From the University of Exeter and the “we’re going to need a bigger computer model” department.
Climate predictions should include impacts of CO2 on life
Climate change predictions are not taking account of the full range of possible effects of rising carbon dioxide levels, researchers say.
Scientists currently use models in which warming of 1.5°C coincides with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of between 425 and 520 parts per million (ppm).
But analysis by the University of Exeter and the Met Office suggests that if the climate warms slower, 1.5°C warming could be delayed until CO2 reached higher levels – up to 765ppm if no other greenhouse gases played a part or their effects were counteracted by pollution particles in the atmosphere.
Increased CO2 affects crop yields, plant biodiversity and ocean acidification – and the researchers warn studies can underestimate such impacts by using too narrow a range of CO2 levels.
“As well as being a major cause of global warming, CO2 also affects life directly,” said Professor Richard Betts.
“Higher CO2 concentrations cause increased growth in many plant species. This causes a general ‘greening’ of vegetation, but also changes the makeup of ecosystems – some species do better than others. Slower-growing large tree species can lose out to faster-growing competitors.
“It can also reduce the effects of drought to some extent, because many plants use less water when CO2 is higher.
“Both of these factors can potentially enhance crop yields, possibly helping to offset some of the negative impacts of climate change – although even if that happens, the nutritional value of the crops can be reduced as a result of the extra CO2.
“Rising CO2 also causes ocean acidification which is damaging to corals and some species of plankton.
“There is now a huge scientific effort going into figuring out what the world will look like when global warming reaches 1.5°C. To get the full picture, we need to consider these other effects of CO2 as well as those of rising temperatures.”
There is uncertainty about how much the atmosphere will warm in response to particular greenhouse gases – a measure known as “climate sensitivity”.
The study concluded that a wide range of CO2 concentrations could accompany global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C.
Explaining the new study, Professor Betts said he and Dr Doug McNeall did calculations by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “in reverse”.
“Instead of calculating the probability of a particular amount of warming if CO2 doubles, we calculated the probability of a particular amount of CO2 rise for a particular level of warming (1.5°C and 2°C),” he said.
“This lets us estimate what the range of CO2 concentrations would be when global warming passes those levels, if CO2 were the only thing in the atmosphere that we are changing.”
###
The paper, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is entitled: “How much CO2 at 1.5°C and 2°C?”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0199-5
“The study concluded that a wide range of CO2 concentrations could accompany global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C.”
Well, I’m glad that’s all settled then. Tell you what, let’s spend trillions of $ world-wide and make energy too expensive for the poor everywhere when, actually, we are so clueless on the science that it really comes down to pure speculation.
Seems perfectly sensible doesn’t it?
Exactly. Admitting the models are so bad that a wide range of CO2 levels could cause a certain degree of warming?
It all comes from assuming CO2 is the climate control knob
And we all know what happens when you assume…
“Instead of calculating the probability of a particular amount of warming if CO2 doubles, we calculated the probability of a particular amount of CO2 rise for a particular level of warming (1.5°C and 2°C),” he said.
That is just nonsense. Temperature rise either is driven by CO2 or is not. If it is not, then
you cannot do this calculation because there is no relationship. If it is, then you cannot do this calculation because you have cause and effect backwards.
It may seem superficially as if you can, but you are fooling yourself. The main driver is what happens to temperature when you add CO2, not what happens to CO2 when you add temperature.
They are merely tweaking the effects of main driver with things that might raise or lower the effect of CO2 on temperature in small ways.
“That is just nonsense. Temperature rise either is driven by CO2 or is not. If it is not, then
you cannot do this calculation because there is no relationship. If it is, then you cannot do this calculation because you have cause and effect backwards.”
Perfectly summed up Phoenix!
It may seem superficially as if you can, but you are fooling yourself. The main driver is what happens to temperature when you add CO2, not what happens to CO2 when you add temperature.
Actually the data suggests that the main driver is in fact what happens to CO2 when you add temperature…
There are reasons to suspect that they have cause and effect backward.
