The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming. The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, much more equal. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ Form the same post... this shows that adding more co2 actually does very little at this stage because the the impact decreases logarithmically. "The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions. But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:"
According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level. This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago. The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate). The diminishing percentage effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas as acknowledged by the IPCC and its concomitant diminishing temperature effect are as follows: increment cumulative 0-100 ppmv: according to David Archibald / Modtran data ~2.22°C ~2.22°C 100-200 ppmv: plants die below this level of CO2 +~0.29°C ~2.51°C 200-300 ppmv: noted as the preindustrial CO2 level +~0.14°C ~2.65°C 300-400 ppmv: current level IPCC attributes all as Man-made +~0.06°C ~2.71°C 400-600 ppmv: business as usual till 2100 +~0.08°C ~2.79°C http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ver-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/ oddly... higher levels of co2 will be much better for plant growth... which and increasing population needs.
It's logarithmic, humans add a percent or two... I ain't a gonna worry 'bout this shit. I do want the alarmist bitches to pay me some money for wasting my emotional and intellectual cpu cycles that could have been devoted to trading. Disclaimer: I mean "alarmist bitches" only in the most loving, proactive and warmest sense of the words. We all know that negativity is just wrong and brings us bad results. It was not meant in any way to be negative.
I think that their crap has probably depressed the stocks of some fossil fuel companies and they are rather attractive right now.
Updated Satellite Data Shows Even Less Global Warming Than Before University of Alabama climatologists have released the newest version of their satellite temperature datasets. Interestingly enough, the updated satellite data came with a surprise: it lowered the Earth’s warming trend. Version 6 of the satellite data shows faster warming in the early part of the satellite record, which stretches from Dec. 1978 to March. 2015, but shows reduced, or even eliminated, warming in the latter part of the record,wrote climatologists Roy Spencer, John Christy and William Braswell. UAH Version 6 satellite data now shows a decreased warming trend of 0.114 degrees Celsius per decade, compared to Version 5.6’s 0.140 degree trend. This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.” “Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica,” according to the UAH scientists.
A Swiss writer details how the scientific con of adjusting temps into a warming trend has been going on in Swiss data, too, just like so many other places in the world. Before and after on the left and right: We're gonna need a bigger prison. http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/01/...king-a-warming/#sthash.3yvC4dY7.4YzGfEcs.dpbs