From AGU highlights, interesting, but readers should note that this is one point on Earth in Chile, not a summation of the atmospheric absorption, emission, and transmission of infrared radiation for the entire globe.
For first time, entire thermal infrared spectrum observed
The driving mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and the underpinning of modern anthropogenic warming, is the absorption, emission, and transmission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases. The heat-trapping ability of a gas depends on its chemical composition, and each type of gas absorbs infrared radiation of different energies. The amount of infrared radiation that escapes into space depends on the net effect of the myriad gases in the atmosphere, with water vapor being the primary gaseous absorber of infrared radiation.
Water vapor absorbs a wide range of infrared radiation, masking the effects of other gases. In fact, in many spectral regions (or infrared radiation energy bands), water vapor is so strongly absorbing that it makes testing the accuracy of infrared radiation absorption parameterizations used in general circulation models difficult.
To surmount this obstacle, Turner et al. headed to a 5.3-kilometer (3.3 miles) altitude site in the Atacama Desert in northern Chile, where the air is extremely dry. Using a broad suite of spectroscopic equipment, they produce the first ground-based measurement of the entire atmospheric infrared radiation absorption spectrum—from 3.3 to 1000 micrometers—including spectral regions that are usually obscured by strong water vapor absorption and emission. Though the data collected will likely be valuable for a broad range of uses, the authors use their measurements to verify the water vapor absorption parameterizations used in the current generation of climate models.
Source:
Geophysical Research Letters,doi:10.1029/2012GL051542, 2012
Title:
“Ground-based high spectral resolution observations of the entire terrestrial spectrum under extremely dry conditions”
Abtsract:
A field experiment was conducted in northern Chile at an altitude of 5.3 km to evaluate the accuracy of line-by-line radiative transfer models in regions of the spectrum that are typically opaque at sea level due to strong water vapor absorption. A suite of spectrally resolved radiance instruments collected simultaneous observations that, for the first time ever, spanned the entire terrestrial thermal spectrum (i.e., from 10 to 3000 cm−1, or 1000 to 3.3 μm). These radiance observations, together with collocated water vapor and temperature profiles, are used to provide an initial evaluation of the accuracy of water vapor absorption in the far-infrared of two line-by-line radiative transfer models. These initial results suggest that the more recent of the two models is more accurate in the strongly absorbing water vapor pure rotation band. This result supports the validity of the Turner et al. (2012) study that demonstrated that the use of the more recent water vapor absorption model in climate simulations resulted in significant radiative and dynamical changes in the simulation relative to the older water vapor model.
UPDATE: The full paper is here (thanks to Leif Svalgaard)
sunshinehours1 says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:09 am
JohnB:
“a) Show correlation over more than the UK
b) Show correlation over more than 60 years”
I don’t have to. That would be the IPCC’s job. They used the money to squander fabricating hockey sticks.
I don’t have to prove it was bright sunshine, all I have to to do to demolish the IPCC’s carbon cult is prove that they never considered it.
…
———————————-
Rubbish! They didn’t consider that warming might be caused by pixies, either. You can’t just make up stuff and then complain that it’s not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, do some serious work.
Concerning the broadening of an absorption band and the overlap of different GHGs. One way to see if the atmosphere is able to weakened the highly saturated bands of absorption would be to add the down-welling radiation with the up-welling radiation and subtract the normal SB curve. It would show the flow of energy from the lows to the highs of this graph. It would be interesting if someone was able to that, specially with measurements taken with clouds.
JohnB says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:21 am
There is a mountain of evidence. It is summarised in the IPCC reports and a thousand other places. The problem is, you just don’t want to hear it.
======================================================
Look John, you implied earlier on this thread that “greenhouse gases” do not block a portion of the Sun’s IR (“But the IR emitted by the Sun is mainly short wave IR, which is not absorbed by GHGs. Again, it’s all in the textbooks”). Then I gave you the evidence of the opposite: http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/spectrum/multispectral_sun_overview.html .
The problem is, you just don’t want to hear it. Your textbooks are lying or implying a lie, but you still have no problem with that. This is an important thing about the Sun’s IR, because it means that the first thing the “greenhouse gases” do is blocking some of the Sun’s IR, thus contributing to COOLING on the earth’s surface and the question about the net effect is wide open.
