The real question concerning C02?

a reply to: Nathan-D
I don't think any correlation between Earths climate and Mars climate is valid. Please look up Van Allen belt. The Earths got one but Mars hasn't.

a reply to: crayzeed

But the ability of CO2 to act as greenhouse gas and and retain heat should be a constant and repeatable. Then if you compare Mars, Earth, and Venus, I would think a model based on PPM CO2 should be able to be created. Then the warming and heat retention model generated from the known properties of CO2 vs PPM should match the historical data of Earth if the warming is mostly from CO2 as claimed.

Flawed Climate Models

by David R. Henderson, Charles L. Hooper
Tuesday, April 4, 2017

www.hoover.org...

The atmosphere is about 0.8˚ Celsius warmer than it was in 1850. Given that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen 40 percent since 1750 and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a reasonable hypothesis is that the increase in CO2 has caused, and is causing, global warming.

But a hypothesis is just that. We have virtually no ability to run controlled experiments, such as raising and lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere and measuring the resulting change in temperatures. What else can we do? We can build elaborate computer models that use physics to calculate how energy flows into, through, and out of our planet’s land, water, and atmosphere. Indeed, such models have been created and are frequently used today to make dire predictions about the fate of our Earth.

The problem is that these models have serious limitations that drastically limit their value in making predictions and in guiding policy. Specifically, three major problems exist. They are described below, and each one alone is enough to make one doubt the predictions. All three together deal a devastating blow to the forecasts of the current models.

It’s all CO2’s fault? Again, what is the proof a 400 ppm increase of CO2 really caused the .8 degree Celsius increase in a already dense and insulating atmosphere containing stronger greenhouse gases?

How much would the suns output have to change to raise the atmosphere by .8 degrees Celsius? Probably a fraction of a percent that is with in the error of instrument measurement of the sun’s generated energy?

Am I saying not to limit emissions, no. But how can you ignore the increased rate of deforestation, the large spike in sites that produced waste heat that impact the environment and increase water vapor. Urban crawl, and increased areas covered by pavement and concrete.


I would think the below would negate any measurable .8 degree Celsius increase from CO2

Why the City Is (Usually) Hotter than the Countryside

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Air conditioning, for example, can raise temperatures by more than 1°C, Arizona State University researchers reported last month.

And

Because of the “urban heat island” effect, cities of a million or more people can be 1–3°C (1.8–5.4°F) warmer on average—and as much as 12°C (22°F) warmer in the evening—than the surrounding area, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

a reply to: neutronflux

Probably a fraction of a percent that is with in the error of instrument measurement of the sun’s generated energy?

It would probably require an increase of irradiance of about 5 watts per square meter, about 0.3%. Quite significant and measurable. There are satellites which are more than capable of such measurements. They can easily detect the changes associated with the Solar cycle (about 0.1%).

Thing is, the Sun has been cooling down (a tiny bit) for a while. Meanwhile temperatures have been rising.

lasp.colorado.edu...

The Sun did apparently warm up (a tiny bit) between 1880 and 1980. About 0.03%. Enough to raise temperatures by about 0.1º over that time span.

I would think the below would negate any measurable .8 degree Celsius increase from CO2

Not really. There is a lot more surface of the Earth which is not urban than is. Oceans, polar regions.

a reply to: Phage

Not really. There is a lot more surface of the Earth which is not urban than is. Oceans, polar regions.

That depends on where and what historical temperatures are used?

What was determined about the supposed scandal concerning how locations were picked and what temperatures were used for determining the actual historical average temperature of earth from year to year?

a reply to: neutronflux

That depends on where and what historical temperatures are used?

First you accepted that 0.8º value, now you question it?

What was determined about the supposed scandal concerning how locations were picked and what temperatures were used for determining the actual historical average temperature of earth from year to year?

"Climategate?" That it was nonsense. Cherry picked, out of context email quotes.

This may be of interest though.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

www.nytimes.com...

Here is the website of Muller's group. All data, coding, and results are public.

Berkeley Earth is independently operated, funded primarily by unrestricted educational grants. We pursue objectivity without concern for policies of government, industry or philanthropic ventures.

berkeleyearth.org...

a reply to: Phage

One, you still didn’t address how sites are picked for assessing global averages.

Two, urban heat islands do create heating not related to CO2.

Three, I don’t deny people engage in activities that case the earth to warmup up. Nor do I deny the effects of greenhouse gases.

Four, I still maintain:
“The real question concerning C02 is,”At what concentration of CO2 is great enough in Earth’s atmosphere to notability effect how much heat is retained by an already dense and insulating atmosphere?”

Bad science is: “the earth’s temperature is rising because we can prove CO2 increased from ice core samples.”

Good Science is: “using the known properties of CO2, we created a model where the earth’s average temperature will increase this much by every 50 ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We understand the greenhouse effect by comparing Venus, Earth, and Mars. Historical temperatures and historical CO2 levels as captured by Ice Core samples shows the model to be about 70 percent correct for the historical temperature trend.”

