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

In any real science great care is given to “controlling” for exogenous factors. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to relate the impact of an independent variable upon a dependent variable, removed from any other factors. Y = mX + b + e, is the formula of a linear regression, and e is the error of the model. In order to minimize the “e,” one must control for as many outside factors that may impact the dependent variable as possible. In climate science, efforts to control for exogenous factors is completely absent. In fact, by choosing the highly flawed and “adjusted” ground measurements they are effectively maximizing the impact of exogenous factors on their data set and minimizing the usefullness of their preferred data set to identify and isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures.

Here is the best example I’ve found of the Urban Heat Island Effect:

Ceteris Paribus and Global Warming; Ground Measurements are Garbage

In climate science, the main model being promoted is Temperature is a function of CO2, or Temp = f (CO2) or ΔT = ΔCO2 + b + e. Given this single variable model, there are obvious exogenous factors that could impact temperature that are unrelated to CO2. They are water vapor, the most potent and abundant greenhouse gas, the sun, the source of almost all incoming energy to the earth, and the Urban Heat Island Effect.

With that understanding, any real scientist would seek to control for water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the Sun. Let’s first take a look at water vapor. Water vapor in the lower troposphere is so potent and abundant that it makes CO2 irrelevant. Where water vapor is, heat is, regardless of how much CO2 is present.

Source

To control for water vapor we need to measure the layer of the atmosphere where there is no water vapor, but plenty of CO2. That layer is 4.5 km and higher in the atmosphere. The Mid-Troposphere and Tropopause data sets are what we will be using to control for water vapor. The following charts show the concentration of water vapor and CO2. At the altitude of 4.5 km the temperature reaches 0.00°C, so water vapor is assumed to have precipitated out of the atmosphere.

This graphic demonstrates just how closely related water vapor and temperatures truly are. The charts are nearly identical. Water vapor is represented by the TCWV line.

The introductory image is often published as a measure of Global Temperatures, which it is, but the lower atmosphere is corrupted by the Urban Heat Island Effect, water vapor and variations in the sun and cloud cover. To isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures you have to use the temperature data of the higher layers of the atmosphere.

First, we will look at the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water and largely void of the Urban Heat Island Effect, but there is plenty of water vapor and clouds in the lower atmosphere. Even so, the Mid-Troposphere and Tropopause show no material warming. The Mid-Troposphere shows a little more near-term warming, but both layers are within the range of the past 40 years. The spikes seen in the Mid-Troposphere Graph correspond with El Niños, so water vapor does have an impact on this data set. The rapid drop in temperatures post-peak proves the temperature spikes are unrelated to CO2 which remains effectively constant during the time period.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Another way to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect is to simply focus on the upper atmosphere above the oceans. When you do that, you discover no material warming. Certainly nothing like the introductory graphic. The spikes once again correspond to El Niños and are unrelated to CO2.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

To control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and water vapor, the poles are the best location, with the South Pole being more effective than the North Pole. The North Pole is more impacted by ocean temperatures. When we look at the upper atmospheric temperatures above the Poles, we find no material warming.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The oceans have an impact on the Poles, so we can further narrow the focus to the extremes of the South Pole, between 20S and 90S. When we do that, we again find no material warming. While the one chart does show a near-term trend, its level was below that of 1980 as recently as 06/2016.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As the above graphics and discussion demonstrate, when care is given to selecting data sets that control for the exogenous factors of water vapor and the Urban Heat Island Effect, the isolated impact of CO2 on the atmosphere is nonexistent. The one factor we didn’t control for was the sun. We do however know that the atmosphere has become more transparent over the past 26 years, so some warming would have been expected. That warming, however, wouldn’t be due to CO2.

Climate alarmists simply choose corrupted data sets to make their alarmist case. That isn’t just bad science, that is deliberate and willful deceit. Not only do they choose the wrong data sets, they “adjust” them to make them fit their desired outcome. No amount of adjusting and cherrypicking data sets will be able to win the scientific debate in the long run. The physics of the CO2 molecule simply doesn’t support the alarmist’s claims, and eventually, reality and the truth will win. The alarmists won’t be able to continually “adjust” their way out of a scientifically indefensible position.

You simply don’t need to “adjust” data like I provided above, or data like this following chart. The data speaks for itself. If you have to “adjust” the data to make your model work, your model is wrong, it is that simple.

Higher up in the atmosphere, it is well documented that an increase in CO2 is associated with greater COOLING. That may sound counter-intuitive until you understand the physics of the atmosphere.

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

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Note: This Post may be being Shadow Banned on FB. It has 131 Facebook Shares, but a relatively few views for so many shares. Most views are coming from Bloggers ReBlogging it.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact”

  1. The alarmists won’t be able to continually “adjust” their way out of a scientifically indefensible position

    This only is valid if the vast majority of the population are well educated. Education standards, particular in the west, have been falling since the rise of left wing governments. If this trend continues the alarmist will be able to adjust the data with total impunity.

    Like

  2. I’ll be reblogging this on chiefio.wordpress.com shortly.

    My only “complaint” about the presentation is that it seems to imply that the tropical water vapor causes the tropical warmth. The reality is that the tropical high insolation values causes the higher evaporation and water vapor values.

    There are feedbacks involved, but the fundamental effect is solar heated water evaporating at the equator (thus thunderstorms, hurricanes, cyclones, and other “Tropical Storms”) and freezing out at the poles for clear crisp dry skies.

    But yes, where it’s hot and wet you get lots of water vapor and so the inverse is also true; where it is high water vapor it is hot and wet.

    Like

    1. Thank for the comment, and please make your comments on your blog informing your readers of your concerns. I agree, you have to have warmth before you have evaporation. Thanks again for your comment.

      Like

  3. A quibble. The freezing point of pure water at the surface is 32F/0C at the standard atmospheric pressure. There is always some water present in our atmosphere, throughout its depth. There is also sublimation/deposition. Direct solid to gas and back.

    Like

    1. Great point. That is why I have the graph so you can see that my assumption isn’t 100% correct. I’m not sure that ice at that level would really play into the GHG effect anyway. It does raise a good question given that 13 to 18 microns is associated with -80 C. Would ice melt if it absorbed those wavelengths? I doubt it. Further proof that CO2 isn’t a warming agent.

      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