Carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center ^ | October 14, 2010 | Unknown

[3niner]

None of these models have ever been able to "predict" the past. A model which can "predict" the past may be able to predict the future. One which cannot "predict" the past has no chance of predicting the future.

[exDemMom]

Yet, the decrease in total CO2 over time is projected to make the Earth unliveable sometime in the next 100 million to one billion years.

from: Science Daily

As the sun has matured over the past 4.5 billion years, it has become both brighter and hotter, increasing the amount of solar radiation received by Earth, along with surface temperatures. Earth has coped by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus reducing the warming effect. (Despite current concerns about rising carbon dioxide levels triggering detrimental climate change, the pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has dropped some 2,000-fold over the past 3.5 billion years; modern, man-made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide offset a fraction of this overall decrease.)

I would also add to this that the hypothesis of CO2 forced warming has some major flaws that seem to flout the laws of thermodynamics. First, in order to increase the temperature, the Earth system energy must be somehow increasing over and above what it receives from the sun. Second, the "trapping" of infrared by CO2 is a transient event, on the order of nanoseconds, IIRC. That's just not enough to cause a long, slow increase in temperature--or even a short, rapid increase. Nor is the trapping directional--CO2 absorbs IR coming from any direction and re-emits it in all directions, making the net effect null anyway.

[JaguarXKE]

Wait just a darned minute here! I thought this “fact” was already settled science? Why then are we now hearing about a study that shows what was already known?

[GladesGuru]

Note to all:

Earth once had an atmospheric CO2 level some 10 times present levels.

Temperatures were mild.

Where did all the CO2 go? Well, some of it became limestone. South Florida has about 14,000 feet of limerock beneath it.

[Ole Okie]

Results of modelling?

Bah! Humbug!

[TNoldman]

ping GW

[TigersEye]

That is absolutely absurd. Junk science.

No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)

That article takes Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.

The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'

It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming

Those four articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.

Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

That article pretty much puts the kibosh on any serious trend of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign at all of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? Beyond the centuries long slow warming of the earth and rising of the seas of course. But that is only a few millimeters per century due to the inter-glacial period we are in.

[Nooseman]

Tha fits with the fact that co2 is heavier than air.

[RinaseaofDs]

This is an unscientific pantload.

Water vapor is king - period. NOx would be next. Nitrogen makes up more of a percentage of the atmosphere than CO2.

[GladesGuru]

Considering some of the modell ‘scientists’, perhaps the following might be more accurate: Bah! Humbuggery!

[SunkenCiv]

Nothing new — he’s a global warming demagogue, and has been for a long while. Thanks decimon.

[decimon]

In case I’ve misled, James Hansen is not mentioned in the article.

[Gaffer]

You are right. Meant eats C02. In their eyes
This is a screwup.

[SunkenCiv]

Him too.

[GonzoGOP]

CO2 may not condense, but it sure as heck gets absorbed into water. And most of the Earth is covered with water. If the oceans rise, there would be more surface area to absorb the CO2. A warmer atmosphere would also increase atmospheric pressure, again causing more CO2 to be absorbed. There would be some positive feedback as warm water cannot hold as much CO2 as cold water. But even in a greenhouse Earth you are only going to warm up the surface water, the deep is going to stay cold unless you get the place so hot it would have melted the land.

[justa-hairyape]

Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth's greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

Dear NASA, try reducing the water vapor amount by 30 % in your models. Keep the non-condensing gases at their same current levels. Then rerun your model. Guess what you idiots discovered ? Simply the amount of green house gas concentration loss (condensing or non-condensing) that will cause an ice age.

[Steve Van Doorn]

What gets me is CO2 is at a near record low. If CO2 drops down to 200 ppm plants stop growing and we die. Typically the earth CO2 level is around 3000 ppm.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Where did all the CO2 go?"

We are in an ice age plants in the Ocean and land don't do very well in cold weather (less water and sun light.) they are nearly suffocating from the lack of CO2 right now. As they die CO2 drops.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Where did all the CO2 go?" We are in an ice age plants in the Ocean and land don't do very well in cold weather (less water and sun light.) they are nearly suffocating from the lack of CO2 right now. As they die CO2 drops. (strike that I was thinking of something else.)