Forums & Pictures
Surveys & Archive
1. Copy-n-paste what your question is about from the Member's forum, someones Yes/No forum, or any Member Q&A Dialogue into Question & Answer Dialogue forum; then hit New Topic button and paste your copy in the New Topic box.
2. Put members nicl-(x) number, e.g. nicl-1 or Yes/No persons name in Subject rectangle followed by the subject of question. For a long question, add more at top of Topic box.
3. Remember you take turns, checking an "I agree" or a "this is my last response" ends your part in the dialogue, and the other person gets the last word.
4. Finally, read and reread the Q&A procedures. They are meant to treat both sides of a Dialogue impartially.
Finally, to open another popup, close the old one.
Why rising CO2 levels Can NOT cause global warming.
Joined: Dec 31, 1969
|Post subject: Why rising CO2 levels Can NOT cause global warming.
Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:42 pm
This was first written 12-20-2013, revised 11-11-2015, 11-25-15, 12-2-15.
Tell them what you're going to say.
Given the complete lack of an honest public scientific debate on whether or not CO2 can cause global warming, it is time we do so before we make a deadly for many, expensive for all, public policy decision to reduce CO2 emissions.
This paper explains how the base principle of scientific analysis -causes always occur before effects- applies to how CO2 affects average global temperatures.
1. Why CO2 STOPS absorbing infrared well below 400 ppm;
2. This is explained by the Beer-Lambert Law which predicts that increases in CO2 levels beyond about 100 ppm stop absorbing infrared, ergo can not cause global warming;
3. this prediction is confirmed by 800,000 years of ice core records from both Antarctica and Greenland, which without exception, show that CO2 levels increase on average a thousand years after global temperature increase and start decreasing after global temps fall, ergo CO2levels are an effect not a cause;
4. another confirmation is that there has been no average atmosphere temperature increase for over 18 years while CO2 levels continue to rise;
5. further I explain why CO2 is essential for all plant life and is the best fertilizer for worldwide plant growth especially in deserts.
6. I ask the question Why are AGW proponents not admitting when their facts and science are wrong;
7. which forces this conclusion, AGW proponents are, in reality, anti-environment because when they won't admit when their facts and scientific logic are wrong they show themselves to be wannabe self-serving totalitarians.
Our world does not have time for such childish obtuse behavior.
First, a cause always precedes an effect for it to be a cause. Period. The base principle of scientific analysis.
CO2 increases always occur, without exception, after global temperatures start rising, as 800,000 years of ice core samples show both in Greenland and Antarctica.
as 800,000 years of ice core samples show both in Greenland and Antarctica. These ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by 1200 +/- 700 years and CO2 levels decline after temperature levels start falling.
Page 29 by Burt Rutan. A shorter term graph.
The reason for this is shown by applying the Beer-Lambert Law.
A caveat: This does not mean the planet can not warm or cool by other causes, just that CO2 stops absorbing infrared at under 120 ppm, and so can not further contribute to global warming. A conclusion predicted by the Beer-Lambert Law discovered in the 1790s. I have listed more urls to tests at the bottom confirming the above assertion.
The IPCC claim that there is a 95% consensus among scientists for AGW is false on its face, Peer reviewed survey shows majority of scientists skeptical of AGW.
There are thousands of scientists savaging its latest report. The fact you do not hear these disagreements is a terrible indictment of our major news media. As the above ice core measurements by glaciologists show, there is a 100% certainty that CO2 increases added by Humans can not cause global warming as these increases would violate basic cause and effect. For CO2 increases to be a cause, they must precede the effect, not start increasing hundreds of years after global warming starts as temperature records show. Earth was warmer during the medieval warm period 800 plus years ago when CO2 levels were lower.
The Beer-Lambert Law shows why CO2 has very little to do with global cooling or warming, but CO2 is necessary for all life to exist on Earth. More is better, not less as it is the most powerful global plant fertilizer in existence, especially for deserts.
CO2 caused Global Warming advocates' whole hypothesis rests on a physically impossible assertion, "that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared heat like a sponge with infinite heat capacity". They claim that as CO2 levels have increased in our atmosphere to the present 4/10,000ths(400+ ppm) from the 280 ppm pre-1800, then this increase would start warming the whole planet on a massive scale. Further they predict that further increases in CO2 levels will create massive heat caused disruptions, killing much life on Earth.
