Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It's also released by the oceans. Already they are saturated with CO2. Human urban development such as cities creates heat islands where every 1 mile radius of development raises the core temperature by 1/2 degree. That's pretty minor if you are in the flat plains but if you are at the base of the mountains then that is going to cause problems with the lack of build up of snow - which provides fresh water through Spring/Summer.

Being in a smoggy city isn't particularly enjoyable either.

originally posted by: Vector99
A simple look at the planet Venus debunks your entire thread, sorry.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
What that Venus is the second planet in the solar system and is approximately 41.6 million miles closer to the sun than earth? Mercury, VENUS, Earth.

Right on liejunkie01, Funny how people tend to leave, 'bits' out. Then of course it was GISS who made out the comparisons of their modelling being applicable to Earth and Venus, very much in the, 'watch out Earth you could become another Venus' vein.
I would tend to think that the GISS umbrella...NASA, would have those amongst them who don't see things exactly the same as GISS.

originally posted by: Outlier13

So with all of the above data being collected and widely disseminated long before the false man-made global warming narrative came along I'm supposed to believe that somehow in the past 227 years (Industrial Revolution began in 1790) that man has somehow been able to dramatically alter and disrupt an entire global weather system to such a degree that we are going to cause an ice age?

That narrative is for idiots.

Ignoring that and dismissing thousands of scientific analysis is typical of the anti science ignorance that pervades the west, especially the US, these days. That you are expressing on this increasingly ignorant site.

So you think the activities of man cannot affect the atmosphere on a global scale do you? Here is an example of how ignorant you are, this is not GW related but is an example of man affecting the globe. NB agitated anti GW folks a double reminder in case you are having difficulty understanding this example is NOT related to GW but an example of a proven mans effect on the globe.

We have Ozone holes across both poles that are now recovering, albeit slowly. They were caused by man made CFC's unless you are going to ignorantly state it was some as yet undiscovered mechanism which of course you will "have to invent" to prove your ignorant assertion is correct.

The evidence of GW is increasing all the time without science! and we are rapidly heading towards a point of no recovery and fools like you are preventing the mitigation of the causes.

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99

nope but it certainly proves co2 will not reach high altitude it needs to function in the same way it dose on Venus

so unless you have some proof that co2 at ground level effects the temperature of the planet

In your illogical thought experiment, if the CO2 were not able to rise to the upper atmosphere, it's molecular weight would weigh it down at ground level, displacing all of the lighter elements in our atmosphere. That means that at ground level, the only gas would be CO2 and therefore you wouldn't be able to breath without oxygen. So you understand what you're trying to insist as reality doesn't actually work the way you want it to?

If left undisturbed, CO2 does sink lower to the ground than oxygen, although they both form separate exponential profiles (it's not like the bottom half of a volume is 100% CO2 while the top half is 100% oxygen - they both have distributions that tail off exponentially with height - it's just that the CO2 /oxygen density ratio is higher at the bottom of a large undisturbed container than at the top). For example, in large grain silos where CO2 can chemically build up, the CO2 sinks more to the bottom. A worker who walks directly into the bottom of the silo may find that he has too much CO2/not enough oxygen and can't breath properly. From the Penn State agricultural website:

"Like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide is heavier than air so the highest concentration of gas is typically located at the silage surface, which is the area where a person will be going if they need to enter the silo for any reason."

Out in the open atmosphere, there is enough motion in the air to keep the oxygen and carbon dioxide mixed up. This motion of the air mostly comes from convection currents (i.e. wind) caused by temperature differences. But if you go up high enough in the atmosphere, the temperature differences even out enough that the vertical mixing becomes insignificant. The higher part of the atmosphere does indeed have the different molecules settle out to different altitudes depending on their density. The altitude that marks the point separating the part of the atmosphere that is mixed and the higher part of the atmosphere that is not mixed is called the turbopause. In the region above the turbopause, hydrogen and helium are the lightest and form the highest parts of the atmosphere. Oxygen is heavier and is farther down in this region. The turbopause is at about 13 km above Earth's surface, which is above the highest mountain, but below where many airplanes fly.

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Vector99


go get a balloon blow it up with co2 ... you exhale the stuff so not to complex now let the balloon float up to the upper layer of the atmosphere ... see the problem


I'm surprised no one mentioned this but it's really logical like no kidding I know this i have always known this ... yet I never questioned co2 being lighter than air

Inhaled air is 0.04% CO2
Exhaled air is 4% CO2
Composition of air is still predominantly (96%+) Nitrogen and Oxygen either way.

