The Terrifying Effects Of Atmospheric CO2
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O
July 17, 2017 at 07:32AM
Category: Uncategorized
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #277
via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
The Week That Was: 2017-07-15 (July 15, 2017) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Quote of the Week. “Science is a beautiful gift to humanity; we should not distort it.”– A.P.J. Abdul Kalam ################################################### Number of the Week: 96% since 1750 ################################################### THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, … Continue reading Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #277
via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
July 17, 2017 at 07:01AM
Tired of Being Wrong, Climate Alarmists Move Doomsday to Next Century
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com
Tired of Being Wrong, Climate Alarmists Move Doomsday to Next Century
If the climate alarmists weren’t still so politically powerful and represented in Congress by their devoted cult members, it would almost be easy to pity them. Why? Because they’re so spectacularly wrong about so many things.
They keep the hype coming regardless, as in this article that cites the fact that it’s hot in the desert in the summertime to say that air travel may be doomed.
The cult’s leader — Al Gore — said in 2009 that there was a 75 percent chance that the entire arctic polar ice cap would melt by 2014.
It’s still there.
The year before the North Pole was supposed to be gone, noted climate scientist Hans von Storch went against cult orthodoxy in an interview with Spiegel Online in 2013 and had some interesting things to say about the climate prediction models so revered by the alarmists.
After noting that “climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch had this to say about the models:
“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”
He followed that up with this after being asked what might be wrong with the models:
There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
After so many swings and misses while attempting to predict doomsday as being just around the corner, the alarmists have decided to provide themselves a little cover:
Climate alarmist James Hansen’s prediction of Manhattan being underwater by 2018 seems to not be happening, so he’s moving his own goal posts and saying “50 to 150 years” now.
That’s the beauty of being one of the “we believe in science” people: there’s never any penalty for being wrong. Every prediction that doesn’t come true isn’t a cause for reflection about perhaps adjusting the conclusion; it’s merely an opportunity to pull a new prediction out of thin air.
Perhaps they are finally getting embarrassed, though. Tossing all of the predictions a century down the road at least saves them from having to be around when those are proved wrong.
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com
July 17, 2017 at 05:32AM
Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’
via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com
CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C
To Global Temps Since 1850
A Swiss scientist known to have published hundreds of scientific papers in physics journals has authored a new paper that casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas influencing Earth’s temperatures.
This paper has been added to a growing volume of peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously question estimates of a high climate sensitivity to significant increases in CO2 concentrations.
60 Scientific Papers With Low (<1°C) CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates
The link above contains a compilation of over 60 scientific papers with “extremely low” (numerically ranging from 0.02°C to <1°C) estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to a 100% increase in CO2 concentrations (i.e., an increase from 285 ppm to 570 ppm).
Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius. Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C.
Reinhart, 2017
Abstract
Over 200,000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T [temperature increase of] < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K.
CO2 ‘Very Weak’, IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’
Based on all these facts, we conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.
[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. The main problem is probably caused by the lack of considering the occupation probabilities of the energy levels.
Temperature Changes In Response To Large CO2 Concentrations (800 ppm – 4,000 ppm)
We have calculated ∆Fmax and ∆Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.
A doubling [to 800 ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400 ppm] results in ∆T [temperature change] < 0.24 K.
The tenfold value of [the present CO2 concentration, or 4,000 ppm] yields ∆T [temperature change] < 0.80 K.
At pre-industrial times, we had cco2 = 285 ppm. The resulting temperature increase [since pre-industrial] according to Eq. (11) only amounts to ∆T < 0.12 K.
Solar Activity Correlates With Temperature, Non-Positive Feedbacks
Lu [and co-authors, 2013] establishes a correlation of ∆T with solar activity, cosmic rays and ozone reactions with fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. According to his result, CO2 only plays a minor role in the temperature evolution since pre-industrial times. Our calculation is compatible with his finding.
There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.
Conclusion
Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2. We find that the increase of CO2 only might become dangerous, if the concentrations are considerably greater than 4000 ppm. At present rates of increase this would take more than 200 years. Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity. The climate change must have a very different origin and the scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry.
via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com
July 17, 2017 at 05:20AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 