Actually, it is rather likely that there IS a relationship between average atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global atmospheric temperature, which ice core studies have confirmed for many years.
The disputed issue in this relationship is which factor is cause, and which factor is effect.
It is well known that a very large proportion of the planet’s carbon is dissolved in the deep oceans. Rudimentary chemistry dictates that the solubility of any gas in water is controlled by the temperature of the water body. Raise the solvent temp, and solubility of the solute decreases, and thus the dissolved gas comes out of solution at a greater rate. On a planetory scale, the result of a warming ocean must necessarily be an increase of gaseous CO2 transport to the atmosphere.
However, the model for CO2 transport and resulting CO2 average ambient atmospheric concentration is much more complex than that simple mechanism, given all the other natural chemical reactants and biological actors that also affect the average atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Unlike the warmists, real professional scientists understand that the earth’s atmospheric composition represents the performance of a very complex system of interdependent systems, and that there is no single temperature control knob that can ever “control” the climate via theory generated by a grossly simplistic one-dimensional computer model with a single “gotcha” bad actor that rules the planet.
While cause and effect are reversed, this type of calculation is not invalid. We do it in engineering all the time.
Start with the effect you want, than work backwards to find out how much input you need to get the desired effect.
Start with a mass of given weight that you want to heave a known distance. From that work out how big the bang has to be, to get it there.
We have a mass of known weight, how big do the floor joists have to be to support it.
It’s just running the equation in reverse. Of course if the equation is nonsense, then your results will be nonsense regardless of which way they are being run.
MarkW:
I am not a math major or an engineer and I don’t know the answer to this question so I have to ask, can you run the equations for a non-linear chaotic system in reverse?
No because you cant get an answer from the equations in the 1st place
Sooo…….would the reverse of GIGO, be……….GOGI?
This relationship is expressed in the form of an equations. Equations do not have a temporal term, a direction of causation. If x=3.5 y then it is perfectly logical to substitute for either value to find the value of the other. If the equation fails in one direction that it is not by definition an equation. Basic algebra.
But the reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
Simple weasel words. Are these scientists/sarc running for cover? This site has feat
Weasel words? Didn’t he used to post here?
“…if no other greenhouse gases played a part or their effects were counteracted by pollution particles in the atmosphere.”
That’s a mighty big IF that renders the paper pointless.
Yup sounds like they are concerned that temperature may not be the best to focus on, other impacts are the new forward focus.
What if plants grow to fast or some grow faster than others huge worries for a world needing food to feed the people. What to grow?
Ultimately this is a paper about which variable should be on the X axis and which variable on the Y axis.
2nd year high school stuff.
…..And there is still the sun which is providing all of the heat energy now and will continue to do so and there’s the water vapor which is in the atmosphere now and will remain in the atmosphere for as long as most of the insolation energy is being absorbed by the waters of the oceans and then is being moved back to the atmosphere by evaporation of the most energetic water molecules. Where, pray tell, is the role for .04% atmospheric CO2 when the amount of atmospheric H2O molecules is maybe more than 100 times greater than the amount of CO2?
“…if CO2 were the only thing in the atmosphere that we are changing.”
It’s still basically the only thing you are measuring. We live in hope that grants will one day be applied to research those systems that are non-taxable.
What about albedo changes with greening?
A different mixture of plants can also impact how much water is being moved via transpiration.
Greening might actually increase albedo by increasing cloud formation during the daytime heating.
I’ve seen pictures of just that happening in the Amazon.
Read a science article last year that said S. Africa was greening as a result of the extra CO2 and this was making the climate better in that area.
All the energy bound in more plant matter by photosynthesis will not be available to heat the environment.
The Wunderkids are always having climate fits but there’s a gem buried on the current one..
Lots of Weather Schist is currently affecting the US, yes no and including some sort of dust storm that originated over the Sahara. Hello Mars, here we come and we don’t need no rockets to get there.
Another epic Cause For Concern is ‘Corn Sweat’
Some 90+ million acres of corn is feeling the heat, thus releasing water vapour and raising humidity levels.
This makes The Heat even more unbearable for the precious little critters that planted it.
