Climate Change and The Miracle Molecule, Part 4
Dr. Setty charged me with an important task.
In the comments section of Part 3 of my Miracle Molecule series, Dr. Madhava Setty requested the following of me. Here it is in his own words:
“Really concise summary Dr. Sheftall.
What do you believe are the best arguments for the CO2 driven warming model? Despite the tsunami of propaganda that comes up when you do any kind of search, their actual analysis is hidden or deeply embedded some place.
I am presently writing a position paper on this and would like to be able to dismantle their arguments point by point. Any idea where to look?”
My reply: “I'll look into this but I may not find any coherent arguments on the side of the CO2 driven climate model. Most of the recent climate change has been due to waves of heat energy going from equatorial regions to the poles because the sun light has a more direct impact on the equators (compared to the glancing blow at the poles). This, of course has nothing to do with heating by the greenhouse effect. I think looking into the IPCC papers might bear some fruit.”
He went on to say in a follow-up comment, “I was able to find and examine their position with regard to “climate sensitivity”, ie how much will temperature change if CO2 doubles, which is the parameter that drives their hypothesis. It’s about 3 degrees Celsius. The real question is how do they estimate it?
It seems that they are assuming that CO2 is causing warming from the jump. It also seems that they are using cherry picked periods where temperature and CO2 are positively correlated.
As you have shown in your article, they’re not always positively correlated.
Furthermore they have seemed to ignore the fact that temperature largely moves independent of CO2 from other well established mechanisms.”
My reply: “Dr. Setty, I have a hard time believing that temperature will rise by 3 degrees if the CO2 doubles. it has risen about 2 degrees F while the CO2 has risen 50 % so I am assuming you mean degrees C. BUT CO2 increases temperature in a very non-linear fashion depending on its concentration in the atmosphere.
Here's what I'll do. I'll devote a post today to this property of CO2. It's very interesting and it may be the argument you need to refute their claims as you requested in your first comment.
Look for the post this evening. It will be very short and composed of one graph only.
CO2 release follows temperature increases, not the other way around.
It takes some time, too. The oceans are the biggest reservoir of CO2. It takes a long time to heat them up but when they do get heated adequately, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The vibrational modes of the C-O bonds in CO2 do absorb infrared radiation and reradiate in in all directions causing a net retention of heat in the atmosphere but it is a small contributor compared to other causes of atmospheric heating. On top of all of this, the temperature measuring devices and methods have been and continue to be deeply flawed. My next few posts will uncover and explain this. They sport error bars that are an order of magnitude less than what is inherent in temperature measuring under controlled conditions in the lab. The bottom line is, because of the enormous error bars, you can't even be sure there has been warming although it is likely. Problem after problem created by , if I may be blunt, "NGO scientists."“
Here is the graph I referred to in my comments. It shows yet another characteristic of CO2 that accrues to our benefit. In fact it is lifesaving
This graph tells us that the effect of single CO2 molecules on temperature diminishes exponentially as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
Given the tiny effect CO2 has on temperature at present levels, imagine it doubling 4 times from its present level. From its present concentration of 420 ppm, it would be 6,720 ppm. Would the temperature go up 3 degrees C every time it doubled meaning it would be 12 degrees hotter than it is now? History says, “NO!” The temperature might even go down. Look at what has happened in the last 180 years. The CO2 has more than doubled while the temperature has gone down for 68 and 32 year stretches. This shows there are much more important drivers of temperature than atmospheric CO2 levels. Earth’s orbit and Cloud cover come to mind as far more important than a weak (almost negligible ) greenhouse gas present in only trace amounts in the atmosphere.
Why has CO2 gone up so much? We know it didn’t come from increasing emissions. It came from the oceans primarily with other contributions from volcanos and CO2 release from the permafrost as it thaws. Does it matter? According to physics and history, no.
I haven’t proved anything tonight and I haven’t helped Dr. Setty. I will keep looking. The best I have is what I presented last night. I would counter the people who claim doubling the CO2 will increase the temperature by 3 degrees C by saying, “Please show me many instances where that has happened in the past. That is not possible.
My Fish Tank and the Little Dying Aquatic Plants
This year, I bought a fish tank and populated it with cute tropical fishes. My kids asked me to add soil and aquatic plants to make it more like the real environment. At first, I was hesitant, but I eventually agreed.
However, my enthusiasm quickly waned as the plants began to die. Within 10 to 15 days, they were all shriveled and brown. I was distraught. I had no idea what I was doing wrong.
In desperation, I turned to my local fish vendor for help. He listened patiently to my woes and then said, "You need a tank of CO2."
"CO2?" I repeated in disbelief. "But I thought CO2 was bad for the environment."
"Not in this case," he explained. "CO2 is essential for plant growth. Without it, plants will eventually die."
I was skeptical, but I was also desperate. I bought a tank of CO2 and attached it to the side of my fish tank. Then, I turned the valve on.
Within days, I began to see a difference. The plants perked up and started to grow again. Within a few weeks, they were thriving. Their leaves were lush and green, and they were covered in vibrant flowers.
I was amazed. I had never seen my plants look so good. I realized that my fish vendor was right. CO2 is the gas of life, after all.
Now, my fish tank is a lush oasis of aquatic plants. My kids love it. They spend hours watching the fish swim among the vibrant green leaves. I'm so glad that I listened to my fish vendor and added CO2 to my tank. It was the best decision I ever made.
CO2: The Fuel for Life
CO2 is essential for life on Earth. Plants use it to photosynthesize, which is the process by which they convert sunlight into energy. This energy is then used to grow and produce food. Without CO2, plants would not be able to survive, and neither would we.
In addition to plants, CO2 is also essential for other life forms. For example, corals use CO2 to build their skeletons. And plankton, which are tiny organisms that live in the ocean, use CO2 to produce oxygen.
CO2 is truly the gas of life. It is essential for the survival of all plants and animals on Earth.
A Lesson in Resilience
My experience with my fish tank taught me a valuable lesson about resilience. When faced with challenges, it's important to be persistent and to seek out solutions. I was determined to save my plants, and I eventually found a solution in CO2.
If I can save my plants, anyone can. So if you're facing challenges in your own life, don't give up. Keep searching for solutions, and eventually you will find them. (text embellished by Bard)
Yes, the non-linear effect of CO2 on temperature is key. I found the citation on the CO2 coalition website. Z(C) is the "flux to space" across varying CO2 concentrations. I am confused about how that relates to warming though. If energy is being radiated from the Earth to Space at diminishing levels as CO2 rises doesn't that imply that more heat will be retained?