A lesson on basic physics for climate alarmists
Many climate ‘scientists’ and believers in the man-made global warming scare story argue that the trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) is our climate’s thermostatic control knob. They want us to accept that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are currently at ‘dangerous levels.’ How wrong they are!
If we eliminated, worldwide, all anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) the atmospheric concentration would only reduce by 11-12 ppmv taking us back to the 2003 level when it was warmer than 2008. See table below and the subsequent graph concerning this analysis. These clearly show CO2 concentration is not warming the earth. If we removed almost twice that amount (20 ppmv) we would go back to the 1998 level. It was warmer in 1998 than in 2008 (by ~0.6 C). This is so simple to see, isn’t this the first thing the UN IPCC should have looked at. However, they probably knew this because Table 1 below was subsequently eliminated from the 2001 report, even though it is still online in other reports.
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf document page 6, pdf page 26, Table 3.
See also http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/IPCC_deception.pdf
Using first principles, if we doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, you would see a slight cooling effect. The ones saying forced radiation is real must have never completed any mass and energy balances around any process. If the atmosphere is denser, more radiation from the sun will be reflected to outer space during sunlight hours, at night, the earth will not cool off as fast, more insulation. The overall effect will always be cooling because there is much more radiation from the sun coming to the earth than there is radiation from the earth to the sky at night.
By Philip Foster: http://www.tech-know-group.com/archives/WhatGreenH.pdf
Observational evidence clearly indicates that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures; if there was, the CO2 would rise and fall in sync with temperature – that doesn’t happen! CO2 is rising steadily whilst temperature fluctuate as they have always done.
D’Aleo, J. S., “Correlation Last Decade and This Century CO2 and Global Temperatures Not There” http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf
If you reckon that ten years is not enough time to analyze a trend, maybe this graph below, developed by Russian scientists, is long enough. It was a lot warmer during various periods back in time than now.
http://www.iccfglobal.org/ppt/Illarionov-01-10-04.ppt slide 43
The IPCC’s Radiative Forcing “calculations” violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Use any physics you want but you cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics, those are the Laws of Nature. The first law of thermodynamics states that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into the system.
The second one states that entropy is always increasing, never decreasing (you can’t heat a warmer body with a cooler body).
Thermodynamics determine heat transfer.
The “Play Station” graph created by Kiehl and Trenberth below showing that the earth gets hit by only 161 W/m^2, then 97 (17+80) W/m^2 leave the earth so you have just 64 W/m^2 left over which then miraculously increases to 396 W/m^2, a multiplier of 6.2 times!
It would appear that most physicists never take any courses in thermodynamics.
Kiehl and Trenberth couldn’t have!
Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., and Kiehl, J. (2009) Earth’s Global Energy Budget, in Bulletin of the Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol 90, pp 311-323. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
No Greenhouse Signature in Atmosphere
There are several possible causes of global warming, and each warms the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes. Each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere and will leave its “signature”. The IPCC “Play Station computer model” greenhouse signature is very distinct — see Figure 1 below. If this signature were present, warming would be concentrated in a distinct “hot spot” about 8 to 12 km up over the tropics, with less warming further away, turning to cooling above 18 km.
Actual measurements have been taken and the observed signature is shown in Figure 2. As one can clearly see, the actual signature is nothing like the predicted IPCC “Greenhouse” signature.
The greenhouse signature is not seen — no “hot spot” exists!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
Lastly, since there is no genuine science associating CO2 with global warming, or climate change for that matter, there have to be other reasons for the climate changing; it has all happened before after all.
*****
With thanks to:
Bob Ashworth
BSCHE WVU 1960
Member American Geophysical Union
Trackback from your site.