1. The climate alarmists don’t use science. They use computer modeling to predict the future. They say the the future will bring bad storms, extreme heat, floods, and drought. Then they use circular logic whenever there are bad storms, extreme heat, floods, and drought, “See we told you so. This is proof of climate change.” Then they insist that is science and the science is settled so you had better do everything they say we need to do to avoid an existential threat. “The sky is falling!” No, it’s not, Chicken Little.

    1. There is nothing wrong with models that work. Models predicting within a set of datum values can be very useful. Models that extrapolate beyond the observed datum values are the problem.

  2. The C-14 discussion is one I have not heard before. It is quite convincing since C-14 levels can be accurately measured. Two questions:
    1. How do you establish the baseline C-14 level? You state that: “the amount of carbon-14 compared to carbon-12 is exactly what nature has produced for millions of years.” How do we know that? I thought some radioisotopes were influenced by cosmic ray levels and other factors.
    2. The C-14 levels in fossil fuels are lower than in carbon in the biosphere because the C-14 has decayed. But aren’t the C-14 levels in fossil fuels non-zero? i.e. they are adding some C-14, but just not as much C-14 as in the atmosphere. The dilution of the C-14 in the atmosphere by human addition of fossil CO2 is a dilution problem that depends on both C-14 concentrations, atmosphere and fossil fuel.

  3. The AGW people use C14 to coverup the shell game that they have been engaged in for 60 plus yrs. They must know that at least 50 percent of atmospheric O2 and CO2 come from the oceans. There is an ecosystem in the oceans that depends on O2 and CO2. We were recently told of a massive undersea volcano that went off in the south pacific. It must have released a lot of CO2 but no C14.

    1. Geologically high CO2 epochs caused carbonate to precipitate in the world ocean. This infers that there is an upper limit to CO2 at which point oolite precipitation starts again. Currently, only 3 places on earth precipitate oolite in shallow lagoons. We have one mile thick limestone in Victorville, CA and that CO2 came from the atmosphere.

  4. The notion that a science model cannot be proven true is clearly incorrect, and is a false assertion that itself had no proof of being true. How so? Simple. You make predictions with it and see if they occur. If you have a model that predicts things accurately then you can presume it is correct until such time as it makes an incorrect prediction. That does not prove the model is false. It can also mean that your model is not expansive enough and that new discovery is indicated by the outlier data. If you have a strong model, outliers show you more. That is, other things can interact with your model.

  5. CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. The Noble Gas law controls atmospheric temperature, and is predictive for every planet for which we have data. Venus isn’t hot because its atmosphere is mostly CO2; it’s hot because its atmosphere is six times denser than Earth’s, and density plus gravity equals friction produces heat. (I can’t find it again offhand but two physics guys did a really good presentation, with actual data, lost somewhere in the depths of Youtube.)

    This is first-year physical chemistry, but seems to have entirely escaped notice in the rush to blame plant food for global warming. I guess they don’t like breathing much.

    1. Reziac,
      You said “it’s hot because its atmosphere is six times denser than Earth’s, and density plus gravity equals friction produces heat.”
      When compressing air, it heats up because of the work done by the piston on the air in the compressor cylinder. Once it is compressed in a tank, it cools to the ambient temperature and even though it is at 100 psi or more it doesn’t sit there generating heat. So I don’t understand your claim that pressure governs the temperature of the atmosphere.

  6. Why would the world want to zero out their emissions of CO₂? There has never been any empirical evidence submitted anywhere, by any scientific organization, that CO₂ is anything other than a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the planet. Don’t these foaming at the mouth climate extremist that say that carbon dioxide emissions MUST be eliminated, realize that if the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere drops to 150 ppm, then plant growth stops and animals die and those are the facts surrounding carbon dioxide.
    I see no empirical evidence is presented by any one, or their scientific organizations, that in any way demonstrates that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature. The reason for that is that the trace gas, CO₂, that all animals exhales with each and every one of their breaths, HAS never in the past 4.5 billion year long history of the Earth’s existence had anything to do with its complex climate & it would take a total idiot to now believe, with no proof, that at .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere today, that it can determine what the climate, or temperature, on Earth will be like in the future. These poor fools who stupidly allege that CO₂ is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise cannot give any reason why this record is still valid after over108 years and has not been exceeded even though their hated CO₂ levels have gone up. We went to Death Valley to see where this all-time record was set and it is a National Park to high light the importance of the occasion that happened 108 years ago.

