to the GIG effect. Yes, gasses are not blackbodies, so using blackbody figures OVERESTIMATES the impact of CO2.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s