Now tell me where in the IPCC reports there is a reference to this knowledge and an answer to this question about the net effect. If nowhere, then the IPCC reports apparently mislead the readers.
Greg, they don’t reference it because it’s not true, or at least not relevant.
Look here:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_3.shtml
The Sun emits virtually no energy at wavelengths over 5 microns (which is in the near IR). The Earth, being much cooler, emits almost entirely at wavelenths over 5 microns (i.e. the far IR), and this is where CO2 absorbs and re-emits.
Or are these guys lying, too?
JohnB: “Rubbish! They didn’t consider that warming might be caused by pixies, either. ”
Do you think that DOCUMENTED changes in bright sunshine are equivalent to believing in pixies?
Wow. You are a true believing member of the IP Carbon Cult.
For a short period of time I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but clearly you are a closed minded Troll.
And Greg House is right, some incoming IR is blocked by GHG’s and the IPCC ignores that too. I posted a reference to 12W/sqm blocked by methane. You bailed.
JohnB says:
“If you won’t accept peer-reviewed science as evidence then you are right, I have no other evidence.”
So you went from ‘thousands’ of items of evidence, and from ‘mountains’ of evidence, to… nothing.
To quote yourself: “You can’t just make up stuff and then complain that it’s not taken seriously.”
Not only are a large part of the IPCC reports ‘made up’ by NGO’s like the WWF and rubber-stamped by the IPCC, but we know that climate pal review has morphed into an evidence-free circle-jerk that cannot stand up to the scientific method. On top of all that, the planet itself – the ultimate Authority – is falsifying your admittedly evidence-free, evil “carbon” belief system. In other words, you’ve got nothing except a baseless opinion.
If you would prefer to listen to the IPCC’s witch doctors, that is your business. But just so we are clear: you have provided zero evidence to support your conjecture. Rational people would back up and start over at this point. But you are not rational, you are a true religious fanatic who does not care for science or the scientific method. Magical witch doctor juju is your cup of tea. Got it. We’re clear on that.
The Sun and Earths Black Body curves do overlap.
More importantly, H2O, CO2 and CH4 do block a significant portion of the suns spectrum.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/absorption.gif
Greg House says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:36 am
Greg,
The Sun’s spectral range is infinite, as is that of any blackbody. But nevertheless, 99% of the Sun’s energy is shortwave (i.e at wavelengths below 4 microns) and so what JohnB says is absolutely correct. The article you refer to, though not incorrect, seems to have misled you. It is important to realise that, on the graph of the solar spectrum, the the vertical axis is logarithmic and that it goes down to 10^-18, a very, very,very small number.
In reality, some of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by our atmosphere (mostly by water vapour and ozone) but much of it reaches the surfaces unhindered.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png
Notice that CO2 has a minimal effect on the incoming radiation. It does, however, have a significant effect on the outgoing long wave radiation.
The problem is Greg, that if you go around saying that text book lie, then you are not going to win many debates with that line. If you want to improve your debating skills, try
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/01/the-sun-and-max-planck-agree/
JohnB says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:18 am
@Smokey
IPCC reports summarise peer-reviewed science. If you won’t accept peer-reviewed science as evidence then you are right, I have no other evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
And there, for all to see, JohnB exposes the true fallacy of his position. He accepts the reports of the IPCC without question, and he excludes all science not presented by the IPCC from consideration. He admits that he has no other evidence than this.
For those of us who have been following the debate since AR3, this is a sad statement by anyone. AR3 is, and AR4 even more so, written in vague terms that mislead the reader in all manner of ways. References are poorly documented, sometimes so obscure that the original cannot be found, and many references have since been documented (and admitted to) as being not only not from peer reviewed literature, but also known to be false (the Himalayan glacier melt being the most famous, but hardly the only one) and admitted to by Pauchauri himself.
Beyond the vague and misleading language, there are credible peer reviewed papers contrary to those quoted by the IPCC which were carefully excluded, to the point where some authors of AR4 resigned in protest. Of the papers in the IPCC reports, many have long since been debunked to the point that the IPCC never even referes to them because of the embarrasment of being associated with them.
