Living in the greenhouse

"In the absence of other changes."

________________________________________________________________________

A 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S can go from 0 to 60 MPH in 2.5 seconds, not the fastest car in the world but pretty damn fast. So how fast can this car get from 0-120 MPH? If you knew nothing about cars and mechanics you might guess 5 seconds, double the speed, double the time. Actually though, it takes 7.9 seconds for the Porsche to reach 120 MPH, almost three times the time to go double the additional speed, what a rip off. It gets worse for the so called "high performance" vehicle though. To get up to 180 MPH, three times the speed it takes a whopping 25.4 seconds, ten times the time! Then to top it off, once it reaches 205 MPH, that's it, that's as fast as it will go. It doesn't matter how much you press the gas pedal down on your $205,000 investment you are going as fast as the car can go, $1,000 per MPH, with diminishing returns for every mile per hour you accelerate.

Like a high performance, or any car for that matter, carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas has its limitations. The more you add to the atmosphere the less the warming effect of the additional molecules. It has been known for over a century that increasing CO2 acts as a logarithmic function, the more you add the less heat it reflects. This is not some new discovery, the properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas pre-date the infant science climatology.

It is not even a question of how much temperatures will rise by a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels which climate scientist have arbitrarily established as having been 280 parts per million (PPM). When, sometime in the future, we reach that doubling, atmospheric CO2 will have caused 1.2 degC of warming, about 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

This is not in dispute, it is actually from the UN's IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.

When you understand and fully comprehend the simplicity of this truth, you can begin to understand the deception going on for a generation now. The deception begins with the last words, "in the absence of other changes."

The "climate change" theater is a play which is best described in three acts, but it all begins with those other changes without which there is no theory at all, so we will start there. The proper term for the climate change charade is The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Continuing from above, here is the IPCC explanation of the enhancement:

In reality, due to feedback, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

The all important "other changes" is the feedback from the initial warming caused by the initial increase in temperatures, caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is augmented by various other greenhouse gasses such as cow farts. All these have one thing in common, they are here because man is here, without mankind's selfishness, everything would be just fine. So goes the narrative, I guess dinosaurs did not fart.

Putting cow and dinosaurs farts aside for now, the IPCC gets to the main driver of those "other changes" which is the true bull in the china shop according to their theory. Again the IPCC in their own words:

The so-called water vapor feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapor due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.

To summarize, as CO2 increases it will cause the temperature to increase by a maximum of 1.2 degC. This increased temperature will then cause more evaporation of water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere which will amplify the effect of the CO2 caused warming, got it? This is known as the "enhanced greenhouse effect". There are other feedbacks which the theory proposes which also amplify warming but without the water vapor feedback they really are moot.

You will note that I used the IPCC report from 2007, the reason is that it explains it well and nothing has really changed with the theory, it is what it is. All the dire predictions and verbiage spilled in the years before and after those words were written are totally dependent on that explanation being true.

Some items to consider, all of which time permitting, I will write about in more detail later.

• The water vapor feedback is not caused by carbon dioxide directly but rather the increase in temperatures. That being the theory, has it never, in historical time, less alone geological time been warmer than the 1.2 degC than it is now? If so why didn't those periods cause this dangerous feedback, these other changes?

• And when is now? When did the temperature start rising and what was that ideal Earth temperature at which this countdown to Armageddon began? After all the narrative if not the theory is that everything was fine until our carbon dioxide started the warming, so what's the baseline?

• If clouds are the key to the unknown, which is responsible for a tremendous range of outcomes, how can they be so sure of those outcomes when they still have not figured out the riddle of the clouds? After all aren't clouds formed from that all important water vapor?

• What of the negative feedbacks to a warming world? Negative in the sense of occurrences that happen as the result of warming that actually mitigate the dangers of warming. My last article discussed just one, but what about others?

• What about the Sun which seems to have become a bit player in this climate drama. Does it effect our climate at all, or is it just a benevolent source of heat that has been waiting for our fossil fuel use to come along to control Earth's climate?

• Finally, what if they are wrong? What if everyone is patterning their own lives and professions guided by an underlying belief in a theory which is not true? What if even honest scientist and academics in other fields, politicians and teachers, businesses and individuals are using the mistaken trust in this flawed theory as a basis for their own theories, plans, and spewing out countless scientific studies and predictions and policies based on something that is just not real? What then?

Clouds are an important part of the water cycle here on Earth. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Media Malice

Living in the greenhouse

The twenty first century, a new Green Revolution

PART 2

* "In the absence of other changes."

Part 3

* Why Earth?

Part 4

*The Global Thermometer

Part 5

*The Deceptions- "getting back to normal"

Part 5

*An if based on an if is still an if

___________________________________________________________________

I cannot believe I have to begin this with a simple statement of scientific fact. But due to popular narrative and myth building I think it is necessary to get this out of the way in the beginning.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) does not heat anything. It generates no heat at all. Everyone, even the most committed "warmist" know this, they know that CO2, as a greenhouse gas has, of itself, no capacity to heat anything. Like oxygen and nitrogen which comprise the vast majority of our atmosphere, carbon dioxide is a harmless, odorless and colorless gas.

Yet CO2 has been so vilified in the narrative of "climate change" that it has taken on the popular characteristics of a fuel. The narrative is as simple, and as wrong as this; Add CO2 to the atmosphere and the Earth will get warmer, like adding wood to a fire.

Outside of the context of climate change the term greenhouse is a benign even positive term, as it should be. The greenhouse effect, the trapping of the Sun's radiated heat in the atmosphere, is not only harmless, it ls required for life, as we know it on planet Earth. With the greenhouse effect of trapped heat, the Earth maintains an average temperature of around 15degC or 59 F. Without the greenhouse effect it drops to -15degC or about 5 F.