    World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
    “On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”

    1. Doug,
      You are most likely far more educated on climate than myself. I noted your question and asked it of the people that post on skepticalscience.com. They are pro AGW, for sure. I tend to believe from all the articles and papers I’ve read that the warming is all natural. See my site at ourwoods.org (no ads) for a list of what I’ve read.
      Let me know if they are full of it and why if you could please. I would love to read what you and others have to say about their posts.

      See https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

      I also asked prior to finding the above page, where is the empirical evidence that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm. Their answer is as follows:

      MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 30 August, 2022

      “Likeitwarm @654&655,
      My comment @639 was specifically tailored and indeed a little nuanced to keep discussion within the thread’s topic. So straying beyond that topic in a response would not be unsurprising.

      One point to make is that the pressure at the tropopause is usually given as a fifth of surface pressure (200 hPa) and certainly not a tenth. And its altitude commonly given as 12km.
      But more exactly, the tropopause changes in height and pressure a lot by latitude and also a bit by the seasons. It can be as high as 17km with pressures down to 110 hPa over the tropics and as low as 8km over the poles with pressures up to 310 hPa.

      Chart here: Tropopause height&pressure by latitude&season

      CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere up to the top of the stratosphere at 50km altitude. (The bulk of atmospheric water vapour rains out low down in the troposphere, as demonstraed by the moderator-appended graphic @654.)

      You still seem concerned that high up in the atmosphere, the CO2 at altitude is well spread out as the pressure falls (so about a fifth the density at the tropopause) and also colder so there would be less thermal energy.
      And it is fundamentally this reduction in energy with altitude that drives the greenhouse effect.

      The greenhouse effect is all about the altitude at which upward-emitted IR can find holes in between the greenhouse gases above**, allowing the IR to escape from the atmosphere and exit into space.
      If that altitude were low down, the atmosphere will indeed be relatively warm and thus thermally energetic. This energy means the CO2 gets a lot of the thumping from air mollecules that sends it into the flap that can emit IR in the 15 micron wave band. And warmer air at this emissions altitude means there is a lot of the flapping CO2 at the emission altitude and thus a lot of IR pouring through the holes into space, cooling the planet.
      Note this emission altitude will always have the same amount of CO2 above. It is this physical presence determines the altitude where those holes appear to allow IR into space.

      When you then add CO2, the altitude with holes out to space becomes higher. And as the troposphere cools with altitude, and the air higher up is less energetic, it gives the CO2 less of a thumping, so with this dropping temperature there is less CO2 flapping and so there is less IR pourng out into space because of that additional CO2. That means less cooling so the planet will have to warm to find a new hotter equilibrium temperature.

      And don’t think of this reduction as a small effect. There is 3,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 in tha atmosphere and ~20% of it (so 600 billion tons) is up there playing a planet-warming game of ‘catch the photon’ high in the upper troposphere and today shooting something like 5,000TW out into space. (By comparison, today mankind’s global primary energy use is 18TW.)
      Add more CO2 and it will still be the top 600 billion tons of it playing that game of catch, but being now higher and thus colder, playing it with a little less vigour and so shooting a little less out into space.

      (** The emission altitude isn’t constant across the 15 micron wave band. The very centre of it, a narrow band on 15 microns, emits into space from way up in the stratosphere while the outer edges of the wave band still allow IR into space low down in the troposphere. These all move upwards with extra atmospheric CO2.)”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.