We have exactly 5 decades of observational data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations from an observatory on top of an active volcano that spews carbon dioxide. So, starting in the 1950's the concentration was 315 ppm, and as of the latest it is 395 parts per million. Lets do some simple math. 395 minus 315 equals 80 parts per million increase over 50 years. Divide 80 by five and we are looking at 16 ppm per decade, or 1.6 parts per million increase in carbon dioxide per year.
Remember a few posts back where I scribbled out some calculations about how much increase per year in CO2 concentration could come from the reported human fossil fuel burning numbers? If we assume for the moment that my numbers are correct, about 4 ppm per decade, then where the heck is the remaining 12 ppm coming from?
Well, the IPCC says that the extra CO2 is coming from somewhere else, maybe offgassing of permafrost or the deep oceans. Bottom line is that they don't know where the vast majority of the carbon is coming from (if my numbers are anywhere near accurate, which is why I desperately want someone else to crunch the numbers).
Lastly, this "carbon makes more carbon feedback cycle" is utterly ludicrous. If warming is caused by carbon, and carbon causes warming, this planet would never experience an ice age. Obviously something else is going on that we don't know about, can't account for, or aren't measuring.
Second issue, the IPCC claims that greenhouse gasses will cause the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. The model is simple, the earth warms the troposphere but the added greenhouse gasses slow heat transfer to the stratosphere to a rate below the transfer of heat from the stratosphere into space. No laws of thermodynamics are broken in this model.
However, I have an equally valid model that goes like this, the stratosphere is warmed by UV radiation interacting with Ozone. Ozone depletion in the stratosphere causes more UV to go through to the surface (since the troposphere contains very little ozone) and the stratosphere cools. Meanwhile the surface gets warmed by the extra UV radiation, and causes the troposphere to warm up via the normal convection and radiation cycles, but this does not speed up the heat transfer from the troposphere to the stratosphere.
Which model is true? Obviously the science of ozone thinning has been well documented, so why is my model any less valid than the IPCC accepted model? http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1469/769.full
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sir,
I heartily commend to you the lecture delivered by the late great Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park etc. fame) to CalTech entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming".
As both a great read, and a scathing expose of the dubious pseudo-science hawked by 21st Century Global Warming charlatans, it is a tour de force.
Best regards,
-Aesop
Nature follows the law of supply and demand.
When carbon is more available, the phytoplankton and blu-green algae increase in population, absorbing the excess and making more oxygen.
You can see this effect where excess fertilizer or raw sewage increase the bacteria count and plant life
The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth, such as Antarctica. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.
Zarya gets it; do these globull warming pseudo scientists know about the Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide cycle?
Even planting more trees has little effect compared with the vast CO2 > O2 conversion going on in the oceans.
All done by single-cell organisms that are obviously smarter than some scientists.
Post a Comment