Twenty thousand years ago during the last ice age, it is estimated that the Earths average temperature was 46 F. Given that life barely survived the balmy 46 degrees, it is obvious that without the greenhouse effect, Earth at five degrees would just be a lifeless ball of ice.

You might be surprised to learn, that for all of the vilification of CO2, its contribution to the the life giving greenhouse effect is only about ten percent. By far the greatest contribution to life on Earth because of the blessed greenhouse effect, is water vapor.

You would have a hard time knowing this, now that climate change has become a religion of its own. In this post reality world of science we now live in, atmospheric water vapor is basically referred to as a "positive feedback" which is the result of all those other nasty greenhouse gasses which we have spewed into the air with our selfish use of so called fossil fuels. It is true, that a warming planet creates more water vapor, but this cloaks the bigger truth, water vapor in the atmosphere has always been there and has always been the largest contributing factor to the greenhouse effect on Earth, thank God.

Early on in my work life I was involved in a company that manufactured planters. Planters and house plants being a new fad in the early seventies. Later we began to plant our planters and sell them already planted with various house plants, they were quite popular. Down the road a bit we began to grow our own plants, but at the beginning we purchased plants from established growers in Central Florida around the Ocala area. We were located in South Florida, so every Saturday my friend Ralph and I would take the company step van and head up the turnpike to our plant supplier.

These were established growers and they had dozens of greenhouses over many acres growing many varieties of house plants. We would spend the day going through the various greenhouses selecting "crates" of plants and fill the racks in our truck. One observation that fascinated us, was that outside of every structure was a wood stove with the flu fed into the greenhouse. Being perplexed we finally asked what the wood stoves were for, to heat the greenhouse in the winter time?

No, we were told, the purpose of the stoves was to feed the plants. The carbon dioxide generated by the burning of the wood was plant food. In fact the higher the carbon dioxide levels in the greenhouse, the faster and healthier the plants would grow. This is basic science which I was taught in fifth grade. This too is the science of carbon dioxide. In fact, back twenty thousand years ago, during the last ice age of 46 degrees, CO2 levels were down to a life threatening atmospheric level of 180 parts per millions. At 160 per million, plants stop growing. below that and there are no plants on Earth.

Remember that bit of info when botanist and virologist Bill Gates and other fools talk about shading the Earth with soot to save us from global warming. It should also scare you to learn that Gates now owns more farm land in America than any single individual. Ctrl, Alt, Delete the crops that feed the world.

A few years back, "scientist" as they are want to do when it comes to climate change, ran some figures through there super computer modeling programs and surprise, they panicked. Again, as they are want to do, they sent out the message to their media groupies that the Amazon rain forest was going to die off due to CO2 induced climate change, fossil fuels, heat drought... you know the drill. Of course this is all over the media and kids are taught another lesson on how bad humans are to the world they inhabit. How their future is just one sad tale of planetary destruction after another....some day. So kids make sure you don't grow up and have too many children, if any, to hasten Gaia's demise.

Fast forward four years later and the same scientist do another study. This time they decide to factor in the affect increased carbon dioxide will have on the plants themselves rather than just the minor increase in temperatures which they had predicted would wipe out as much as 85% of the Amazon rain forest.

They plug this common sense info into their models and now they have to issue another press release. This time with basic botany now added into their previous apocalyptic equation.

The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.

The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.

What is striking about that statement is the "widely believed." Nobody believed that climate change was destroying the Amazon before they put out the panic report in 2008. People have always been worried about deforestation, as they should be, it was only the "experts" that threw global warming into the mix. Nobody widely believes this panic porn until the experts and their media hyenas regurgitate it to a trusting public.

As it turn out those experts, once real world science is applied, realized the very thing (increased atmospheric CO2) which was supposed to destroy as much 85% of the Amazon, would make the forest healthier. Damn I could have told them that after leaving Mrs. Sanders class fifty some years ago.

Fast forward another four years to 2016 and a reverse to the Emperor has no clothes situation is beginning to take place. In this case though the Emperor has clothes while all his minions claims he doesn't. The Emperor is Earth and his clothes is vegetation.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

.... The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

The report goes on to say that over seventy percent of this increased greening is the direct result of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. What causes the remainder?

However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect.

Climate Change IE: Global Warming caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the actual carbon dioxide itself are greening the Earth. Well at least that is what the scientist said in 2016.

Fast forward to present day and it seems that the greening of Earth is causing some consternation among the climate change commissars. There is no denying the basic science of carbon dioxide's benefit to plant life, there is also no denying the longer growing seasons and the benefit to plant life in a warmer climates, but like anything else to do with the "authorized" narrative, if it is good news it must be diminished or destroyed.

There are two tracts being used to diminish the greening Earth good news. The first is to say that the CO2 induced greening is reaching its limit. This is particularly disingenuous since they never factored this into their various scenarios in the first place and now claim to

understand what that limit is, if there is one.

The second is also quite strange, they claim that this greening is being driven by China and India.

This hypothesis is that in the past twenty years both China and India have done massive reforestation programs which have accounted for a large portion of this greening. This is probably true, but it is also true that the two nations with the greatest increase in CO2 emissions over the past two decades are...China and India. So they are doing an excellent job at fertilizing their new foliage. As you can see, they are not alone in significant greening.

I know this sounds insane to those marinated in the climate change hysteria which has gripped the world going on a generation now, but the truth is that burning fossil fuels is good for the environment. At least it has been since the late eighties when we began to get the truly dangerous emissions under control. Regardless, carbon dioxide is not dangerous, it is a blessing to mankind. In fact, truth be told, a proper understanding of the man made global warming theory (revised to climate change when it stopped warming as predicted) shows that it isn't even much of a factor in warming the Earth. But that is for another day.