Oh diddums
What would have been on those 90 millions acres prior to the arrival of corn?
Ruffty tuffty hard as nails grass. That would have seeded by now and be in senescence. The prairie would have a very high albedo and the grasses would be doing very little. Certainly not pumping huge amounts of water.
But now, driven by starvation and stupidity, have created a very low albedo landscape that pumps whatever water there is in the soil out into the atmosphere.
Is this not what might be called Climate Change?
That corn is creating a desert, as if another desert moving itself all the way across the North Atlantic wasn’t bad enough.
And these muppets say CO2 is doing that and even more unbelievably sad is the belief that planting more corn (bio fuel) will solve the self created problem.
Start saying your goodbyes…..
Sorry, prior to American settler intervention and the use of effective farm techniques, the center of North America was called the “Great American Desert”.
Now growing so much corn for ethanol might be bad agriculture, and your story is interesting, but basically all plants emit moisture.
The High Plains with short-grass prairie were called “The Great American Desert,” but not for long. When John Deere and others developed strong enough moldboard plows to turn over the sod, much of the short-grass prairie was converted to wheat, or to grazing cattle on improved pasture grasses.
The corn belt extending from Ohio west through Indiana & Illinois to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and eastern Nebraska & Kansas, was hardwood forest in the eastern half, and tall-grass prairie in the western half. Corn (or maize) is a subtropical annual grass originally developed in Mexico. Midwestern corn needs annual rainfall of 30″ or more to grow well. A summer rain bulge is helpful. Iowa is the heart of the corn belt because high rainfall coincides with high daylight hours and high temperatures in June, July & August. The 30″ rainfall line coincides roughly with the 100th meridian running south to north from Texas up through Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska to Minnesota. East of that line corn and soybeans are dominant; west of the line wheat, sorghum and pasture prevail.
“desert” used to mean nobody lived there. Didn’t mean sand and rock and no water.
And recover it in the morning from dew.
Your knowledge of agriculture is in need of enhancement.
Those places that used to be pure prairie are mostly growing wheat.
Further north, what is now known as the corn belt was a mixture of forest and prairie.
PS: Would you please support your belief that corn and wheat transpire more water than prairie grasses used to.
Saw the TV program (on Discovery or somewhere) showing the big IR “blob” of high humidity over the summer corn belt and actually over much of the US east of the Rockies.
OH MY, there’s high photosynthetic activity over the US agricultural areas! What will we do???? /snark
As flagged up over on Tony’s site-
“Temperature in the Venusian troposphere increases linearly with altitude. At an altitude of 50km in the Venusian atmosphere, the temperature is about the same as at Earth’s surface”
“At an altitude of 50km in the Venusian atmosphere, the pressure is also about the same as the earth’s surface”
With an atmosphere mainly made up of co2 I see nothing to worry about.It is such a great comparison-
“Despite the harsh conditions on the surface, the atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 km to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of the Earth, making its upper atmosphere the most Earth-like area in the Solar System”
Probably a better idea of the effect of co2 than the co2 in a test tube with a hot lamp experiment- so none!
The clouds made of sulphuric acid, and its atypical, as far as we know, geology, have a much greater effect on the conditions of Venus, than anything to do with CO2.
Simple weasel words. Are these scientists/sarc running for cover? Parroting the regular rebuttals of warmist cod theory featured on this site doesn’t cut the mustard. I sense a surrender to common sense about a beneficial and scarce gas. Perhaps a change of career to earbud reduction beckons? Piffle!
“Rising CO2 also causes ocean acidification…” Lost me.
I haven’t quite understood that either.
Warmer water holds less CO2 in solution, releasing it into the atmosphere. Does that atmospheric CO2 react with sea water to cause acidifcation? Or does the lack of CO2 in solution cause acidification? Or is there some other mechanism at work? I am not clear on this as chemistry was not my strongest subject in high school or college.
Shhhh!
you are asking a forbidden question.
“Warmer water holds less CO2 in solution” but there is a greater partial pressure from above.
