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.
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 here
4) 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 to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.
17 comments:
So then you don't believe that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas?
If not, please explain this simple experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
David,
You obviously did not read my post and you are obviously engaging in deliberately trollish behavior.
Continue on this course, and I will simply delete your worthless comments as soon as they arrive.
So then you do believe CO2 traps heat.
How much?
David,
I fully anticipated your response and offered this preemptive statement in the body of my post:
“Now, before you start lecturing me on the physics of CO2, read and comprehend the entire post in that previous link (and all the directly cited peer reviewed science).”
You obviously did not do that. And, you obviously did not read even one damn thing I presented.
If you want to engage in an informed and intelligent debate or a discussion, fine.
But, if you continue on this course, I will simply delete your comments as soon as they arrive.
So, according to your research, what is CO2's radiative forcing?
Read this post and tell me which part you cannot comprehend.
Fail to do that and you’re headed directly to the spam bucket.
David,
This chart offers three approximations of the direct warming effect of CO2 in concentrations ranging from 0 ppm to 600 ppm.
The same chart illustrates the fact that each additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially less warming potential than the molecule which preceded it.
I read your post. So what is your value for anomalous CO2's radiative forcing?
Also, how much GH warming do you ascribe to pre-industrial levels of CO2?
David,
Vostok data show pre-anthropogenic CO2 ranging from about 190ppm (during glacial periods) to about 280ppm (during interglacial periods).
This chart demonstrates that the highest of the three estimations would allow for no more than about 1C of warming between glacial and interglacial periods as CO2 ranged from 190ppm to 280ppm.
Yet, this chart shows as much as 12C of warming between glacial and interglacial periods.
Ergo, ANY way you slice it, CO2 has historically (just like today) been a very minor bit player in past interglacial warming periods.
I agree with the directly cited peer reviewed science in this post from which one can conclude that anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to contribute more than 0.4C of warming over the next century.
Coupled with natural forcing factors, we may see a net warming over the next century or a net cooling. The 10,000 year trends cited in the main body of this post suggest the latter. That’s my bet.
David,
I think I misunderstood your (poorly worded) initial assertion in the comment which sparked this post.
I now suspect you were asserting that estimates of the total (clear sky) warming effect of 280 ppm of CO2 ranged from 15F to 20F (the range of estimates is actually wider and less certain than that).
I am in the process of revising this post to better address what I now believe was your meaning.
If, after I revise the post, you would prefer to delete all the previous comments and start over again, we can. That will be your choice.
David,
The revised post is now up (see my previous comment).
David says
"So what is your value for anomalous CO2's radiative forcing?"
This is the ultimate question that nobody can prove with any degree of certainty.
However, we have geological and anthrpological proof that it has been warmer in the past. This should tell you that mans role is and will be insignificant when it comes to significantly warming the planet.
A drop in the bucket.
Do you blame the fleas because the dog farted?
Can we worry about more important things now?
RICH,
The CAGW hysteria is pretty much dead and buried. However, the nature worshipers have already moved on to their next hoax -- a phony biodiversity "crisis". We will have to cope with these cult members for a very long time to come. Ironically, their cult represents a FAR greater threat to humanity than any other human activity.
The AGW hoax is the seed that has been planted. Buried? Yes. But as you correctly stated, it is now sprouting into a phony biodiversity crisis.
Mmm, Mmm, Mmm
We must control the world's consumption
If we don't - it will bring destruction
Mmm, Mmm, Mmm
Global Warming is the greatest threat
A nuclear Iran is not a sweat
Mmm, Mmm, Mmm
Barrack Obama will walk on water
and feed the world with this moonbat fodder
>> "So what is your value for
>> anomalous CO2's radiative forcing?"
> This is the ultimate question that
> nobody can prove with any degree of certainty.
So what does your own calculation show, with it associated uncertainty? This is what science is all about, after all.
David (Nov 23, 2010 4:27:00 PM)
I trust you understand that you have directed that question to RICH (Nov 21, 2010 7:49:00 AM), not me.
Post a Comment