This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

We are all familiar with the claim that "because we know CO2 is increasing, then it must be the reason why global warming is occurring." But is there any truth to that claim?

Maybe we should take a look at past global temperatures and the level of CO2 that occurred then to see whether this claim is true or not.

According to NASA back in 1898 CO2 levels on Earth's atmosphere was 294.9, rounding it up to 295 ppm.

In 1998 atmospheric CO2 levels were 366.27, which if we round it up is 366 ppm.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

This means that from 1898-1998 CO2 levels increased by 71ppm and in that same time frame we know temperatures increases by ~0.8 degrees.

Now, if we look at the amount of CO2 that has increased from 1998 (366ppm) until 2016 (405ppm) we know that in 18 years CO2 levels increased by 39ppm. This is a bit more than half the amount of CO2 that increased from 1898-1998. Taking that in consideration if CO2 was the cause of the warming from 1898-1998 and it caused a ~0.8 degree increase in temperatures then it is only logical that if CO2 has increased by 39ppm then temperatures should have increased at least ~0.4 degrees from 1998-2016 right?

Let's look at the latest satellite measurements.


www.drroyspencer.com...

But we know we can't use the anomalies that occurred in 1997-1998, or in 2010, nor the one which occurred from 2014-2016 because those anomalies are El Niños which are not caused by CO2 but are rather solar induced anomalies.

Here are two recent papers that confirm this statement.

The Sun is the climate pacemaker I. Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures

The Sun is the climate pacemaker II. Global ocean temperatures

So, if we do not use the solar induced anomalies known as ENSO, temperatures would be around 0.1 -0.2 from the global average.



We also know that without the 1997-1998 ENSO temperatures would have been ~0.1 from the global average back in 1998. So it seems temperatures have increased from ~0.1 in 1998 to ~0.2 in 2016 which means temperatures increased by ~0.1 degrees meanwhile CO2 levels increased 39ppm.

But wait a second, isn't CO2 supposed to be the all evil gas that has increased temperatures by ~0.8 from 1898-1998 when CO2 levels increased by 72ppm? Why isn't CO2 increasing temperatures by half (~0.4 degrees) if from 1998-2016 CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm?

Perhaps temperatures haven't increased like they should have because CO2 is not the greenhouse gas that is claimed to have caused climate change in the form of warming?

We are messing up our atmosphere and I think we are also causing changes in our geomagnetic fields from all of the stuff we are doing. It isn't just CO2, the airheads at the top just grabbed a little part of the problem. It is unnatural chemistry or unnaturally concentrated chemistry that is causing the problems. This includes a lot of alterations we have made to our ecosystems around the world.

The Earth is going through a cycle and we should be having the problems we are now having in about a thousand years from now. We accelerated the cycle somehow. We have made a mess of things by exploiting our environment.

A lot of species in earths history have put themselves into extinction by ruining their environment. A cow can't eat the grass too low to kill it by design, now this is an adaption nature has made. But we invented big tools and things that go boom and we are destroying vast areas and altering the vegetation. That is part of the problem, we are ignorant of conserving this ecosystem.

Or perhaps the climate is a little more complex than having a linear relationship between the amount of a chemical and the temperature, that does not mean that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It unquestionably is, even the gas companies like Exxon realized it back in the 1970s.


If carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas, and the sun is the only important factor, why is the planet Venus hotter than Mercury, even though it is way farther away from the sun?

Stefan Molynuex had a professor on just a couple days ago talking about this very same thing...

Through grade school and college whenever 'global warming' came up, everyone of my teachers/professors in their respected fields of science, would roll their eyes, give a short lecture and basically debunk it as sensationalized pop-science theory.

Yea, true enough. However C02 is not the cause, but rather implicated as a significant effect that help bring it all into fruition.

Without question, as perfectly recorded in the ice cores, you can directly tie CO2 concentration in the atmosphere with Ice Ages. Take your pick, try and change something that cannot be fixed, or delay that something by being more concerned with the side-effect that makes it happen.

a reply to: rexsblues

Thanks for that video.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Why isn't CO2 increasing temperatures by half (~0.4 degrees) if from 1998-2016 CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm?

