CO2 - By The Numbers, Why it is Statistically Irrelevant in our Atmosphere.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

I was debating a Tony Heller article in another forum, and it highlighted why CO2 drives nothing and is irrelevant in our atmosphere.

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic | Cowboy State Daily

Anthony is not known for being either "all in" or "all out" in regard to CAGW. Anthony is a very smart man and one I would consider a friend. He, like me, is a realist. So, let's do a realist point of view on CO2.

The CO2 effect is less than half of the expected log warming. This means the atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. This means the Climate Sensitivity equation is roughly 0.3 to 1 (observed rise in temp vs expected rise from CO2 alone). We expected 1.8-2.1 deg C from CO2 alone and we have seen just 0.6 deg C.   

The atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. When we add in the natural variation components, it drops to less than 0.07/1. This places it in the Margin of Error and insignificance. Dr Heller is correct, CO2's influence is near zero and cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

We should be focusing on particulates and getting them out of our emissions not CO2, as it is incapable of driving anything.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Below is the LOG of CO2, a gas in our atmosphere.

   

When you look at this graph there is a temperature axis and a PPM axis for CO2.  When you look at 280ppm and then to 410ppm you can determine, from the two points, the expected temperature rise from the gas itself without any other forcing applied.  One must remember, when doing climatic forecasting, that there are other drivers which do not stop functioning.

When we look at the global rise as a whole, we must then reduce the potential from CO2 by the other known drivers.

---

The expected temperature rise, from CO2 alone, is 2.1 deg Celsius. (280ppm to 410ppm)

To date we have seen just a 1.1 deg Fahrenheit rise in average temperatures or 0.6 deg C.  

The resulting Climate sensitivity equation is then 0.3 for each 1.0 deg Celsius (expected rise) written as 0.3/1.0. Remember, we must now reduce this number by the known other drivers. 96% of all warming is not from CO2 emissions.

.3/.04 = 0.012 The Margin of error in this is +/ - 0.07.    This means that the potential of CO2 emissions to warm, is well below the MOE for this trace gas in our water driven atmosphere. When we look at the overall atmospheric warming the action potential of CO2 is dampened, by empirically observed evidence.

Dr Heller is correct in his assumptions that CO2 has no ability to adversely impact our atmosphere given its current makeup. That is CO2, by the numbers.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

The end result is 0.024/1.  This represents CO2's portion of the warming given the expected log value.

0.024 deg C is the warming contribution to our atmosphere when the expected from CO2 alone was 2.1 deg C.  When we place these numbers into context and account for other active drivers in our climatic system, CO2's ability to warm is exposed.  

CO2 is not the boogie man the alarmists want you to believe it is.  This is why it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The moment we learned that CO2 was being dampened and that there was no enhancement driving water vapor temperatures, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis died a sordid death and was falsified by empirically observed evidence.

[Sunsettommy]

I have been posting this in the hope this will wake up a few people on the fence that a doubling of CO2 warm forcing effect is still trivial and therefore not important,

From Where is the Climate Emergency? article is this section that shows just how irrelevant CO2 really is in the "heat" budget.

===

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

(Chart in the Link)

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

I have been posting this in the hope this will wake up a few people on the fence that a doubling of CO2 warm forcing effect is still trivial and therefore not important,

From Where is the Climate Emergency? article is this section that shows just how irrelevant CO2 really is in the "heat" budget.

===

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

(Chart in the Link)

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

IF you look at my calculations above, 0.024 deg C is trivial indeed, and would be in keeping with that article as well.  The problem with that 3.7w/m^2 number is that it is derived from the failed modeling showing a 3/1 CS number.  IF we remove that assumed enhancement, we see that the actual downwelling increase is but 1.17w/m^2.   Then we begin to look at what other actions are in play and how do they react.

That 1.1w/m^2 will not be absorbed by 72% of earth's surface as its wavelength will be defeated in the first ten microns of the ocean's surface, where evaporation takes place, and the thermal barrier will not allow warming of the oceans. This effectively reduces that LWIR impact by 75%

[Sunsettommy]

Willis was making the point that using THIER numbers it doesn't support their idiotic narrative that CO2 is a significant player in the heat budget therefore can be safely ignored.

It is the Positive Feedback Loop they are banking their entire baloney on but unfortunately it isn't showing up as the postulated "hotspot" isn't showing up after 30 years at all.