I shall give you a single example of highly misleading information JohnB, which you may research yourself. IPCC AR4 quotes the effects of a doubling of CO2 as causing a direct increase in temperature of about 1 degree C. Did you think to ask, JohnB, WHERE that 1 degree occurs? OR did you assume from the language in the report that it meant the surface of the earth?
If you go looking for that fact in AR4 JohnB, as I did, you will spend many hours trying to find it, so I will save you sometime. The location at which the 1 degree can be measured is NOT earth surface, it is at the “effective black body temperature of earth”. You will have to turn to AR3 to find that little gem. Have you asked yourself what that means in terms of earth surface temps?
The effective black body temperature of earth is about 255K. Quick lesson in physics, P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T in degrees K and P is in w/m2. The IPCC waves their hands about, wailing about CO2 doubling and causing an increase in earth radiance of 3.7 w/m2. If you plug that number into the equation above (which is well known as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and is accepted by the IPCC as correct) you will get +1 degree at 255K. But the surface of the earth isn’t at 255K, according to the IPCC the average surface temperature is 288K. Stuff 3.7 w/m2 into that, and you will find that the number for earth surface is only about 0.6 degrees.
Now why, JohnB, would AR4 be written in such a fashion as to imply a 1 degree increase in temperature at earth surface when they clearly know from their own reports and their own figures, that it is only 0.6 degrees? But let’s carry on with the thought process and see what that implies from a latitude and seasonal basis.
The IPCC reports fail to bring this little factoid to the attention of the reader also. How much of a temperature increase should we expect in the dead of winter, at night, in a high latitude? Let’s figure from -40C, which would be 233K. At surface, 3.7 w/m2 would increase that temperature by about 1.3 degrees C. On a very hot day in the tropics however, let’s say +40C, the temperature rise would be only 0.53 degrees. Can you find anywhere in the discussion in AR4 where it is explained that the bulk of any actual warming would come in the dead of winter at high altitudes and that the least warming would come at noon day highs in the tropics?
That, JohnB, is only a single example of the highly misleading manner in which “science” is presented in IPCC reports. I could bring up others (many others) but this comment is getting long enough. As for your blind acceptance of IPCC reports as the consensus of peer review and hence “factual” I’ll suggest to you that if the world was made entirely of people like you, it would be flat, it would be circled by the sun, the bumps on your head would dictate what psychological problems you have, all manner of diseases could be cured by letting some of your blood out, continental drift would not exist, nor treatment for ulcers, and the world would be ruled by those who control what gets printed as “truth” and what doesn’t.
I choose to live in a different world than you would choose JohnB, and you have no right to choose mine for me.
“””””…..davidmhoffer says:
June 16, 2012 at 6:33 am
MikeB says:
June 16, 2012 at 2:29 am
Failing that, they they could learn a lot from Lazy Teenager who hasn’t put afoot wrong yet. There is no excuse for some of these uninformed comments.
It gives scepticism a bad name.>>>>
I for one have learned a lot from LazyTeenager. Checking his claims to find that they are out of context misleading assertions for example. I’ve also noticed the practice of TTT (Tag Team Trolling) where one troll says something misleading and another troll jumps in to say the first one is right, but without offering any actual evidence or reasoning to support that position. This is the first instance I recall though of TTTT (Triple Tag Team Trolling)……””””
Well Dave, you called that , on the money; and I like your label of Tag Team Trolling. It is very appropriate for the Graffiti Tagging that Lazy T leaves all over the place.
I can only have pity for someone, who will leave this planet, having never been recognized for ANY contribution to ANYTHING, because they are too cowardly to append their own name to their writings, like the street taggers of trash on buildings.
Frankly, I can’t recall ANY instance in which LT has provided any learning instruction for any reader of this site; he simply vandalizes the efforts of others, and leaves nothing of value in it’s place. A truly sad disturbed individual, ashamed of his own name.
sunshinehours1 says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:16 am
The Sun and Earths Black Body curves do overlap.
More importantly, H2O, CO2 and CH4 do block a significant portion of the suns spectrum.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/absorption.gif
———————
Come on, seriously. Take a look at your own graphs.
Smokey says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:11 am
JohnB says:
“If you won’t accept peer-reviewed science as evidence then you are right, I have no other evidence.”
So you went from ‘thousands’ of items of evidence, and from ‘mountains’ of evidence, to… nothing.