Because CO2 and °C do not correlate in a linear way.
You're disregarding climate sensitivity (feedback lag) and the relative contributions of natural forcings (like the function of oceans as CO2 buffers - to name one). Your timeframe here is just way too short.

I wont make the case here that co2 is the cause of global warming. But, you ignored one major factor in your analysis: time. Given the shorter time period, one could conclude that it actually fits with your numbers when time is factored in.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

lets say that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures whatsoever, is that really an excuse to keep burning oil and coal without restrictions?? do you really want to increase CO2 levels to 1000+ppm even assuming that it does not affect affect global temperatures?

a reply to: ColCurious

That's not what the AGW camp has been claiming all along... The claim has been CO2 is the most important factor, if that is true then with an increase of 39ppm of CO2 temperature should have increased ~0.4 degrees.

As for your statement about oceans as CO2 buffers, perhaps you aren't aware that our oceans have been steadily losing heat. in fact, it was also part of the reason why I gave those links to the research about our sun being a pacemaker for climate.

Let me show you what the temperature for the Pacific ocean region has been and is now.



www.pas.rochester.edu...

Our oceans are one of the balance forces that exist on Earth, when there is a lot of solar activity they store a lot of heat and get warmer, but when our sun's activity lowers, then our oceans react by releasing more trapped heat into Earth's atmosphere, which is what is happening.

As for your argument that the time frame is too short?... For what would you need a longer time frame? Does CO2 only warm after several years only when you want to claim that it should? Or is it simply that the claims that CO2 traps a lot of heat a false argument?

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but just because it is a greenhouse gas it doesn't mean it should trap the heat claimed by the AGW camp. More so when we know by now that the majority of the GCMs have been wrong because they over estimate the warming absorbed by CO2.

That's without mentioning the other changes occurring in our solar system which also affect and change Earth's climate and geology.

originally posted by: pirhanna
I wont make the case here that co2 is the cause of global warming. But, you ignored one major factor in your analysis: time. Given the shorter time period, one could conclude that it actually fits with your numbers when time is factored in.

The argument of the AGW camp has been making is that CO2 is the biggest factor behind anthropogenic global warming/Climate Change. Now, you are going to change the argument to "CO2 only begins warming after x amounts of years of being in the atmosphere"?... Really? how does that work when the lifetime of a single CO2 molecule in Earth's atmosphere is about 5 years?

a reply to: choos

First of all, people, pets, and plants already live with 1,000+ ppm CO2. That room you are in probably has around 800ppm to over 1,000ppm CO2. Earth has had more CO2 in it's atmosphere than we have now, and plants and life prospered. There have been times in Earth's geological history when Earth's atmosphere had over 4,000ppm CO2, and Earth did not turn into Venus.

There is also no corroborating evidence that mankind will be able to increase CO2 to 1,000ppm we don't even know what is going to happen in the next 10 years, and much less in the next 100 years.

It is a known fact that most plants thrive with higher levels of CO2 than at present. Not to mention the fact that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 plants make better use of water, leaving more water for animals and humans.

This is not an excuse to really pollute Earth either, but CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a basic molecule needed for all life on Earth. We are after all carbon based living beings, and so is all life on Earth.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
Or perhaps the climate is a little more complex than having a linear relationship between the amount of a chemical and the temperature, that does not mean that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It unquestionably is, even the gas companies like Exxon realized it back in the 1970s.


If carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas, and the sun is the only important factor, why is the planet Venus hotter than Mercury, even though it is way farther away from the sun?

Simple, Venus has an atmosphere, a really thick one, thicker than Earths, Mercury does not.

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Why isn't CO2 increasing temperatures by half (~0.4 degrees) if from 1998-2016 CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm?

Because CO2 and °C do not correlate in a linear way.
You're disregarding climate sensitivity (feedback lag) and the relative contributions of natural forcings (like the function of oceans as CO2 buffers - to name one). Your timeframe here is just way too short.

