Did you know that polar bear numbers have increased by around 400% since the 1950s?
What about that carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere, and only a fraction of that is caused by humans.
Surely you’ve been told about the numerous failed climate predictions of the past and the reality that as hundreds of thousands lift themselves out of poverty every day, there has never been a better time to be alive.
If not, watch What I Wasn’t Told About Climate Change with Luca Rossi to find out what else you haven’t been told.
For more, like the Generation Liberty Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/generationlib… or check out all the references at http://generationliberty.org.au
“What about that carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere”
What about that?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/17/abs-temp/
The author lack to “prove” that CO2 IS a toxic. He use a syllogistic not a scientific reasoning.
Comparing CO2 to Hydrogen Cyanide, as Dr Mann once tweeted, is ridiculously non-sequitur IMHO.
An interesting blog. It attacks (quite correctly) weak arguments against the AGW hypothesis, but then assumes the truth of even weaker ones for the hypothesis. I put the following response up – which will almost certainly be ignored, so I repeat it here:
“I’m impressed!
It is very sensible to call out poor arguments against the Global Warming scam. You are quite correct to note that simply arguing that CO2 concentrations are ‘too weak’ or that temperature changes are ‘too small’ to cause dangerous change is a weak argument.
However, those arguments are only weak because you have left out half of the point being made. The point is that a slight variation in CO2 or temperature will not cause a problem because GREATER variations have already happened naturally before, and they have not caused problems.
The whole CO2 scam depends on the belief that the Earth’s climate is finely balanced, and slight changes are enough to push it over a tipping point. To argue this, activist ‘scientists’ have tried to pretend that the climate has remained essentially static for many millions of years. This has now been shown not to be true, and their attempts to assert this have been shown to be fraudulent.
It would be useful to make these points as well – otherwise someone might think that you were actually supporting political activism and lying in science…”
I used the phrase “in and of itself”. Then i made it bold font and colored it red. Does that count? Just because there are good arguments against agw does not mean there are bad ones.
Oops
Correction
Just because there are good arguments against agw does not mean there aren’t bad ones.
My point is that the argument you call ‘bad’ is actually only half of the argument. When you add the missing but it becomes a ‘good’ argument….
Exactly, I like to ask is anything in the current climate that is more extreme or changing more rapidly than has been experienced in the past? There’s never been a positive answer than stands up to scrutiny
A lot of our trolls try to claim that current changes are faster than anything shown in the proxy records.
The correct answer to that is that the proxy records are by their nature, low pass filtered. They simply do not show rapid changes.
MarkW
Low pass filtering is a good point that I suspect will go right over the heads of most alarmists.
Agree with Clyde below. Better to say “Proxies do not record rapid or brief changes.”
SR
I suspect that even removing the filtering from Mann’s tree core when plotting the present didn’t produce any dramatic warming, so Mike stitched on the official records at the most effective juncture possible, his pet Anthropocene.
Look at CET to see faster change BEFORE man’s CO2:
CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr
MarkW says: “They simply do not show rapid changes.”
..
MarkW does not know anything about ice cores: https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331
Widmann
Thank you for proving my point. Those like you don’t know what they don’t know.
From the link you provided:
While annual banding and ash deposition can be discerned, gas diffusion that takes place during consolidation and compaction of snow makes the resolution of changes in atmosphere composition much more problematic. President Clinton famously said, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” To paraphrase that, it all depends on what the meaning of “rapid” is. However, there is no question that proxies have lower measurement and temporal resolution than real-time in situ measurements.
MarkW’s statement is correct.
Dodgy Geezer
The video is not meant to appeal to analytically minded, knowledgeable, WUWT steeped, climate sceptics. It’s directed at the people who believe 97% is a true representation of scientific opinion on the matter.
Sceptics have tried to convince the weak of mind using science for the last 40 years, so far to little avail.
The time is long overdue to adopt simplistic propaganda, soundbites and meme’s adopted by climate alarmists many years ago.
At least in part 1 you used bad reasoning to make a case for a weak argument. I stopped reading after that.
“… carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere, and only a fraction of that is caused by humans.”
Both parts of the statement are true.
