This post is a response to a comment left by David Appell.
David wrote some “interesting” material for Scientific American.
I believe I initially misunderstood David’s assertion.
I have revised this post to better address that assertion.
Updated on 7/17/11 to fix a broken link.David,
1) You misquoted me. Readers can
click here for the actual quote.
As you may know, the quote you presented
was left by an imposter. When I leave a comment on any Blogger.com site my moniker (SBVOR) will
always include a link to
this page. More importantly,
this avatar will
always be associated with the comment. If either that link or that avatar is missing on any comment supposedly left by SBVOR, the comment was actually posted by a childish imposter.
2) You assert that:
“We know already that about a pre-anthropogenic level of 280 ppm CO2 warms the atmosphere about 15-20 F.”I assume you are referring to the total estimated (clear sky) warming produced by 280 ppm of CO2.
Examine this chart
Click the image to examine the source:
Notice the following:
A) Estimates of the (clear sky) warming effect of 280 ppm of CO2 range from about 5C to about 12C (9F to 22F).
B) Each additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially less warming potential than the molecule which preceded it.
C) Estimates for the (clear sky) warming effect associated with doubling CO2 from pre-anthropogenic levels range from 0.64C to 1.46C (1F to 2.6F).
The alarmists tell us we have already seen about 0.7C of anthropogenic warming. Ergo, even the highest of these estimates would only leave another 0.76C of anthropogenic warming contribution to come in the next century (as we double CO2 from pre-industrial levels).
D)
Click here and examine the directly cited peer reviewed science from which we can reasonably assume that anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to contribute more than about 0.4C (0.7F) of warming over the next century.
Coupled with the on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend produced by natural forcing factors, we could see either a net warming or a net cooling over the next century. Details and citations on that are in the next section.
3) You ask:
“So why shouldn't another 35% [of CO2] lead to a few more degrees of warming?”If you think CO2 is that powerful, you need to ask yourself the following far better questions:
A) Why are
the Arctic AND
the Antarctic both experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend which -- despite recent warming -- shows NO SIGNS of abating. Sometime in the relatively near future, the saw tooth pattern seen in both of those graphs will turn sharply downward again. It might have already begun.
The citation links and more details are found
here and
here.
B) Why, during the current interglacial warming period, were the warmest temperatures reached
about 8,000 years ago during the Hypsithermal?
The citation links and more details are found
here.
C) Why has the current interglacial warming period
failed to produce temperatures which even match, much less exceed temperatures reached during EACH of the previous FOUR interglacial warming periods?
The citation links and more details are found
here4) Actually, even
the corruptocrats “leading”
the entirely discredited IPCC know that CO2 alone is utterly incapable of causing even the slightest bit of alarm. The entire hoax is completely dependent upon a blind faith assumption as to how water vapor responds to the very
tiny amount of warming which CO2 alone is (theoretically) capable of.
The most recent research is increasingly proving this critical lynchpin assumption to be not merely false, but
entirely upside down.
As I noted in the previous link, this latest research goes a very long way towards explaining why this planet never reached any mythical “tipping point” during times when CO2 was (as a median estimate)
up to 22 times higher than today.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.