To quote yourself: “You can’t just make up stuff and then complain that it’s not taken seriously.”
Not only are a large part of the IPCC reports ‘made up’ by NGO’s like the WWF and rubber-stamped by the IPCC, but we know that climate pal review has morphed into an evidence-free circle-jerk that cannot stand up to the scientific method. On top of all that, the planet itself – the ultimate Authority – is falsifying your admittedly evidence-free, evil “carbon” belief system. In other words, you’ve got nothing except a baseless opinion.
If you would prefer to listen to the IPCC’s witch doctors, that is your business. But just so we are clear: you have provided zero evidence to support your conjecture. Rational people would back up and start over at this point. But you are not rational, you are a true religious fanatic who does not care for science or the scientific method. Magical witch doctor juju is your cup of tea. Got it. We’re clear on that.
————————————————-
I prefer to listen to every single national science body, and 97% of publishing climate scientists (yes, I do know how they got that figure), and basic physics, and, and. There’s a reason for it being called the mainstream.
Tell me, Smokey, what WOULD you accept as evidence?
MikeB says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:21 am
The problem is Greg, that if you go around saying that text book lie, then you are not going to win many debates with that line.
=========================================================
We have indeed a problem with the textbooks on “climate science”, with the “climate science” itself and the political reports on “climate science”.
The problem is, that the core AGW statements have no basis in real science, this does not change, if those statements are included in some textbooks, reports etc.
davidmhoffer says:
June 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
A doubling of CO2, according to the IPCC (and also according to Richard Lindzen) will lead to to temperature increase of about one degree AT THE SURFACE of the earth. This is of course without any feedback effects, which may or not be present, which may or may not magnify this increase [ This is the only real point of dispute].
This has been clearly documented ever since AR1, page 77, Section 3.3.1
So David, cool down or take more water with it.
From: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2006/6686/pdf/dissertation_lotter.pdf
WUWT?
John B says:
“On the other hand, you might look for someone pulling the apple up on a string, i.e. look for an explanation that does not overturn everything we know about physics. Similarly, maybe you should look for an explanation of “no warming for 15 years”, that fits in with what we know. Like, simply, that it is not true (see ocean heat content).
At least you, Ed, sound like you will happily accept reality when 2012 or maybe 2013 registers as the “hottest year on record” and puts to bed this “no warming in years” nonsense”
Once I look for another explainations(for why we are going sideways on temps for the past 15 years), I can see 30 yr/ 30 yr cyclic variations in temperature, going back 100+ years. Then I am left with “could the 1980 to current time just be a 30 year up cycle?”. So, to answer your second postulate, about 2012 and 2013.. I would have to say that you pose a false concept, namely that ANY tiny warming is “proof”.. no, the Hansen curves and the IPCC models have all FAILED to predict/project the current temperature. I would say that anything less than achieving 60% of their predictions/projections is proof of a major flaw in the AGW radiative physics. So far, this ex GW believer sees massive FAILURE!
MikeB says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:15 am
A doubling of CO2, according to the IPCC (and also according to Richard Lindzen) will lead to to temperature increase of about one degree AT THE SURFACE of the earth.
===========================================================
According to REAL science called physics “greenhouse gases” can not cause any significant warming: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
About professor Wood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
Please AGW fans, – prove me wrong!
By the time I finished my General Education in the year of our Lord 1954 I had learnt some few basics relating to the way the Earth retains it temperature. Ten (or 12 to be exact) years later when I qualified as an engineer (mechanical) nothing had changed. – Scientists still thought it was a waste of their, and everybody else’s, time to pursue the theory which said atmospheric CO2 content regulates our planet’s temperature. This was mainly because the T (temperature) of our planet was falling back from what it had been a couple of decades earlier. – Arrhenius, rest in peace! –
Now, look at how the Earth receives its heat (T):
1) It shares the temperature (T) with its environment. If anyone say we do not know exactly what that T is I will concede that neither do I – but it must at worst be a bit above “Absolute Zero” (0K) ?
2) It has an internal heat-source in its core which, in spite of the fact that this is there for “scientists to study” they cannot accurately establish the value of “T” or “Core Temperature” nor how the process by which this temperature comes about can, be –or seemingly – is eternal.