Nothing in either part of the statement says anything about what effect, if any, that 0.04% may make.
So, the answer to “what about that…?” is that the statement is correct.
I agree with Mosher that the second part is wrong: “and only a fraction of that is caused by humans.”
About 35% is the increase above the pre-industrial 280 ppmv, 10 ppmv may come from the warming ocean surface and the rest of the increase to 410 ppmv CO2 is caused by humans…
That doesn’t mean that all human emissions still are in the atmosphere, as about 20% of all CO2 is exchanged each year and every season with other reservoirs (vegetation and oceans).
Thus the original human CO2 (detectable in the 13C/12C ratio and 14C/12C ratio) is distributed over all reservoirs, but the increase in total mass is caused by humans, which emitted about twice the mass that increased in the atmosphere…
All evidence points to a human cause, see for a comprehensive overview:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
So let’s argue where the “consensus” is on much weaker grounds: the muddy ground of computer models, which don’t perform that well to be able to “project” anything else than garbage…
Ferdinand: “About 35% is the increase above the pre-industrial 280 ppmv, 10 ppmv may come from the warming ocean surface and the rest of the increase to 410 ppmv CO2 is caused by humans…”
JimK: Problem is that atom bomb cessation shows that C from the tests went away in about 10 years, so that should be the atmospheric life of man’s CO2 emission. That means that man is responsible for well under 10% of the Co2 increase.
Ferdinand: Thus the original human CO2 (detectable in the 13C/12C ratio and 14C/12C ratio) is distributed over all reservoirs, but the increase in total mass is caused by humans, which emitted about twice the mass that increased in the atmosphere…
JimK: Problem with the 13C/12C & 14C/12C ratios is that similar ratios have been seen BEFORE man emitted much CO2.
Ferdinand: So let’s argue where the “consensus” is on much weaker grounds: the muddy ground of computer models, which don’t perform that well to be able to “project” anything else than garbage…
JimK: There is a place for both arguments. ESPECIALLY since there is nothing unusual about today’s climate when compared to history
No increase in storms
No increase in hurricanes
No increase in floods
No increase in droughts
No unusual increase in sea levels
Not rapidly warming
It was warmer in earlier times
Forest fires decreased
No decrease in snow
Agreed. The only reliable and unbiased measurement of CO2 residency was done by the Bikini Atoll tests. Residency is, at best, 20 years and more likely half of that.
JimK,
You forget that about 20% of all CO2 is exchanged with oceans and vegetation. Not only as simple redistribution, as is the case for ocean surface and vegetation, but a large part is removed into the deep oceans and only returns some 1000 years later. That doesn’t show up again in the foreseeable time.
As fossil fuels have no 14C left (too old),
The exchange between atmosphere and deep oceans in the 1960’s, at the maximum 14C level from the atomic bomb tests is as follows:
Of the 12CO2 mass that did sink in the deep oceans, some 97.5% of the mass (as total mass, not the same molecules!) returned the same year out of the deep.
Of the 14CO2 mass that did sink in the oceans, some 45% of the mass returned the same year out of the deep.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_1960.jpg
That makes that the removal rate of any excess 14CO2 is 2-3 times faster than for any excess 12CO2 above equilibrium.
In the case of 14CO2, the equilibrium is set by the production from cosmic rays and the radioactive decay during the time than 14CO2 remains in the deep oceans. In the case of 12CO2, the dynamic equilibrium is set by the average ocean sea surface temperature…
The same story is true for 13CO2: the historical changes of the 13C/12C ratio over glacial and interglacial periods were at maximum a few tenths per mil. Since the industrial revolution, the ratio dropped with near 2 per mil in atmosphere and ocean surface. Here measured in coralline sponges, ice cores and atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
Thus the changes of the 14C/12C ratio and the 13C/12C ratio are quite different from the removal rate of any excess 12CO2 out of the atmosphere due to the long time that CO2 remains in the deep oceans and what returns is the composition of about ~1000 years ago…
The 13C/12C ratio may have been that low before plants started to use photosynthesis and massif quantities of C were stored in coal, oil and gas. But that is already hundreds of millions year ago… Since then, 13C/12C ratios were always higher until humans added a lot of that low-13C carbon back in the atmosphere…
Ferdinand,
Assuming you are correct, what fraction of the approximately 0.041 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide do you say is caused by human activity?