Or climate "science" is the BS many of already believe it to be.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The claim has been CO2 is the most important factor, [...]

All scientifically peer reviewed data (up until now) still suggest this, while various possible factors and effects are also still researched.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
[...] if that is true then with an increase of 39ppm of CO2 temperature should have increased ~0.4 degrees.

How would one know the exact function to calculate this, while the entire established scientific world is still researching all the variables that come in to play?
Take just the factor of the movement of heat via our different spheres...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
As for your statement about oceans as CO2 buffers, perhaps you aren't aware that our oceans have been steadily losing heat.

While our oceans sure exchange heat, the general ocean heat content increases. Especially in deep oceans.
The study you've posted considers only data from the period January 1990 through December 2013.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
As for your argument that the time frame is too short?... For what would you need a longer time frame? Does CO2 only warm after several years only when you want to claim that it should?

Global climate reacts slow.
You need a longer timetable to account for various influences, and the duration it takes for them to impact the naturally occurring climate-cycles.

a reply to: Metallicus

originally posted by: Metallicus

Or climate "science" is the BS many of already believe it to be.

If the climate "science" is false - there is no need to believe anything.
Just refute it and thus improve it.
That's how the "scientific process" works after all.

a reply to: rexsblues

Watched that last night.

Didn't they say that people exhale 40ppm of CO2 with every breath? 7+ bil ppl. Plus whatever ppm animals exhale.

Also the very high clouds are the ones that keep the infrared waves/rays from escaping back out into space.

The whole AGW is BS.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: choos

First of all, people, pets, and plants already live with 1,000+ ppm CO2. That room you are in probably has around 800ppm to over 1,000ppm CO2. Earth has had more CO2 in it's atmosphere than we have now, and plants and life prospered. There have been times in Earth's geological history when Earth's atmosphere had over 4,000ppm CO2, and Earth did not turn into Venus.

i dont burn fuel in my room though..

There is also no corroborating evidence that mankind will be able to increase CO2 to 1,000ppm we don't even know what is going to happen in the next 10 years, and much less in the next 100 years.

so if we continue to fell as many trees as we need and continue to burn as much fuel as we want, it wont have any affect whatsoever?

It is a known fact that most plants thrive with higher levels of CO2 than at present. Not to mention the fact that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 plants make better use of water, leaving more water for animals and humans.

that would be perfect if the burning process was 100% efficient and CO2 was the only "dirty" emission.. but that isnt the case here..

This is not an excuse to really pollute Earth either, but CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a basic molecule needed for all life on Earth. We are after all carbon based living beings, and so is all life on Earth.

do you get that the burning of fuels does not only produce CO2?? CO2 just happens to be ONE OF MANY emissions that is produced with burning of fuels.

a reply to: choos

I know, right?!

The stupid Rapa Nui cut down all their trees, now look at them!

All that is left are the Moai. Not even one long ear, either.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Here's an equation :

T = a + bC

Where a and b are constants, C is % Co2 and T is temperature

This is what you are stating isn't occurring to prove that Co2 is not a trigger of warming. Of course it all assumes
that that linear equation is an accurate reflection of the relationship between C02 and Temperature

IT IS NOT. ok !!

It is far more complicated involving several mechanisms involving heat flowing from one location to another.

Jesus H They have to have the most powerful computers ever built to work on this and there is is still an
error margin. An error margin that is narrowing but ALWAYS upward! Of course a consistent upward trend like this should have most people who can think exceptionally worried.

Your post is not based on science. It is a classic example of cherry picking some science, adding your own incorrect assertions and coming to a conclusion that fits in with your own pre-existing stubborn belief.

One wonders why. It screams defensive why? The US now has a very anti GW president, what more could you want ? Without the US on board any international climate change decisions are pointless. You have won, the world is set to change significantly with devastating affects on food and water, which we are already beginning to see.

Oh and don't give me the "CO2 increases plant growth" line. That shows how ignorant your botanical knowledge is. Increasing plant growth does occur but the nutrient level is lower. So you might have more apples but you need to eat more of them DUH!!!!