From the chart it the link shows it to be at Pre Industrial of Total Global average downwelling 505.5 W/m2 in 1750 to 509 W/m2 when CO2 has doubled from 278 ppm in 1750 to 556 ppm in a few decades in the future.

A postulated 3.5 W/m2 increase is all it can gin up it is so ridiculously small to the point of irrelevance as weather and natural factors comes that will actually make it smaller as YOU make the point that 71% of the ocean surface wouldn't allow it to heat it up.

It is simple math that utterly destroys their CO2 sniffing cult.

It is the Sun/Ocean Dynamo that dominates the weather and climate processes on the planet.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Willis was making the point that using THIER numbers it doesn't support their idiotic narrative that CO2 is a significant player in the heat budget therefore can be safely ignored.

It is the Positive Feedback Loop they are banking their entire baloney on but unfortunately it isn't showing up as the postulated "hotspot" isn't showing up after 30 years at all.

It is simple math that utterly destroys their CO2 sniffing cult.

All I did was take their numbers and apply logical math.  It destroyed the lie in the time it took to do the math. 

This is why they foment fear, they must be afraid.  You cannot think logically if you are fearful. 

The positive feedback loop was dispelled by Dr Evans a long time ago..  The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

[Sunsettommy]

Willis was making the point that using THIER numbers it doesn't support their idiotic narrative that CO2 is a significant player in the heat budget therefore can be safely ignored.

It is the Positive Feedback Loop they are banking their entire baloney on but unfortunately it isn't showing up as the postulated "hotspot" isn't showing up after 30 years at all.

It is simple math that utterly destroys their CO2 sniffing cult.

All I did was take their numbers and apply logical math.  It destroyed the lie in the time it took to do the math. 

This is why they foment fear, they must be afraid.  You cannot think logically if you are fearful. 

The positive feedback loop was dispelled by Dr Evans a long time ago..  The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

You broke it down much further than Willis did which is why the numbers go smaller which I agree since CO2 is competing with other factors not mentioned by Willis at all.

He was trying to be simple in his presentation with the mostly science illiterate public.

[Sunsettommy]

In 2011 I wrote this Tropospheric Hot Spot at my old Climate forum which you can still read in full with many charts from the IPCC report itself showing what they were promoting which has utterly failed since then as it still doesn't show up at all.

Tropospheric Hot Spot Report

Worth a read.

Derek was my original Global Moderator but now retired from climate discussions to pursue other interests.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Willis was making the point that using THIER numbers it doesn't support their idiotic narrative that CO2 is a significant player in the heat budget therefore can be safely ignored.

It is the Positive Feedback Loop they are banking their entire baloney on but unfortunately it isn't showing up as the postulated "hotspot" isn't showing up after 30 years at all.

It is simple math that utterly destroys their CO2 sniffing cult.

All I did was take their numbers and apply logical math.  It destroyed the lie in the time it took to do the math. 

This is why they foment fear, they must be afraid.  You cannot think logically if you are fearful. 

The positive feedback loop was dispelled by Dr Evans a long time ago..  The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

You broke it down much further than Willis did which is why the numbers go smaller which I agree since CO2 is competing with other factors not mentioned by Willis at all.

He was trying to be simple in his presentation with the mostly science illiterate public.

Willis is an excellent communicator.  I sometimes give out way more information than the general layman can digest. I hope I have not done that here.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Willis was making the point that using THIER numbers it doesn't support their idiotic narrative that CO2 is a significant player in the heat budget therefore can be safely ignored.

It is the Positive Feedback Loop they are banking their entire baloney on but unfortunately it isn't showing up as the postulated "hotspot" isn't showing up after 30 years at all.

From the chart it the link shows it to be at Pre Industrial of Total Global average downwelling 505.5 W/m2 in 1750 to 509 W/m2 when CO2 has doubled from 278 ppm in 1750 to 556 ppm in a few decades in the future.

A postulated 3.5 W/m2 increase is all it can gin up it is so ridiculously small to the point of irrelevance as weather and natural factors comes that will actually make it smaller as YOU make the point that 71% of the ocean surface wouldn't allow it to heat it up.

It is simple math that utterly destroys their CO2 sniffing cult.

It is the Sun/Ocean Dynamo that dominates the weather and climate processes on the planet.