JohnWho, for the current average sea surface temperature, the CO2 equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean surface would be around 290 ppmv, or about 10 ppmv above the pre-industrial level. That means that about 120 ppmv is caused by humans or about 30%.
Because of the large exchanges with other reservoirs, especially the deep oceans, not all human CO2 still resides in the atmosphere. Based on the 13C/12C ratio, about 10% of all CO2 in the atmosphere still is from human origin.
The “thinning” of the human influence by deep ocean exchanges can be used to estimate the deep ocean-atmosphere fluxes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
That points to about 40 GtC/year moving in and out as CO2 by the oceans. Independently confirmed by the similar amounts calculated from the 14C “thinning” in the atmosphere.
Ferdinand
Your first graph uses fossil fuels and cement production for estimates. It is clearly a lower bound for anthropogenic sources, as I tried to demonstrate here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
All anthropogenic sources are highly correlated.
Your third graph displays a temperature trend, which is composed of both sea and land temperatures. However, outgassing is principally controlled by the surface temperatures of the oceans. You are displaying the wrong data. Furthermore, the cold polar waters provide a sink, while the warm tropical waters provide a source. Using a global average for the two processes just muddies the water, as it were.
Something that I don’t see you addressing is the fractionation of C12 and C13 with outgassing and solution. In all cases I would expect C12 to be the more mobile component.
I think that you still have some polishing to to on your monologue.
Clyde,
Human emissions indeed are underestimated, as I only used emissions from fossil fuels and cement production. thus if these are already about twice the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then humans are even more certain the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. I always only use these figures, as the CO2 emissions from burning and cutting forests is far from certain and more than compensated by the total growth of vegetation due to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth is greening… The oxygen balance shows that more CO2 is absorbed by plants than released and that includes natural growth and human reduction in forests…
It doesn’t matter which temperature trend is used, the Hadley Center uses a strange mix of air temperatures over land and seawater surface temperatures over the oceans (thus not sea air temperatures!). I didn’t know that, but Steve McIntyre noted that when comparing climate models with surface temperatures, which only match for that mix, but not for air only temperatures at any height:
https://climateaudit.org/2017/11/18/reconciling-model-observation-reconciliations/
The solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature is known and confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples over the past centuries. For the average 15ºC ocean surface temperature the equilibrium with the atmosphere is around 290 ppmv, no matter if that is static (for one single sample) or dynamic (for the whole oceans including sinks and sources). The change of the equilibrium with temperature is around 16 ppmv/ºC at the average 15ºC seawater temperature. There is a formula to compensate for the change in temperature between the cooling water intake (“in situ”) and the temperature at the measuring device (Teq) for (maintenance free) continuous pCO2 measurements by commercial sea-ships:
(pCO2)sw @ Tin situ = (pCO2)sw @ Teq x EXP[0.0423 x (Tin-situ – Teq)]
In pre-industrial times, the CO2 releases at the equatorial upwelling and the uptake at the polar downwelling were near equal and only slowly moved CO2 after surface temperature changes to a new deep ocean – atmosphere equilibrium with a long lag. The current difference due to the higher CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is about -2 GtC, thus more sink than source: the deep oceans absorb more CO2 than they release.
That makes a slight change in δ13C, but the bulk of the “thinning” in fossil δ13C is from the about 40 GtC as CO2 that continuously is passing the atmosphere from the upwelling to the downwelling sites.
Form the pre-industrial past we know that the δ13C level only changed a few tenths of a per mil over the full 420,000 years of the Vostok ice core. The change in δ13C from sea surface to air is about -10 per mil, the other way out +2 per mil, average -8 per mil. As the surface gets a lot of bio-life, which in part drops out of the surface, the ocean surface is between +1 and +5 per mil (+4.95 in Caribbean coralline sponges) and the long term average in the atmosphere was -6.4 per mil in the atmosphere. I used that figure to calculate the average influence of any (deep) ocean exchange with the atmosphere.