The global temperatures are driven by volcano ash and large asteroid strike debris shading the sun, ice ages usually follow such a major event. Might be possible to micromanage global warming effects over a short 30 year period. The oceans don't rise that much but as we have seen with the hurricanes this year more people are building houses lower closer to the flood planes.

At least mount Agung hasn't contributed much ash yet.

www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: Cauliflower

The global temperatures are driven by volcano ash and large asteroid strike debris shading the sun, ice ages usually follow such a major event.

You mean glacial periods? No, they seem to have more to do with orbital and axial variations.

While large volcanic eruptions (and large asteroid strikes) can indeed have effects on climate, the products of such events (dust, sulfates) don't persist in the atmosphere for long. CO2 does.

With much less CO2 the world would be a colder place. Some is good, more is not better. Maybe we can hope for an asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions to cool things down?

a reply to: Phage

I guess it depends who you ask.
While we cannot know for sure, there's plenty of guessing as to what happened around 535 A.D.
Certainly, these volcanic events could affect weather for years.
en.wikipedia.org...–536

FTR, I have read the David Keys book that is cited.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Certainly, these volcanic events could affect weather for years.

The claim was this:

ice ages usually follow such a major event.

Did vast areas undergo glaciation in those years?


I said that climate could be affected in the short term. I said that it would be groovy if something like that happened to cool thing down a bit.

a reply to: Phage

Probably not a major ice age, but global dimming, disruption of crops, extreme weather.
I read the books many years ago, but don't remember glacial issues....but then history was spotty.

And define, short term?
10 years?
50?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Short term, ten years or so.

The Pinatubo eruption affected northern hemisphere temperatures for a couple of years. Sulphates and dust don't last. CO2 does.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Outlier13

So with all of the above data being collected and widely disseminated long before the false man-made global warming narrative came along I'm supposed to believe that somehow in the past 227 years (Industrial Revolution began in 1790) that man has somehow been able to dramatically alter and disrupt an entire global weather system to such a degree that we are going to cause an ice age?

That narrative is for idiots.

Ignoring that and dismissing thousands of scientific analysis is typical of the anti science ignorance that pervades the west

Contradict yourself much?

Let me get this straight then. You want to completely ignore the documented scientific evidence I provided in favor of false agenda scientific analysis skewed to support a BS narrative? And you're saying I have an anti-science ignorance? lol ...

I was surprised it took one you so long to pop up with this ridiculous rebuttal. Show me the scientific data that supports man made global warming. Seriously...show me. Don't give me some half baked opinion piece. Show me the correlation data between man burning fossil fuels and how it can create an ice age or destroy our planet.

A 9.3 mile wide asteroid / comet / meteor hits our planet, kills 75% of all vegetable and animal life and in the 227 years man has been burning fossil fuels we are somehow going to cause mass destruction and the death of our planet?

So the inclusion of the data from the EPICA ice cores I referenced only goes back 800,000 years. That means anything before that is one big guess. And even the interpretation of the ice cores has a +/- of 14.5% error rate. Do you have any idea how massive an error rate that is and what that can correlate to?

But hey mate...keep believing whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Check this out...man is SO insignificant...

a reply to: Outlier13

So the inclusion of the data from the EPICA ice cores I referenced only goes back 800,000 years. That means anything before that is one big guess. And even the interpretation of the ice cores has a +/- of 14.5% error rate. Do you have any idea how massive an error rate that is and what that can correlate to? 

Is it really 14.5% error?

Why is it that that statistic is never revealed or emphasized?

a reply to: liejunkie01

Why is none of the data I posted ever revealed in the MSM or emphasized?

Because it completely debunks the myth of man-made global warming.

Here's another very simple and basic observation where again I emphasize the aspect of critical thinking.

How is it these thousands of "climate scientists" are able to make supposedly remarkable predictions on the future of our global weather patterns based off of the false narrative of man-made global warming yet none of them can predict local weather patterns with any level of accuracy past 3 days? A week out and you might as well be throwing darts at a weather board in the dark. Yet somehow these same scientists expect us to believe they can predict GLOBAL weather patterns years and decades out? Laughable.

I've been saying this for years... CO2 is heavier than air, so it tends to sink. This is actually a big design consideration in greenhouse design.

