Posted on 02/25/2019 7:49:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The non-warming of the climate has become a topic much discussed since about 2005. John Christy has testified to Congress about the "gap" between IPCC climate models, which are based on steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and observations of atmospheric temperatures, measured by both satellites and radiosondes, 1978-2015 (see Christy fig. below).
There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy, ranging from a flat denial that such a gap exists (Tom Karl, Science, 2015, pp. 1,469-1,472, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5632) to attempts to account for the "missing incoming energy." For example, Kevin Trenberth has proposed that the missing energy, instead of warming the atmosphere, "hides" in the deep ocean, to be released later.
Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing (Myhre et al., GRL, 1998, vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908) and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize that this explanation is unacceptable to the IPCC and to many climate-warming advocates. I believe that the "gap," now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider that the "pause" may be permanent.
I also believe that the gap will continue to grow in the future and demonstrate a convincing empirical argument supporting my explanation — namely, that CO2 no longer affects the climate, except perhaps at the slow level of its log-dependence.
This log-dependence has to be modified (1) by CO2 cooling of the climate and (2) by possible positive feedback from water vapor, as assumed by the IPCC.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It’s really Water Vapor
Don’t forget another of my personal favorites:
The Ocean ate my global warming.
No really! It seems the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide! Who knew? It turns out there are these things called “carbon sinks” that absorb a massive amount of CO2 which we climate scientists knew absolutely nothing about until our models failed miserably. It’s OK. We’ve got it now. We have all the answers....this time. You can trust us and heed our words when we tell you to spend tens of trillions of dollars on this thing. Oh we can’t actually y’know, prove it via the scientific method. But this is our opinion. So trust us! I mean it!
And....it’s snowing AGAIN here today
Global warming is nothing more than a UN and NWO con...always was.
Local temperatures are running 10 to 20 deg. below “normal” for at least the last month. Apparently this departure is likely to continue for another month, no matter how much gas I can burn in the SUV.
R.I.P Green Screw Deal
Where?
Without going back to research it I cannot remember the exact numbers. But the gist of it is human activity is contributing an extremely small percentage of the carbon dioxide that is generated every year naturally.
That percentage is statistically insignificant. Were we to destroy much of the human race and cut that statistically insignificant percentage in half, it would have no effect whatsoever.
In other words if the tiny amount of carbon dioxide that we contribute is enough to tip the scales, then we may as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye. Because we would essentially have to wipe out the human race and that itself would not change the CO2 in the atmosphere significantly.
The Greenhouse theory was always just hot air.
The Sun is the source of all heat on earth.
When it varies we get warmer or colder.
It’s the Sunspots...or rather the lack of them.
That’s ok. Volcanos will solve all of it
They know how to fleece the gullible.
It was patently obvious that the earth had buffer systems preventing runaway catastrophic warming. The 5 Ice Ages suggest that, if not prove it outright. If CO2 created runaway warming, we could never have had the 1st Ice Age.
D’oh!
This is too easy. It is like the flat earth people who can’t make the easy instant deduction that a flat earth could not cause a total eclipse of the moon or sun, let alone that ocean tides generated by lunar activity would not work on a disc.
It often takes the logic of a 6 year old to figure this stuff out. You have to be a full blown adult to get so convoluted you will fall for anything.
CO2 makes up .04% of the earth’s atmosphere (that’s 4/100 of 1%). Man is responsible for about 3% of the .04%. I’ll leave it to the math whizzes to compute man’s contribution, but needless to say if we eliminated all of the CO2 that comes from mankind, it would have a negligible impact.
Yep. Trust them. The science is settled. You betcha!
wow...on top of this:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/earths-atmosphere-far-larger-than-scientists-had-believed/
who is going to be first to admit the models suck ?
Great News! Let’s pop the cork on some champagne to celebrate. Lots and lots and lots of champagne.
“CO2 makes up .04% of the earth’s atmosphere (that’s 4/100 of 1%). Man is responsible for about 3% of the .04%”
Yeah but if the atmosphere ever gets to 0.05%, every tree on the planet will spontaneously combust. And that 0.01% increase has 1000 times more heat capacity than the ocean, plus it will get stuck in the atmosphere because infrared radiation .(ie heat) does not penatrate the ocean surface further than a milimeter or two unlike short wave solar radiation which transfers energy directly from the sun all day every day into the tropical oceans hundreds of feet down which drives currents to moves that heat all around the world and up to the poles, but those trillions of joules of energy contained in a material with a huge specific heat just cant hold a candle to a 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2. Dont even get me started on convection
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.