Show me a model that bases the Earth’s increase in average temperatures solely on CO2 that accurately models past temperatures, and accurately predicts future temperatures. Especially in the context of articles like, “Carbon Dioxide: The No. 1 Greenhouse Gas”

a reply to: neutronflux

One, you still didn’t address how sites are picked for assessing global averages.

It depends upon the model, but in general it is stations which have records of long duration and consitency. GISS, for example:
data.giss.nasa.gov...

Two, urban heat islands do create heating not related to CO2.

Yes. And the affect is accounted for in temperature models. Including those of Muller, et. al.

Show me a model that bases the Earth’s increase in average temperatures solely on CO2 that accurately models past temperatures, and accurately predicts future temperatures.

CO2 is not the sole cause but it is the primary one. The warming caused by CO2 causes other "feedback" effects which increase warming, e.g.increased water vapor content, reduced albedo in the Arctic.

The models vary, of course, but as far as getting the trend correct most are doing quite well.

www.realclimate.org...

a reply to: Phage

Are the trends based solely on CO2 and it’s properties. Or the models you are referencing fiddled with to make them conform to past data and current trends.

The models should be able to be generated independently of “cheating” by using past data. The models should be based solely on the properties of CO2. Not temps are coming up, its got to be C02, make the CO2 magical fit past and current trends.

Please show or cite a study where even a 200 ppm increase in CO2 would create noticeable heat retention in the earth’s atmosphere.

a reply to: Phage

Anyone can tweek a graph to show a relationship.

True Fact: The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming
www.forbes.com...

The real science would be:
Please show or cite a study where even a 200 ppm increase in CO2 would create noticeable heat retention in the earth’s atmosphere.

a reply to: neutronflux

The models are based primarily on increased radiative forcing due to increasing CO2 concentrations, yes. They are not "fiddled" with to fit the data, but as more is learned about how climate works they are adjusted. That site I linked shows that even early models did a good job of predicting the trend. As the models are refined, they still do.

Please show or cite a study where even a 200 ppm increase in CO2 would create noticeable heat retention in the earth’s atmosphere.

Here's one from 1975.
CO2

Another from the same period.
CO2

Anyone can tweek a graph to show a relationship.

That is not what is done.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, that is the kind of study I was referring to.

So, was the study accurate in their predictions?

a reply to: neutronflux

Why take my word for it?
Read them and see.

a reply to: Phage

That is not what is done.

Then why are articles based on studies that are more predictions based off historical temperatures and historical CO2 levels not more transparent about their origins. Vs studies that try to generate a model off the actual greenhouse properties of CO2? Then see if that model actually fits past and current temperatures?

a reply to: Phage

Your the expert, lead the way.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why rely on articles about studies when you can refer to the studies themselves?

a reply to: Phage

I guess the study you invoked is not worth quoting or summing up its conclusions? Vs actual present day temperatures? Then why would I spend time on that study?

a reply to: neutronflux

Whoops, where did that goalpost get to now? This is what you requested.

Please show or cite a study where even a 200 ppm increase in CO2 would create noticeable heat retention in the earth’s atmosphere.

I showed you 2. Would you like some more?

a reply to: Phage

I am not moving any goal post, I just simple asked

“
So, was the study accurate in their predictions?

“

So, I guess you provided studies that are not worth citing ?

Or

Or did not accurately product the current .8 Celsius temperature increase?

I actual posted this thread in earnest. With hope somebody would “school” on the subject. It’s up to you if want to be open and free flowing with information.

I guess sorry you don’t have a study worth quoting?

Up to you if you want to post something worth summarizing or quoting?

Catch you on the flip side.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am not moving any goal post, I just simple asked...

Yes. After you asked this.

Please show or cite a study where even a 200 ppm increase in CO2 would create noticeable heat retention in the earth’s atmosphere.

After I provided that, 2 studies which show such an increase would indeed create a noticeable effect, you then said:

So, was the study accurate in their predictions?

That is a moving of goalposts.

I guess sorry you don’t have a study worth quoting?

I guess you're too lazy or not interested enough to learn something by reading the studies.

Catch you on the flip side.

Or not. Since you seem more concerned with maintaining your level of confirmation bias. Since it seems you aren't really interested in what the science is.

a reply to: Phage

And I thank you for providing the studies.

Again, the simple question I asked was
“
So, was the study accurate in their predictions?

”

And again,”I actual posted this thread in earnest. With hope somebody would “school” on the subject. It’s up to you if want to be open and free flowing with information. ’


Let’s go with a starting 270 ppm with a doubling being 540 ppm. We are at 400 pm now. We have a CO2 change that is roughly 24 percent of doubling. I think the one stud claimed a doubling of the CO2 should result in a 3.6 degree temperature increase. (Or was the 70’s study referencing a 60’s study?)

24 percent of a 3.6 degree change, just going for a quick linear thumb rule, wound be .894 percent vs .8. So, I would say the study was about 89 percent accurate compared to current cited measurements.