hijack from Help Required: Dodgy Claim by the CO2 Coalition?

[guidoLamoto]

It looks like that's a back-handed way of saying that the co2/temp relationship is exponential, exhibiting a doubling period phenomenon. https://hifast.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/how-does-temperature-depend-on-co2/

To be  considered on the logical level, increasing [co2] won't result in more warming over all, just a trapping of heat in a thinner layer, closer to the surface. ...That means higher atm will be cooling. We see that now in the UAH satellite data-- troposphere warming, stratosphere cooling.

...and consider the phenomenon of extinction of absorbtion--  Increasing humidity may make the lighthouse look dimmer and dimmer until it's fogged out completely. At that point, adding thicker fog won't change anything in regards seeing the lighthouse.

Skeptics don't "deny" that there's climate change or that the GH Effect exists. They point out that the actual effect of increasing [co2] at the current level of 420ppm has minimal effect on climate, and even less as it goes higher....It's like ignoring the relativistic component of the gravity equation when calculating the trajectory of the bowling ball dropped form the Leaning Tower. Perfectly justified from the practical stand point.

Now, we could discuss the source of the increasing [co2] if you like-- also more likely to be due to warming oceans and minimally caused by humans mobilizing geologically sequestered carbon. Keep in mind that the increasing co2 seen in the ice core data lags 800 yrs behind the warming. In a cause & effect situation, the cause has to pre-cede the effect.

Addendum in respnse to iNow-- Those minor absorbtion bands for co2 coincide with the major bands of h20, so they add little to the GH trappjing effect of co2...co2 is a much "stronger" GHG on a molar basis than h20, but h2o is so much more prevalent that it far outweighs co2 in its warming effect...

...and then it gets really complicated because h20 means clouds and clouds shade the surface, and also mean precipitation which further adds cooling effects. Cf- diurnal temp changes in desert vs rain forest-- they both have the same amount of co2.

It's a mistake to look for a simple explanation in a complex matters.

[guidoLamoto]

Good point about disengenuous reporting-- The Warmists are guilty of that. They commonly show the co2 gragh and the temp graph superimposed- both, miraculously, with a 50% slope implying a 1:1 relationship....But in truth, the co2 graph should be sloped about 60% (260ppm ==> 420ppm  or 160/260) over the last century, while the temp graph should be sloped only 0.7% (286 ==>288*K) ...Then we could argue about what a 2deg rise in temps means...Can you step outside and accurately estimate the temp to any greater accuracy than +/- 5 degC? 

The common wisdom has been that co2 is a well mixed gas with little variation from one geographic location to the next, but now that we have a co2 sensing satellite, that may not be as true as we'd like to think. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/01/carbon-dioxide-movie-night-the-global-picture/ Note how much co2 is being dumped into the atm by Asia, and, with Mauna Loa, the "official measurement site" directly downwind, maybe we need to re-examine how much the [co2] has really gone up.

This whole "GW" controversey is marred by so much bad science, unethical practices and outright lies for political and financial advantage that we have to treat it like we treat "data" about Big Foot-- while we can;t scientifically say he doesn;t exist, there's so much outright fraud involved in the reporting that we have to hold all info suspect.

[guidoLamoto]

Because the major source of warming for the planet is the sun, there is net warming locally for only about 6 hr a day, with net cooling for 18hrs. At this point, the total energy budget is stable. It just takes a little longer, theoretically, to cool back down each day at any given location. but we still do cool...We are dealing also with the problem of the physical meaning of averages....

The satellite record shows that virtually all of the warming seen over the 45 yrs of the record has taken place in the polar regions-- completely predictable because heat flows from high concentration to low. There has been only a ittle warming, mostly at night, in the temperature zones and almost none in the tropics. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The geologic climate record shows that the planet must have a negative feedback system dominating temps. Despite [co2] of 8000ppm ages ago, temps never have seemed to exceeded 25*C....The co2 influence should be a positive feedback loop, but it likely is "over-powered" by the several other cyclical factors influencing climate.  Reviewing the concept of coupled oscillators may give insight into the problem at hand. 

Say swinging to the left causes warming and to the right, cooling. Now expand it to at least a dozen masses of widely varying size with a wide range of pendulum lengths-- the state of "the climate" being the total state of the system at any particular moment in time...The "perfect storm" is the codition when all are at their max or min at the same time.

Thanks for the negative credits...Anybody care to show some intellectual integrity and say why you think I'm wrong or are you simply insulted that your religion has been questioned?

[TheVat]

 

43 minutes ago, guidoLamoto said:

...Anybody care to show some intellectual integrity and say why you think I'm wrong or are you simply insulted that your religion has been questioned?

Various errors, most notably your failure to take account of water vapor flux and its amplifier effect on CO2 as a GHG, as well as albedo change, CH4 effects, methane hydrates, and other feedback mechanisms, and research going back to Tyndall and Arrhenius, all suggest your knowledge of atmospheric physics is minimal.  For this reason I suspect several posters here are simply passing by your posts.   This is not a "religion" thing, but your straw man is duly noted.

43 minutes ago, guidoLamoto said:

Because the major source of warming for the planet is the sun, there is net warming locally for only about 6 hr a day, with net cooling for 18hrs.

Net warming also occurs when there is overcast.   Better check your work.  

Edited December 16, 2023 by TheVat
fixt

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.12

“We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.”

 

Unsubstantiated claims and referring to science as religion are hallmarks of bad faith arguments