Global Warming is NOT caused by CO2!

[ibis]

Second; water vapour absorbs much the same wavelengths as CO2 so if all the atmospheric increase in CO2 was removed tomorrow you would see very little overall effect on atmospheric temperatures and thus land temperatures.

Absorption spectra:

[birthday]

Did you use a 'trick' to change the absorption spectrum of CO2!!!!!!

[SAT]

Absorption spectra:

Thanks for confirming what I said In the near and infrared and far infrared spectrums H2O shares many of the same absorption bands as CO2 and importantly those where the most energy is absorbed. Plus of course there are many 1000s of times as many water molecules to trap these wave lengths.

Why do I have this nagging suspicion you didn't mean to do that

[riven]

Absorption spectra:

If you overlap the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing radiation the myth of water being more important than CO2 is clearly wrong. It does play a part but not the main part.

The outgoing radiation wavelength peaks at around 10 microns.

[SAT]

If you overlap the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing radiation the myth of water being more important than CO2 is clearly wrong. It does play a part but not the main part.

The outgoing radiation wavelength peaks at around 10 microns.

Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region, and about 60% of the atmospheric absorption of thermal radiation emitted by the Earth. There is an atmospheric window (800 and 1400 nm) in the near-infrared spectrum where neither carbon dioxide nor water absorption occurs which is the window through which most heat escapes back into space.

[feargach]

Thanks for confirming what I said In the near and infrared and far infrared spectrums H2O shares many of the same absorption bands as CO2 and importantly those where the most energy is absorbed. Plus of course there are many 1000s of times as many water molecules to trap these wave lengths.

Why do I have this nagging suspicion you didn't mean to do that

His point is simply, more CO2, more gets absorbed. A cubic metre of atmosphere with low CO2 levels absorbs less than a cubic metre with higher CO2 levels. Pretty straightforward stuff. If you allowed your rational faculties to work you could probably understand it.

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking by Doug L. Hoffman

Recent claims by climate change alarmists have raised the possibility that terrestrial ecosystems and particularly the oceans have started loosing part of their ability to absorb a large proportion of man-made CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because currently only about 40% of anthropogenic emissions stay in the atmosphere, the rest is sequestered by a number of processes on land and sea. The warning that the oceans have reached their fill and their capacity to remove atmospheric CO2 is accompanied by the prediction that this will cause greenhouse warming to accelerate in the future. A new study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data and concludes that the portion of CO2 absorbed by the oceans has remained constant since 1850.

Wolfgang Knorr from the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, has published a study in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?” Knorr combines data from ice cores, direct atmospheric measurements, and emission inventories to show that the fraction of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has stayed constant over the past 160 years, at least within the limits of measurement uncertainty. Here is the paper's abstract:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking | The Resilient Earth

[Akrasia]

from the link I posted


These are satelite measurements of the changes in radiation being emitted from earth between the 70s and 80s.

Notice the large drop in the wavelengths that CO2 and CH4 (methane) can easily absorb.

These results have been confirmed by measurements of downward radiation towards the earths surface

We have direct measurements of changes in radiation emissions as we would expect if CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas.

What do the 'skeptics' have?

[feargach]

f
What do the 'skeptics' have?

Same thing they always had: lies, snideness, ignorance and selfishness.

[Akrasia]

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking by Doug L. Hoffman



Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking | The Resilient Earth

that may be so, but we are still emitting billions of tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere more than the biosphere can absorb each year even at current rates.

The effects are that oceans are becoming more acidic (or less alkaline) to the extent that many of the animals essential to the marine food chain are at risk.

Polluting the environment with CO2 has more negative effects than just global warming, there are plenty of arguments for why we should reduce carbon output, very very few, extremely flimsly and politically motivated reasons for why we should keep polluting