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?
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.
Agreed. 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.
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."
I thought about it but then decided to leave it in. It's best to understand how people think. Those things are based on models which have been a complete failure. They can't even predict the PAST!
Just as it did with the whole covid debacle, the climate hoax is beginning to unravel.
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?
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.
Agreed. 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.
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."
TAke that idiots guesstimate graph out at the end.
The greenland ice core says it all.
So does the word Greenland.
I thought about it but then decided to leave it in. It's best to understand how people think. Those things are based on models which have been a complete failure. They can't even predict the PAST!
And yet people still buy it.
Shaking my head.
I give up on people. They are sheep. And the wolves have almost finished swallowing us all.
love this. dave