3) The Earth’s surface absorbs the rays from the Sun. The Sun is the only heat source – of any consequence – in our environment, It is the only supporter of life as we know it.
Points 1) and 2) above may deserve further investigation, but not by us – and not here and now.
The understanding of point 3) however is “all important”
To understand how the Sun warms the Earth you have got to look at the (few) spots where the rays from the sun do not have very much impact. – So let’s look at the “Siberian Permafrost”. If we do, we will find the frost reaches down to some 1400 feet below the surface, yet in the tropics, there is no “permafrost”. So, can we conclude that the heat from the Sun is ‘aiding and abetting’ the heat generation that happens in the Earth’s core? – Certainly not. We know, by far, too little about anything for conclusions, but it certainly validates a request for “Study-Funding”
On the other hand;
To understand how CO2 trumps the effect of the Sun’s rays log on to: “3 girls eternally stirring a caldron.”
MikeB says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:15 am
A doubling of CO2, according to the IPCC (and also according to Richard Lindzen) will lead to to temperature increase of about one degree AT THE SURFACE of the earth.
===========================================================
According to REAL science called “physics” “greenhouse gases can not cause any significant warming: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
About professor Wood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
It’s getting a little tiresome reading and rereading all the misinformation and misleading information that gets repeated here, about what the sun, and the earth and black bodies, do and do not emit and or absorb; constantly dispensed by MikeB and others; Myrhh.
MikeB thinks sun’s radiation reaches the ground relatively unattenuated. That simply is untrue.
The latest current NASA approved value of TSI is 1362 W/m^2 roughly. Detailed data on this can be found in standard Texts, such as The Infra-Red Handbook, compiled by the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan for The Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy. Odd, that the UNited States Navy would have an interest in infra red radiation about the earth.
In the section on The Sun, they tabulate standard data from an era when TSI was 1353 W/m^2; the value I grew up with before the age of satellites. So they have a detailed table of TSI for Air Mass zero, meaning, outside the atmosphere.
So if place the end of the visible spectrum at 700 nm as many do, then that part of the 1353 wm^-2 is 46.879%. If you place it at 800 nm, which is where I normally do, even though my eyes can no longer see that, then you get 56.023%. Splitting the difference at 750 nm and the visible range contains 51.691% of the solar energy, leaving 48.309% of AM-0 solar energy in the Infrared.
To get the 99% of solar TSI energy, you have to go out to 3.90 microns for 98.9847% or 4.00 microns for 99.0579%
So how much of that arrives at the earth surface after being “relatively unattenuated by MikeB’s atmosphere ? For that we have to go to the Air Mass 2 table for 60 degree incidence angle (from zenith, or 30 deg altitude angle) for that oblique angle the Fresnel reflection coefficient for the atmosphere is higher than for normal incidence so they compensate for that with an adjusted TSI of 1322Wm^-2 instead of 1353. The atmospheric absorption will of course change the spectrum somewhat from the normal Air Mass 1 spectrum.
Unfortunately, they didn’t calculate the integration from zero wavelength, but one can calculate the percentage of the AM-0 Spectral transmission from the two tables.
At 700 nm we get 1108.0 wm^-2/micron versus 1369.0 or 80.935% transmission. At 750 nm, it becomes 867.0 / 1235.0, or 70.20%, and at 800 nm it is 857.0 / 1109.0 for 77.28%.
Those still awake, will catch the lower value at 750 nm compared to 800; a direct consequence of an H2O absorption band thereat 750 nm.
So all in all, I would say that MikeB’s “relatively unattenuated” sunshine is BS, and we get some insight as to why solar energy engineers, typically put ground level solar energy at around 1,000 W/m^2 out of that original 1362 TSI
I’m not going to be bothered calculating the numbers for you for all of the IR absorption bands due to H2O, CO2, and other GHGs; I’ve told you where to find it.
Also I would point out for the CO2 crowd, that the photon energy of a typical 15 micron CO2 absorbed photon, is just 20 times less, than one of those 750 nm H2Oabsorbed solar photons.