Nothing to do with CO2 causes acidification in the oceans, you could dissolve every molecule of CO2 in the entire world into the oceans, and the power of hydrogen, pH, would never fall below 7, neutral.
DCE, when CO2 reacts with water it becomes carbonic acid.
Thus the reason why, ……. every raindrop that falls to earth is slightly “acidic”, ……. or commonly referred to as “acid rain”.
It’s a simple demonstration of post-normal science: They believe it, therefore it is.
Their list of “predictions” is actually a series of dire consequences couched as questions; all are based on a negative perception that CO2 is bad and, by inference, humans are to blame. All evidence to the contrary (of which there is plenty) is ignored and perpetrators are vilified.
That’s the current essence of Climate Science.
“The study concluded that a wide range of CO2 concentrations could accompany global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C. ”
or, said otherwise :
The study concluded that a wide range of warming could accompany a given CO2 concentration rise.
or, said otherwise :
there is no such thing as a climate sensibility to CO2.
Well, was this too hard to say clearly?
Here we go! Scientists starting to back track, trying to save their reputations and careers by distancing themselves from the alarmist core.
Oh and “the nutritional value of the crops can be reduced as a result of the extra CO2” apples to wheat for example. But how many of us throw all the nutrients away when we only eat white bread and pasta? Almost all of us.
Right you are, MattS, …. just a “weazelworded” tripe n’ piffle CYA to justify their PJE (Proof of Job Existence).
“There is now a huge scientific effort going into figuring out what the world will look like when global warming reaches 1.5°C.” Save your money. What? It’s not your money?
So what they are really saying, as reluctantly and evasively as possible, is that CO2 sensitivity is much lower than the climate cobsensus predicts.
Skeptics are once again proven correct.
cobsensus?
I thought we were done talking about corn?
Hunter, you are right. The IPCC knows the sensitivity is lower in the real world.
From AR5
from the top of page 982
Chapter 11 Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
11
‘This provides evidence that some
CMIP5 models have a higher transient response to GHGs and a larger
response to other anthropogenic forcings … than the real world (medium confidence).’
The ASK results and the initialised predictions both suggest that those CMIP5 models that warm most rapidly over the period (1986–2005) to (2016–2035)
may be inconsistent with the observations.”
from page 1010
“Possible reasons why the real world might depart from this range include:…………the possibility that model sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing may differ from that of the real world …….
The reduced rate of warming ….is related to evidence that ‘some CMIP5 models have a… larger response to other anthropogenic forcings ….. than the real world (medium ”
confidence).’
Quote: “ There is uncertainty about how much the atmosphere will warm in response to particular greenhouse gases – A measure known as “Climate Sensitivity””
There is CERTAINTY that this “ Sensivity” is Zero during phase changes in water. (evaporation and freezing). Just hope these scientists take note of that; for this is going on continuously in the atmosphere with water being a major constituent.
For info.: Some 680 Watthrs of energy is dissipated into the atmosphere and beyond for every Kilogram of water evaporated. All done irrespective of CO2 and, as I say, at a “sensitivity “ of Zero.
It is all there in the steam tables as implemented by the Rankine Cycle, if they care to have a look.
It’s getting very difficult to perform my daily mantra:
“The science is settled, the science is settled, the science is settled, the science is settled”
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
AKA
Let’s assume CO2 is the control knob
Or
Let’s reinforce the belief that CO2 is the control knob
More silliness. The impact of CO2 on plants whilst important is not part of Climate Change per se.
It doesn’t belong in a climate science department, but in the biology faculty.
It doesn’t even belong in political or economic studies examining the impact of climate change. It belongs in political or economic studies examining the impact of increased CO2 levels on plants.
If changes in biology impact albedo and how much water gets transpired by the plants, then this will impact the climate.
This goes back to my talk about how the climate models pretty much ignore the interactions between the 5 spheres.
atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere and cryosphere.
This is ridiculous. Another begging letter goes out: we need more cash pronto.
1 – Stop giving these people money right now.
2 – Send them ALL (including that pudgy individual at PSU) to spend time in counseling so that they can finally admit that they are nothing but money-grubbing control freaks.