However this public assertion is NOT true, NOT possible, in short gross scientific malpractice caused by not starting your analysis from a fixed point of reference, the place from which almost all Earth's infrared originates, its surface. The Beer-Lambert Law is a simple basic gas physics law that describes how infrared radiation is absorbed by any atmospheric gas especially CO2. It describes why increased atmospheric CO2 levels can NOT cause global warming. As the density of gas atoms or molecules increases the first layers absorb the radiation blocking the atoms and molecules in line behind the first layer. Once the density increases beyond a predictable parts per million, the gas can absorb no more radiation.
Thus the Beer-Lambert Law predicts the upper limit on how much infrared energy any gas can absorb. Once you know the ppm for CO2 or any other gas(s) in an atmosphere where 50% of the infrared is absorbed(at 30 ppm for C02 in less than one cubic meter), then the Beer-Lambert Law says you can only absorb another 50% more, or just twice as much. This puts an absolute upper limit on how much infrared energy any gas can absorb. It is flatly, unequivocally, physically impossible for CO2 to absorb anymore infrared starting at around 100 ppm, let alone 400 ppm.
The Beer-Lambert Law works in two ways. First, it predicts how much doubling CO2 levels affects infrared absorption as infrared moves in a straight line through a fixed volume of atmosphere(a cubic meter, actually less); or second, by doubling the distance infrared travels while holding ppm constant. Both ways can and do operate at the same time. In CO2's case using either measurement, starting at 30 ppm and doubling to 400 ppm our present level, or doubling the distance CO2 travels through the atmosphere, all the infrared CO2 can absorb is absorbed well before 400 ppm is reached. It is in fact, an infrared sponge of very small capacity. Any combination of six distance or ppm doubles gets you to over 99% absorption of the infrared. Basic gas physics.
Good scientific analysis always tries to start from a known fixed point of reference. In CO2's absorption of infrared, we start, by inspection, from the common place from which all Earth's infrared originates, its surface. Since the Beer-Lambert Law describes how infrared moves in straight lines up from Earth's surface, the analysis and conclusions are direct and simple.
Here is how the Beer-Lambert Law works.
CO2 absorbs 50% of the infrared it can absorb at 30 ppm after traveling a given distance from the surface through the atmosphere(it is under 1 meter but we could use 100 meters and get the same result), lets stick with one meter, double the ppm to 60 and it absorbs half more of the infrared left, or 75% of the infrared it can absorb, double again to 120 ppm and it absorbs half more of the infrared not yet absorbed or 87.5%.
At 240 ppm = 94.75% of infrared it can absorb.
Obviously at 400 ppm we are at 97%.
In fact, all the infrared radiation CO2 can absorb is absorbed in under 20 meters of atmosphere.
Explaining why absorption occurs in under 20 meters comes from doubling the distance traveled by the infrared. Using 1 meter as our doubling distance unit and holding CO2 levels at 30 PPM, then with four doubles we are at 16 meters absorbing 94.75% of the infrared CO2 can absorb. Since we are at 400 ppm, that is another 4 doubles or 99% plus absorption of infrared.
But lets use a 100 meters as our doubling distance while holding to 30 ppm. At 1600 meters of atmosphere we are at 94.75% absorption of infrared.
CO2 goes up to more than 22,000 meters or 22 kilometers in our atmosphere. Go to page 12 for the graphs showing CO2 levels from 6 to 22 kilometers of altitude. High atmospheric CO2 levels are very close to ground levels.
Ergo above 100 ppm any remaining infrared absorption by CO2 is negligible. However we do get that lovely plant fertilization effect.
Notice changing the initial 30 ppm observation to 200 ppm doesn’t change the argument. We could start at 200 ppm and we would still be at not 75% absorption at 400 ppm but 100%. Again that's because of the 22 plus kilometers of distance infrared must travel through the atmosphere.
Measurements of average global temperature confirm this. Average Earth temperatures have not risen for 18 years. This puts all present CO2 caused global warming models well below their predicted temperature range. This result is predicted by the Beer-Lambert Law because it says that any CO2 greenhouse effect has long ago topped out, as all the possible infrared CO2 can absorb has been absorbed long before we reached 400 ppm.