Of course, the atmosphere is not static like a greenhouse. Wind currents continually mix the atmosphere, and volcanoes can shoot gases upward easily. Even respiration puts hot CO2 in the air where it will lift somewhat until it cools. CO2 concentration is a constant battle between the different forces and sources and sinks. The 0.04% figure is an average.

So I would expect to find areas of CO2 concentration in relatively high altitudes. I would not expect the amount of CO2 at high elevations to be equal to those at lower elevations on a consistent basis. We are talking about a dynamic planet, not a laboratory.

The comparisons to Venus are ridiculous, btw. A different orbit, a different heat balance, and a different history.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Outlier13

If you can't understand that there is a huge difference between Climate and local weather patterns you might want to visit a library.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I've been saying this for years... CO2 is heavier than air, so it tends to sink. This is actually a big design consideration in greenhouse design.

Of course, the atmosphere is not static like a greenhouse. Wind currents continually mix the atmosphere, and volcanoes can shoot gases upward easily. Even respiration puts hot CO2 in the air where it will lift somewhat until it cools. CO2 concentration is a constant battle between the different forces and sources and sinks. The 0.04% figure is an average.

So I would expect to find areas of CO2 concentration in relatively high altitudes. I would not expect the amount of CO2 at high elevations to be equal to those at lower elevations on a consistent basis. We are talking about a dynamic planet, not a laboratory.

The comparisons to Venus are ridiculous, btw. A different orbit, a different heat balance, and a different history.

TheRedneck

CO2 concentration does somewhat decrease with height, but only by a little:

Notice in this chart, that CO2 is approximately 20ppm less (Δ ~= 5%) at 80km compared to 0km (sea level). This one is from satellite measurements.

They also have sampled it with aircraft and balloon, such as this study from March 2017 using data from Jan - Mar 2000, which had a mean surface CO2 ppm of 369.81. If you examine the actual article, you will see charts that show a change in altitude versus CO2 ppm (figures 5a-d on p3869); CO2 ppm in the vertical column from 0km to above 30km differ by less than 10ppm (Δ = less than 3%).

While CO2 does favor the surface, the observations of only small vertical deviation for the vast majority of atmospheric mass supports the idea that it is very well mixed.

Can we agree that the article in the OP is complete bull# now? I mean it says idiotic things like this:

We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming

Along with being wrong about CO2 "high in the atmosphere," CO2 will absorb and reemit infrared radiation all through the vertical column - that's simple physics. This absorption/reemission can happen all the way down near the surface, which it is - and that's part of the reason the stratosphere is cooling. Energy input = energy output, and the input from the Sun hasn't changed; what's changed is the distribution of energy nearer to the surface, which changes the temperature of the atmospheric layers to increase at the surface but decrease higher in the atmosphere.

Re volcanoes - remember that one in Iceland that grounded flights over northern europe mainly (so most air traffic was still flying)

www.theguardian.com...

A larger effect on the atmosphere, though still small in global terms, comes from the mass-grounding of European flights over the past few days. According to the Environmental Transport Association, by the end of today the flight ban will have prevented the emission of some 2.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide since the first flights were grounded. The volcanic eruption has released carbon dioxide, but the amount is dwarfed by the savings. Based on readings taken by scientists during the first phase of Eyjafjallajokull activity last month, the website Information is Beautiful calculated the volcano has emitted about 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day. Worldwide, the US Geological Survey says volcanoes produce about 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

www.iata.org...

Some facts on aviation and climate change  Air transport accounts for 2% of global man-made CO2 emissions. In 2016, flights worldwide produced 815 million tonnes of CO2; globally

So volcanoes emit around 200m tonnes of CO2 and the IATA admit to air traffic CO2 being 815m tonnes which as above is 2% of total human emissions meaning that globally we are adding just over 4T tonnes of CO2 ANNUALLY!

Then add in all the other crap we are pumping into the atmosphere via industry - i lean towards we are affecting the atmosphere more than most people think/like to admit.

edit to add

Global atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×10 18 kg (Lide, David R. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1996: 14-7) and if my arith is right 4t is 4x10 12 is roughly 1/100,000th of that (0.001%) so in 40 years we through air traffic alone are going to add 0.04 of atmospheric weight in CO2.

a reply to: johnb
Your math is slightly off, it would be about 41 billion tonnes (1 billion tonnes = 1 gigatonne) annually, rather than 4 trillion tonnes. This figure is pretty close to our annually estimated CO2 emissions.