3 – Stop giving these people money. They are almost in the cloistered mendicant stage, rapidly approaching the finish line. They need to be out in the real world of hash-slinging roadside diners and smelly, noisy, OIL-powered semitrucks delivering food to their local “special” greengrocers. It would not do any of them any harm to work as waitresses and table bussers at greasy spoon eateries, or gas stations where their only computer is a cash register hooked to a card reader. Not one of them would be harmed in any way by spending two years on a farm in the Midwest cornbelt, not allowed to touch, see, or smell a computer and required to read hardcover books printed on paper, copyrighted in 1943.
4 – STOP GIVING THESE PEOPLE MONEY!!
Knowing Betts and probably all the big clime Dons regularly come to WUWT for free tutorials and super peer review on climate, I think this could be the first bite Ive had from hot proponents or sceptic alike on my Greening elephant in the room. With some stabs at calculating the magnitude of the carbon sequestration of the greening and the sequestration of the warming because the greening is an exponential endothermic (cooling) process, I noted it coincided with the Pause and that the greening effect would reduce the CO2 accumulation rate in the atmosphere, regardless of whether or not CO2 is otherwise a major warming factor.
My point was that the only climate change we know for sure that has occurred from incontrovertible evidence is the remarkable greening. Ive predicted (to a silent rreadership) a “Garden of Eden Earth”^тм very noticeable by mid Century. Wow, you guys are hard to impress on both sides of the brawl.
More mathematical onanism. They need to be careful or they will go blind.
Professor Richard Betts?
Methinks he doth profess too much.
Apologies to the Bard for the misquote!
“Rising CO2 also causes ocean acidification…”
So where exactly is the ocean’s pH at 7 pH or below??
“The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.”?
Doesn’t matter. I have seen this type of nonsense “logic” and it amazes me every time. Acidification is a direction, not a point. A trend towards acidity is acidification no matter where you are on the scale.
That you have been shown, and believe, lots of nonsense is self evident.
No, the trend would be to a slight reduction in alkalinity. Seawater is and will always be alkaline with a PH>7. Seawater “acidification” is a deliberately misleading scary sounding concept. As is calling CO2 “carbon pollution” or just “carbon”.
So the scientists are wrong to call it acidification, and they need to take a lesson from some random person on a Watts site.
Very interesting. I guess we look to you for definitions now.
It really is fascinating how you have been convinced that nobody here is a scientist and that the people you have been trained to think of as scientists are never wrong.
Yes seawater “acidification” is wrong, and thank you to Alley for the condescending assumption. I am a scientist with a degree in Chemistry from Imperial College UK, one of the world’s top technical universities, so consider myself just as qualified as the authors of this paper, if not more so, in understanding the chemistry of seawater. As I said seawater has always been alkaline not acidic and will always be alkaline. The PH scale is logarithmic in case you were not aware, so e.g. a PH of 9 is 10 times the concentration of a PH of 8. Consequently for a typical current seawater PH of 8.1 to be changed to be acidic with a PH of less than 7, would require a massive change in seawater chemistry that is never going to happen under any circumstances. Seawater is never going to be acidic. Talk of seawater acidification is just more climate change fearmongering and people should not be taken in by it.
Hi Alley,
I haven’t seen you comment on the paper itself with reference to the settled science. Any feelings of vague disquiet yet?
I see you have one comment, and it has nothing to do with the paper. Any reason you do that? Nothing to add?
You can’t even be bothered to admit that acidification is the proper term.
Oh well. This is expected.
[it would be the proper term if the oceans pH become lower than 7.0 (neutral), but right now they aren’t and stand at about 8.1pH -mod]
No it’s not. If it exists, it would be a trend of slightly reduced alkalinity. Acidification is a process of turning something into being acidic. It does not apply and never will apply to seawater.
30 years ago, skeptics began crowing about the impossibility of using deterministic computer models to accurately predict the future state of a complex, coupled, non-linear system with any degree of accuracy. This argument was basically ignored and met with so much hand waving that it is a wonder mainstream climate scientists and advocates can still use their hands!