What they fail to understand, it is not only the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), but it also includes certain bands within the output. Oceans are heated to depths of 700 meters by a very narrow band of transmitted energy, in the 0.2 to 0.6um region. Any shift in the distribution overall will affect the receiving body. IE: The EARTHS OCEANS. Dr David Archibald (SHO) noticed the "solar dimming" which dropped our PV arrays outputs by 10% globally.  This was a shift in the distribution from the 0.2-0.8um regions of the suns output to the 1.0-1.4um regions of the suns output.  It did not change the sun overall total output, TSI, what it did do was affect our ocean's ability to uptake energy. It placed some of the energy where the oceans defeat it in the first ten microns, the evaporation layer. This layer has a cooler, thermocline barrier, layer just below it, which must be defeated if it is to warm the oceans.

This has slowed energy uptake in the equatorial regions and the recharge rate of the ENSO (Equitorial North South Oscillation). This alone will cause the earth to cool.

Solar Dimming is just a layman's way of describing the slowing of the reaction, just slightly, on the sun, which changes its output inside its total output.  When Big Green Energy couldn't figure out why their solar arrays were putting out less energy, we had to look at the source providing the energy. This "shift" in solar output caused a change in the receiving body, in this case, solar panels. Our oceans react just like these do to that shift.

The Sun/Ocean process can easily be shifted by minute changes in the bands of energy emitted from the sun. Solar physics is not my area of expertise, but how it affects our atmosphere is and they are very closely coupled.  I don't know enough about the fusion reaction to know if there is a cycle within the reaction of burn, cloud, cool, burn.  We know that as energy is expended in a fission reaction, the expended fuel slows (clouding which causes the cooling) the overall reaction until it clears, and the reaction heats up again.  Could this be what is taking place on our sun?  Is this what drives the 90,000 glacial and 12,000-year warm cycles on earth?  I don't know enough about this reaction to give an answer.  The earth has glaciated even with levels of CO2 above 7,000ppm.  What is driving this?

Food for thought...

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

I guess I have started a movement...  LOL.  

 "A new study by a team of leading climate scientists suggests that the effect of carbon dioxide this century might be small if not undetectable when compared to natural climate variability.

Global surface temperature is and always has been the key climate parameter. Whatever is happening to the Earth’s climate balance, it must, sooner or later, be reflected in the global annual average temperature, and not just in regional variations. [emphasis, links added] " 

The Dam appears to be breaking...  New Study: Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Causing 21st-Century Warming - Climate Change Dispatch

[Doug1943]

The only problem with the information in this thread -- or at least with the original post -- is that you have to know what a logarithmic graph is.

But how many people even know what a logarithm is?

[Sunsettommy]

The only problem with the information in this thread -- or at least with the original post -- is that you have to know what a logarithmic graph is.

But how many people even know what a logarithm is?

Good question here is a basic explanation that Billy_Bob can expand on:

Wikipedia

Logarithm

Excerpt:

In mathematics, the logarithm is the inverse function to exponentiation. That means the logarithm of a number x to the base b is the exponent to which b must be raised, to produce x. For example, since 1000 = 103, the logarithm base 10 of 1000 is 3, or log10 (1000) = 3. The logarithm of x to base b is denoted as logb (x), or without parentheses, logb x, or even without the explicit base, log x, when no confusion is possible, or when the base does not matter such as in big O notation.

The logarithm base 10 is called the decimal or common logarithm and is commonly used in science and engineering. The natural logarithm has the number e ≈ 2.718 as its base; its use is widespread in mathematics and physics, because of its very simple derivative. The binary logarithm uses base 2 and is frequently used in computer science.

   

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

The only problem with the information in this thread -- or at least with the original post -- is that you have to know what a logarithmic graph is.

But how many people even know what a logarithm is?

I doubt that many could or would follow the mathematical construction.

When I explain this graph, I use the analogy of a martini glass.  At first, the addition of small parts of water will fill quickly, causing a rapid rise in fill.  As we continue to fill the glass, the rise in fill slows due to the area that requires saturation. The flow is constant into the glass but the reaction to that flow diminishes.

The glass represents the gasses' total ability to affect change. Once the glass is full, you can not affect any further change.

Then I point to the graph and explain the same thing. Initial filling causes rapid rise and change.  As we fill up, the change becomes slower and slower. Once we reach saturation (overflow of the glass) the change stops.

When we apply this to the math equations it makes it easier to understand.   The curve on the logarithmic graph, is simply the contents vs the observed reaction to those contents. In the case of CO2, we are looking at content in PPM and the reaction in Deg C that was seen in the lab. Knowing this, we can now determine what that gas is capable of in our atmosphere. It is how we can then gauge if the atmosphere is enhancing or dampening the expected reaction.