Using that figure, I estimated the average throughput of CO2 between upwelling and downwelling at about 40 GtC/year. That doesn’t include the changes from extra uptake in vegetation, which was slightly negative before the 1990’s and slight, but steady growing positive after that year with strong variability (1991 Pinatubo, 1998 El Niño).
The 40 GtC estimated from the fossil δ13C “dilution” was independently confirmed by a similar estimate from the fast removal of the excess 14C from the atomic bomb tests out of the atmosphere…
Thats the oldest stupid comment made in the skeptosphere
“Thats the oldest stupid comment made in the skeptosphere”
For once I agree with Mosher.
To balance that stupid comment with an alarmist stupid comment, that any increase we’ve seen is catastrophic in any way.
Comparing a trace gas that was already at about 0.03% concentration increasing to 0.04% with a deadly neurotoxin going from 0.0% to 0.04% is about as stupid and dishonest as you can get.
I don’t know, Lancifer. Both my wife and I have each been exhaling 40,000 ppm CO2 in our bedroom during 8 hours of slumber. Just imagine the local cumulative toxicity of that! I’m runnin’ for my life out of here. But I’ll be sure to close the door behind me and keep all that poison from reaching our neighbors.
Except that CO2 is essential to life, not a toxin and CO2 emissions caused by humans is only a tiny percentage of and far outweighed by natural emissions, which alter every year. In the past CO2 levels have been ten times higher and did not cause a ‘tipping point’ but helped green the Earth.
The author in Part 4 suggests that ice core data showing CO2 only rises AFTER the temperature rises is not evidence of causation. However, the author does not explain why the AGW models (that rising CO2 causes rises in temperature) are not found at all the ice core data!
And politicos in America want to get elected on a “Climate Change ” ticket ???
Ignorance must go hand in hand with Politics ! Read your history !
In the recent UK election, it’s notable that the parties that pushed climate change alarmism did very badly: the Lib Dems, Greens and Labour. Corbyn was obsessed with the imaginary “climate crysis”. It’s ironic that his brother is a prominent sceptic!
Chris
Chris Wright
But Piers wholeheartedly supported his Marxist brother in his attempts to become PM.
So something is wrong – either Piers is just another rabid left wing socialist who prefers ideology to documented fact, in which case, why should we listen to his ‘science’ (which he appears to be selling subscriptions for on Facebook relentlessly) or Jeremy wasn’t being entirely honest in his alarmist position on climate change, and Piers knows that.
Either way, the pair of them are just self interested, self promoting scam merchants.
And whilst I have never actively searched for Piers Corbyn’s scientific publications, I can’t recall ever having seen any. My understanding is that his methods of predicting weather are so sensitive he must keep them close to his chest in order to profit from them.
How very socialist.
Any more ad-hominem bollox you want to spit out while you are at it?
How would you like it if they attacked you in public without any right of reply??
I doubt very much you have ever met Piers Corbyn, never attended one of his many meetings, never even imagined that some of his forecasts were remarkably accurate (which btw I don’t buy…).
I can admit there are eccentric things Piers does, but so what?
The BBC and the Met office are WAY more eccentric & dishonest in their agenda seeking virtue signalling but I don’t see you attacking Harrabin or the other army of jerks forcing a point of view down people’s throats 2hrs a day out of 24.
You said what about them sweet F-A!
Frankly I read your hatchet job post with even more cynical self aggrandizing input than I ever saw from any of the Corbyn brothers.
Your own agenda on that one is being skillfully hidden n’est pas?
“What They Leave Out” or “What You Weren’t Told” could be a theme for a whole series of videos.
Good thought and the above Luca Rossi video is a very nice, well done, start.
I’m seeing more and more climate activists bringing up the “Sixth Mass Extinction.” They are fear mongers. I hope that young leaders will be able to repel this nonsense.
It’s not a matter of “what you weren’t told”, it’s a matter of did you care to look for yourself.
Like to see/hear young people making sense.
Also a bit more political, but related to climate:
What I Wasn’t Told About Donald Trump With Luca Rossi
I got this:
“What I Wasn’t Told About Climate Change”
Answer: The truth
There are specious arguments against AGW promoted on this blog, which, thanks to Anthony, Charles, and unnamed others, we can argue about civilly without censorship. These include that IR active gases are only a small fraction of the atmosphere, that heat cannot return to Earth from a colder sky, that the ideal gas law controls surface temperature (neglecting the First Law of thermodynamics), or that K.E. in the atmosphere causes a warming surface.