This article reminds use of the futility of trying to use computer models to accurately predict the future state of a complex, coupled, non-linear system with any degree of accuracy. It is still a completely useless and misleading exercise. Apparently, all that hand waving did not invalidate the initial skeptical argument in the least!
It’s even harder to predict a complex, coupled, non-linear system when you still don’t understand how most of it works.
‘The study concluded that a wide range of CO2 concentrations could accompany global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C.’
So they are playing ‘find the lady , and this ‘settled sceince ‘ , amazing !
The only thing this paper does is try to cover every possibility, then later they will say, we did it. There is no science in it. And they are back tracking.
They just can’t accept any possible benefits from higher atmospheric CO2, can they? Every effect of CO2 and warming must be “bad”. There has to be a “but”:
“Higher CO2 concentrations cause increased growth in many plant species. This causes a general ‘greening’ of vegetation, BUT also changes the makeup of ecosystems – some species do better than others. Slower-growing large tree species can lose out to faster-growing competitors”
“It can also reduce the effects of drought to some extent, because many plants use less water when CO2 is higher. Both of these factors can potentially enhance crop yields, possibly helping to offset some of the negative impacts of climate change – ALTHOUGH even if that happens, the nutritional value of the crops can be reduced as a result of the extra CO2″
I suppose it’s progress, of a sort, that they can even say these things. Small mercies.
Oh my, the backpedaling is getting serious now. But now they have a problem. They are trying to be two things at once; serious scientists as well as pseudoscientists. The two things just don’t work very well together. Oh well, maybe they’ll get there eventually.
Increasing CO2 is ‘Greening’ the planet?
Cool! It’s ‘virtue signaling’, on a planetary wide scale!
Yet there are still a lot of warmists who deny that CO2 is capable of greening the planet.
” From 2000 through 2016, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels rose from 6.7 PgC yr-1 to 9.9 PgC yr-1 (1 petagram of carbon is 1015 gC, or 1 billion metric tons C, or 3.67 billion metric tons CO2). ” http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker
That amount is way too low when in all of the scientific literature it was increasing by 1 BMT year over year during that time. It takes by chemistry a release of 12 BMT to add 1 ppm/v to the atmosphere. The sink is about 6 BMT and the atmosphere takes in another 6 BMT. “Climate Science” can’t have it both ways. Using a lower number to justify current co2 rates ppm/v per year. Then if there are lower amounts of production, then we had higher rates of production back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Calculating the rate of co2 production based on the rise in atmospheric is biased. It’s the same biases that they used to determine the relative warmth and coldness, lack of either during the MWP and LIA.
The only good number I have for co2 production is 12 BMT ( given in Metric Tons). Which if you look at the record for 1965, co2 rose about 1.08 ppm/v. Which I think is about right The atmospheric co2 level was about 318 at the time.
Both NOAA and the EUEC both claimed in March of 2015 that co2 production had leveled off at 38 BMT +/- a few… If it took 18 years for co2 ppm/v to reach 3 ppm/v per year from 1998, what caused the spike in co2 for 1998? Either we are producing way less co2 than reported, AGW is making numbers up, or they don’t know. 3.67 BMT is less than 1 ppm/v per year… That would explain why all those years in the 2000’s were below 2 ppm/v per year rise. And it would explain why temperatures have not gone up. But that’s not case. We can follow the audit trail of how much fossil fuels have been mined. We can look at any graph to see how much China and India have increased co2 production.
In any scientific field, there are amateurs, semi professionals, and professionals. There is also a wide array of people who have the basics. I’m not a amateur astronomer, but I have enough of the basics that I can explain why the earth is not flat to someone raised in a foreign country that believes that. I can agree with the basics because it works.
If AGW could convince me that the world is in imminent danger, I could convince anyone. Changing numbers doesn’t help. You can’t do basic research if the numbers are deliberately being changed. In fact it looks like fraud. The periodic table in chemistry hasn’t changed since it’s inception. ( other than adding additional elements) Gravity is still measured at 9.8 m/s^2. In electricity, nothing has changed. The laws and formulas allow us to communicate almost instantly over vast distance, with greater understanding and application.