Actual CO2 ppm is not quite increasing that much, as natural sinks are absorbing a fair portion of our emissions (example from a few years back):

originally posted by: Greven
...here's some math for you:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

That's only a partial representation of humanity's estimated emissions for the year, since the biosphere is still acting as a net sink.
...
So, let's look at historical data
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2000 mean: 368.80 ppm = h
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2010 mean: 388.58 ppm = i
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2000 (a * (c / b) * h): 2884.2134 Gt = j
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2010 (a * (c / b) * i): 3038.9036 Gt = k
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (k - j): 154.6902 Gt
An increase of 15.46902 Gt/yr (2000-2010). Compare that with the 22.6842 Gt/yr increase from 2014-2015.

On the other hand, atmospheric CO2 ppm has risen from July 2015 average of 401.61 ppm to July 2017 average of 407.25 ppm (note that ppm means parts per million, so 407.25ppm = 0.00040725).

We could calculate from the above that atmospheric CO2 was approximately 3140.805 gigatonnes in July 2015, and rose to 3192.627 gigatonnes in July 2017, a change of 51.778 gigatonnes over 2 years or an annual average of 25.889 gigatonnes over those years. Notice that this is higher than the older calculations above.

a reply to: Greven

Notice in this chart, that CO2 is approximately 20ppm less (Δ ~= 5%) at 80km compared to 0km (sea level). This one is from satellite measurements.

And it shows a lot of variability, which is what I would expect.

They also have sampled it with aircraft and balloon, such as this study from March 2017 using data from Jan - Mar 2000, which had a mean surface CO2 ppm of 369.81.

I did examine the report. They took no independent readings. The study was an attempt to resolve the observations of the Brewer-Dobson circulation model with the observations of both satellite and balloon readings, using a LaGrangian transform analysis.

While CO2 does favor the surface, the observations of only small vertical deviation for the vast majority of atmospheric mass supports the idea that it is very well mixed.

See, here's my problem with these kinds of studies...

Thus far,we have only one method of measuring CO2 concentration (that I am aware of), and that is via the very absorption characteristics which have caused it to be labelled a "greenhouse gas." That is, the detectors measure a specific frequency of EM radiation that corresponds to the CO2 absorption spectra. The data is then analyzed,comparing that particular wavelength with other wavelengths that are detected,and an estimate of CO2 concentration is arrived at. That's the best method we have, because CO2 has no other detectable differentiation from other molecules like O2 or N2.

But it has issues.

CO2 is not the only gas that absorbs energy in that wavelength. Notably, water vapor absorbs it as well, along with a massive bandwidth to either side. Now, that still leaves CO2 spectra visible as a dip in the detected spectrum, but it also brings a certain amount of questions about accuracy. How much of tat spectra was present in the original spectrum? We assume it would be roughly equal to any other spectra, but that is an assumption. Are there any other gases which could, in the right combination, increase or decrease the dip? Also, while we know there was likely a spectra absorption between source and detector, we have no way to know where along the path of the EM radiation this absorption occurred. This is compensated for by taking angular measurements to compare two or more readings along different trajectories to interpolate the concentration at the position at which these paths converge.

All that introduces inaccuracy.

I am not saying the observations are wrong, mind you. I am saying only that they are not proven 100% accurate,and that there is a certain amount of uncertainty in them... which actually indicates that a LaGrangian analysis would be a good idea.

Can we agree that the article in the OP is complete bull# now? I mean it says idiotic things like this:

I will agree that it is highly biased, just as most non-journal reports are highly biased in the other direction.

Along with being wrong about CO2 "high in the atmosphere," CO2 will absorb and reemit infrared radiation all through the vertical column - that's simple physics.

Of course it will. As long as a CO2 molecule is in the path of a photon with the right energy, that photon can be absorbed and re-emitted. It makes no difference in that context if it happened 0.01 cm above the ground or 1000 meters high.

My post was not saying anything more than that I have been stating exactly what this report shows, as well as what your reports show, for many years now. CO2 is denser than air, so its natural tendency is to sink. That tendency does not mean it will not become mixed in the atmosphere due to wind patterns and heating anomalies. I will admit some surprise at the amount of mixing that takes place in the initial atmospheric layers, but that does not mean it does not happen. I would be even more surprised if this mixing occurred well above the wind patterns, however. That would necessitate the question of what mechanism is responsible for the mixing.

And I still maintain that CO2 is not harming the planet, regardless of where it happens to be.

TheRedneck