In addition, man caused additions to CO2 levels have always been a very small percentage of all natural greenhouse gasses cycled yearly on Earth. About 0.28%. This trivial amount can only hold a tiny fraction of the heat energy necessary to warm Earth as the warmists predict.
Those of you who say man's emissions of CO2 cause global warming must show us that the Beer-Lambert Law does not hold for CO2 infrared absorption, which would mean chemistry professors would have to stop teaching the Law, or Global Warming advocates can admit your arguments for CO2 caused global warming are shown by basic physics to be impossible.
When you are talking policies that would leave a third or more of Earth's population without the benefits of the energy produced by fossil fuels that we in the developed world enjoy, then Global Warming advocates have an absolute obligation to get your facts straight about how much infrared CO2 can absorb at 400 ppm = ALL it possibly can; before you advocate policies absolutely contradicted by basic physics.
Measurements show that what infrared CO2 does absorb is trivial compared to water vapor in the rest of atmosphere.
Since President Obama and the IPCC are pushing public policies that would inflict massive tax increases and regulations restricting the single greatest positive input for increasing vegetation levels on Earth which is CO2 = the food we eat, their NOT true assertion must be exposed and challenged before their bad policies actually do kill some of us.
After all, since 'CO2 caused global warming advocates' claim to be doing this for the common good, then you have to be glad when your dire predictions are shown to be physically impossible.
Two words are supposed to come out of your mouth when someone demonstrates that your facts are wrong. They are, "Thank you!" When is the last bad measurement you used for free?
As of this date, however, when you show most warming advocates their facts are wrong they call you names, get angry, and stomp away. Right now, that behavior applies to way to many of us opining on any subject. Such behavior is the sign of a dishonest and immature civilization. It is about time we grew up.
Tests: A spectroscopic artifact by Heinz Hug
CO2 Absorption Spectrum Explained by Gary Novak
List of papers on CO2 absorption properties
These links are enough to get started. Hug's paper is simple and direct about how to do the test that shows CO2 absorbs all the infrared CO2 it can within ten meters at our atmospheric levels. It is easily replicated.
The best summary of evidence of how CO2 relates to climate change. An Engineer‟s Critique of Global Warming „Science‟ Questioning the CAGW * theory by Burt Rutan Jan 2011
His conclusion. We do have a problem, low CO2. I agree.
First, we don't know enough about what causes changes in global temperatures, except it is not CO2 affecting those changes at these levels. We haven't been watching objectively long enough, so lets cool our jets and let Mother Earth do her thing until we know more. One thing I do know, warmer is better. Ice ages kill.
Second, Along with Rutan I strongly recommend more CO2 because it grows a lot more vegetation, especially in desert areas. You really do want to help green the planet without extra work and no extra global warming, don't you?
Finally, I stand ready to answer any challenges to my logic, facts, and conclusions. Isn't it about time our "warmists" stood in front of all in a real Public Place, the No 1st Cost List, to have their public assertions vetted by all?
"I swear to speak honestly and seek the truth when I use the No 1st Cost List public record."
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forums Last posts
Last 10 Forum Messages
This URL is for those of you who deny the E-Ts existence.
Disclosure Project has 500 govt witnesses who swore before Congress to their direct E-T contacts.
This climate url speaks to how corrupt much of our scientific establishment has become.
Why rising CO2 levels Can NOT cause global warming.
Cimate Fraud Whistleblower Rewards Program
Why is handling the massive scientific disagreement with the AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming = (man caused) proponents crucial to disconnecting Earth's Anti-Matter debt?
Our leaders and thus most of you will not seek the truth about our real place in the universe. Why is explained by ignorance and self service. Until our society openly deals with this easy to resolve scientific disagreement, I must conclude we will not act to prevent Earth from being vaporized.
These links deal directly with How to Prevent our Sun from exploding.
How do we prevent our Sun from exploding July 16, 2024?
9-21-12 How to find the 2 conjunction asteroids in the "Missing Earth" crop circle?
This math is required.
How to use a circle to relate 'e' to Phi.
Confirming objective reports.
National UFO Reporting Center
Crop Circle Connector
2-4-2017 Needed A-M debt Disconnection Tools, Measurements & Must Do's
HOW can we get these tests DONE?
The Latest Changes Made To Site
We have received7627691
page views since
April 27, 2005