Where are we in the graph of how much the temperature should have risen given the amount of co2 that is in the atmosphere. I can tell you. Doubling the co2 should double the temperature of the calculated amount of 15 C that is ambient at 280 ppm/v. Given that the co2 level has risen to 411 ppm/v that is 46% of the needed doubling, or the temperature should be 7 C warmer than when the co2 level was 280 ppm/v. Is there any data that shows a 7 C in world temperatures? Is there any data that shows half of that at 3.5 C? Is there any data that shows a 1.75 C increase in temperature? Will be? When? In 1965 the co2 level was 318 ppm/v, that is 13% increase in co2. That is a 2 C rise in temperature should already be since 1965.
I can not agree with AGW on any level.
why would you say that doubling CO2 would double temperature?
AGW has used co2 as the greenhouse gas that raises temperature. The blackbody is calculated at 255 K and the the greenhouse effect raises it another 33 K to 288 K ( that was the observed world temperature) … or 15 C or 59 F…. according to the IPCC doubling the co2 from 280 to 560 ppm/v will raise the temperature an additional 15 C to 303 K or 30 C . From that you can graph the rise in co2 with the associated rise in temperature. In 1965, co2 was 318 ppm/v, it should already be 2 C warmer on a consistent basis. 318 ppm/v is a 13% rise in co2 above 280 ppm/v. Currently at 411 ppm/v, the temperature should be approaching 7 C warmer or a consistent 20 – 22 C. Instead we’ve got, well not much, 15.18 C
If it were doing that, there would be mass migration away from areas near the oceans. I’d be moving too.
The formula is derived from 1370 w/m^2 at top of atmosphere. at the surface, ((1370 x (1-a))/4 = 239.7 w/m^2. ( ‘a ‘ is albedo 30%) .. Which goes into the blackbody formula
(239.7)/(5.67 x 10^-8) and the 4th root of that =255 K .
I just realized something, I’ve done this math so often, sometimes you loose sight of something .
Then double co2 to find temperature AGW uses the formula
(239.7+239.7)/ (5.67 x 10^-8) 4th root = 303 K , a pretty toasty world temp of 30 C .
That’s why AGW is up in alarm about it. I’d be too if it were real.
This isn’t my math…. if you see something in this that looks strange… let me know. Or anybody….
‘From the University of Exeter and the “we’re going to need a bigger computer model” department.’
I like the Jaws reference.
100% renewables are impossible. The best that can be done is a world with 95 % (nuclear power plants, hydro power plants and geothermal power plants) with another 5% of fossil fuels. If this is what the greenies want, then I say take off the subsidies, relax the nuclear regulations and environmental regulations against dams and forget about this silly idea of CO2 being a pollutant, and may the best energy win. If the greenies refuse more nuclear power; then the present level of fossil fuels use wont drop to any less than 75%.
Can someone explain the ocean pH change function to me? Cartoon level is OK.
One is a warmer ocean doesn’t hold as much co2 becoming less acidic. Two, partial pressure from increased co2 increases ocean acidic. Which came first? The warmer ocean or the increased co2? Which one has a greater role, partial pressure or a warmer ocean?
And now please welcome our gorilla in the room … the effect of CO2-enhanced plant growth on extending the hydrological cycle into formerly arid areas and cooling the climate. Just recall how precipitously global temperatures fell during the Carboniferous for precisely this reason. The humid soils deposited by the great Cryogenian and Sturtian glaciations before the Cambrian, were colonised by plants and trees as the earth’s arid continents became gardens and forests. At that time CO2 also fell as the increased vegetation photosynthesised it into wood and coal.
Climagesterium party line is that the falling CO2 in the Carboniferous caused the cooling but this puts the cart before the horse and ignores the de-aridifying effect of expanding plant growth. They make the same mistake again in missing the fact that the current CO2 enhanced plant growth and extent will do the same again as it did in the Carboniferous and always does – CO2 exerts a cooling effect via plant transpiration.