The best argument against proposed responses to the “climate crisis” is that we can show without doubt that they entail fighting a speculative problem by expanding global poverty, which is a more serious problem. WUWT allows this message to be broadcast loud and clear.
The two best and irrefutable arguments against CAGW is that:
1) CO2 levels have been much, much higher than they are today, and nothing bad happened.
2) In the last 10,000 years , temperatures have been as much as 5C warmer than they are today, and nothing bad happened.
If anyone objects to my including the C with the AGW, I just tell them: If it isn’t catastrophic, there is no need to do anything about it.
caGW. Why all the fuss?
That would be either Californian or Canadian global warming. Neither is bad.
So … cacaGW?
Kevin K., it has always been totally beyond my comprehension why any Canadian would be against a few more degrees of Global Warming.
The worst that could happen is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would have to cut their purchases of long underwear in half.
You would think that Canadians would be demonstrating in the streets en masse demanding more Global Warming, but no…
“In the last 10,000 years , temperatures have been as much as 5C warmer than they are today”
Make it up Mark, makin’ stuff up again. It is now warmer than at any time in the Holocene.
Loydo, based on what? There were no thermometers in the past and proxy reconstructions are all over the range from 0.1 to 1.0 C if you look at only the past 1,000 years.
What is clear is that there was no or very little ice near the North Pole some 6.000 years ago:
https://www.ngu.no/nyheter/mindre-i-polhavet-6-7000-%C3%A5r-siden
The glaciers in the Alps were most of the time much shorter than today:
Timing of Holocene Glacier Recessions in the Swiss Alps
And forests did grow farther north and/or at higher altitude at many parts of the NH.
At least one can say that the NH was warmer for most of the Holocene than today.
There is plenty of proxy evidence that supports my statement.
You challenge me yet ignore MarkW’s made up “5C warmer than they are today”?
Loydo, the 5 C of Mark were too large as average, but real for the far north, but your remark was completely wrong. There is plenty of evidence, that at least the northern NH was a lot warmer during most of the Holocene and globally around 1 C. Even Wiki (censored by William Connolley) admits that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Kevin, your arguments are refuted several times on this web site:
” that heat cannot return to Earth from a colder sky, that the ideal gas law controls surface temperature”
The return of IR in the specific bands of CO2 were measured at two stations in Alaska and Oklahoma:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/ and was published on WUWT too.
IR photons are energy and when absorbed by the surface the turn to heat the surface.
Where the second law is not violated is in the fact that the amount of energy by radiation that hits a warmer object is always smaller that the amount of energy that hits the colder object…
The ideal gas law doesn’t control the average surface temperature, the incoming radiation does and eventually present greenhouse gases. The theory from N & Z was firmly refuted by Willis Eschenbach with a simple thought experiment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/
Ferdie,it was a non refutation. As proven far prior by Maxwell and Einstein(1917). Brett Keane
Brett, what was that refutation? As far as I can see, the arguments by Willis were clear and non-refutable…
All the graphs in the WUWT Sea Ice pages, seem to end in Aug-Sept.
Have they stopped, or am I not doing something properly?
R
Click on the image to get a current image from the original web site.
WUWT allows this message to be broadcast
Anything else would be censorship, no?
Not really. No site can supply every single argument. Censorship would be deleting appropriate responses without explanation, as happens on almost every other site there is on the subject.