So atmospheric HEATING, due to GHG (mainly H2O and O3, and CO2) by high energy solar photons; about 25% of the incoming TSI ALL OVER THE SUNLIT HEMISPHERE, is perhaps worthy of some small consideration compared to the average 390 W/m^2 total emission from a 288 K near black body LWIR source; only a small fraction of which (of the 390 wm^-2) of which is lost to CO2.
Add to that, the simple fact that unlike the sun, the earth isn’t even close to being an isothermal black body radiator; and most of the surface LWIR emission can be traced to the earth’s hottest desert areas, with surface Temperatures often 60 deg C and more, at which Temperature, the Thermal radiation spectrum is almost twice what it is at 288 K. Moreover the spectral peak of that hot desert emission moves from 10.1 microns (at 288 K) to 8.75 microns, which is further into the water vapor atmospheric window, and also much further from the CO2 15 micron band, which reduces the effect of CO2 absorption even more.
At the other end, the very cold regions of the earth have BB like emissions that are more than a factor of 10 lower than the tropical deserts, so they emit very little LWIR at all (1/6th of the 390 W/m^2). Moreover that cold zone LWIR peaks right on the CO2 15 micron emission band, and yet the CO2 fails miserably in keeping those places warm.
The sun heats the earth’s atmosphere; but at the expense of cooling the earth’s oceans, since that absorbed solar spectrum radiation will NEVER reach the deep ocean storage, as the transmitted visible solar energy does. The warm(er) atmosphere from surface LWIR GHG heating, accomplishes very little heating of the oceans since the downward LWIR 15 micron energy has an absorption coefficient in water of around 3,000 cm^-1; well it’s at least 1,000 at 10 microns which would be the peak of the thermal emission from the atmosphere.
That means the irradiance drops to 1/e, or 37% in from 3.3 to 10 microns, so 99% is absorbed in the top 16.6 to 50 microns of the ocean surface, and simply results in prompt evaporation.
And I’m sure that Eli, simply made a slip of the tongue in saying that the sun’s Boltzmann distibution went essentially to zero at the Long solar wavelengths. The solar spectrum is a Planck distribution, and not a Boltzmann distribution; but Eli knows that.
So is MikeB the same person as JohnB? Or another example of TTT?
Sorry Mike, AR3 specifies that CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree at “the effective blackbody temperature of earth” which is 255K. Surface temperature of earth is 288K according to AR3 and AR4. To increase the temperature from 288K to 289K requires 5.44 w/m2. To increase the temperature from 255K (which occurs at about 14,000 feet on average) takes about 3.7 w/m2.
Nice try at a misdirect though.
Dear moderators, may I ask what happened to my last comment?
REPLY: SPAM filter, recovered-A
JohnB, I think your equating pixies with bright sunshine ends your chance of being taken seriously.
While I am in rant mode, let’s not forget the IPCC’s misleading use of the “CO2 doubling”. They whine on about CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree, but they do all their calculations against the “background” CO2 levels of 278 ppm. We haven’t been at 278 ppm of CO2 for DECADES! 278ppm is meaningless. If we are going to put policies in place in terms of what CO2 does, how about we start with reality, which is that we are near 400 ppm already. Since CO2 is logarithmic (according to the IPCC) the starting point is immaterial, each doubling results in +3.7 w/m2 = 1 degree. So let us use the starting point THAT WE ARE AT RIGHT NOW.
400 ppm doubled = 800 ppm. So, to drive just one more degree (according to the IPCC) which turns out not to be one more degree, but more like 0.6 degrees at the surface (you know, where we and the entire biosphere actually live) (and keeping in mind that the 0.6 comes from the IPCC) we would need at peak oil consumption (which we passes already) about 200 years to get just one more degree from where we are right now. 200 years! To get +2 degrees from where we are right now would require 1,600 ppm which would take about 600 years to accomplish. That’s not my numbers, that’s the IPCC’s numbers!
The fact is that anything over 400 ppm of CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns, and becomes increasingly inconsequential, a fact which the IPCC carefully over looks in all of their reports. The present every bit of information as if increasing CO2 will result in acclerated warming when even the science they themselves quote makes it very clear that additional CO2 can have no other effect than a DECREASING impact on temperature.
No, we’re not the same person, although I can see why you might think that. We realists do all tend to sound the same. Why? Because there is only one actual reality, as opposed to a seemingly limitless supply of alternate realities.