"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
Comments