I just did a Google search for “minoan warm period” I was amazed to see this site come up as the top search answer. It shows that Google probably is not censuring the topic as some have claimed
Do you think Google cares about the Minoan warm period?
i won’t be recommending this video as an antidote to Alarmism – it has too many logical inconsistencies – eg – the teensy amount of CO2 means it cannot have large effects – while Alarmists are searching for amplifier – (and ironically – Alarmists use the same flawed logic when claiming the tiny fluctuation of the sun’s luminescence can’t have an amplified effect)
another flaw is the “failed predictions” section – where the predictions were of “tipping points” – not the point of collapse
but worse of all was the conclusion – after reassuring us that Alarmism wasn’t a real threat – he (if he was the author) assured that we could fix it (?) with innovation & entrepreneurship – then he talked about fixing poverty – nothing about climate
he’s not the answer to Greta – but her mirror image
PLEASE FOLLOW THROUGH ON YOUR SUPPORT FOR THESE YOUNG PEOPLE
I watched the film from Rossi–was quite impressed. Then I went to the Facebook page. I suggest that anyone who wants to support young people and the next generation who want the freedom to explore ideas and share opinion and facts without being bombarded by the far leftists, help support them.
I don’t mean with money, but with comments and likes and follows. The leftists sure know how to tear others down and shut them up–here are a few of the vile things they are saying to the Generation Liberty whose tag line is “Free markets,Free People, Free Society”:
Here’s the link if you think saying something supportive might be a good idea for these kids.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/generationlibertyipa/reviews/?referrer=page_recommendations_see_all&ref=page_internal
Too many have no clue how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. I have fun by asking people how much of the atmosphere is CO2. After wildly inflated and incorrect percentages I tell people that I breath a custom mixture of gases: 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and a dollop of Argon (.9%), and that everything else is just a trace gas. It is fun to see the gamut from outrage to recognition.
How dare I breath such a mixture!
The Numbers:-
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, which means that it is 1 part in 2,500. It is a TRACE GAS, and that 1 psrt in 2500 cannot warm up the orher 2,499 by any measurable ammount.
Only 3% (1 part in 33) of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is manmade. The other 97% comes from rotting vegeation, wildfires and volcanoes. So manmade CO2 is in fact only 1 part in 33 X 2,500 of the atmosphere. That is 1 part in 82,500. Which is insignificant.
Also CO2 is required by vegetation. The add CO2 to the air in greenhouses to increase growth.
The internal combustion engine is the best thing that ever happened to plants. It emits CO2, water and fixed nitrogen (Oxides of nitrogen) from the tailpipe. Just look at the vegetation alongside busy highways. It is thriving, blooming.
Over the past 1 million years the earth has been in ice ages for 90% of the time. A typical ice age has lasted about 90,000 years, with interglacial warm periods of about 10,000 years.
We are now 10,000 years into the present intergalcial period, SO WE ARE DUE ANOTHER ICE AGE
John, please use real arguments to refute CAGW, not arguments that are wrong or even don’t matter at all.
No matter the amount of a trace gas, if it absorbs radiation its energy increases and due to collisions with other molecules (O2, N2) in the atmosphere that results in an increase of the energy in all molecules, thus heating of the atmosphere, even if it is a tiny amount. That is basic physics.
The increase in heat from a CO2 doubling (280 to 560 ppmv, expected at the end of this century) is accurately measured in 1976 for the US army in laboratories with different amounts of greenhouse gases and pressures (= height in the atmosphere) and translated to real world circumstances of the 1976 atmosphere (rain, clouds) for different parts of the world and the “Standard 1976 atmosphere”.
That program is now on-line and can be used to see the effect of different amounts of CO2, CH4, water vapor feedback,… on the absorption of IR by these trace gases:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The current, measured (from the 13C/12C ratio) amount of man-made CO2 is around 10%, far beyond the 3% of what you expect. Why is that? What many skeptics forget is that in a balance there are inputs but also outputs, Thus while only 4% in input is from human emissions, 96% is natural, 98% of the outputs are natural an 0% human. Nature thus absorbs more CO2 than it releases and (near) all CO2 increase (as mass) is from human emissions. That humans are responsible for the CO2 increase is supported by all available evidence:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
That thus is a complete wrong argument and undermines any good argument that one may have against the non-existent catastrophes told by from alarmists…
@John
An ice age is when there is permanent (as opposed to seasonal) ice on Earth.
We have been in the Quaternary Ice Age for some 3 million years.
An Ice Age has very cold – “glacial”, and less cold – “interglacial” periods within it. In the last 1 million years, there have been 10 glacial/interglacial cycles with a frequency of about 100 Kyr.
We are in an interglacial period now, but a quick look at Antarctica will confirm that we are still very much in an ice age.