{"id":408271,"date":"2010-03-08T07:42:44","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T12:42:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prisonplanet.com\/?p=36178"},"modified":"2010-03-08T07:42:44","modified_gmt":"2010-03-08T12:42:44","slug":"the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/408271","title":{"rendered":"The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide"},"content":{"rendered":"

Watts Up With That?<\/a>
\nMarch 8, 2010<\/p>\n

Guest post by David Archibald<\/strong><\/p>\n

The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30\u00b0 C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15\u00b0 C, it is 15\u00b0 C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3\u00b0 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\u00b0 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.<\/p>\n

But the relationship isn\u2019t 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:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

And this graphic of his shows carbon dioxide\u2019s contribution to the whole greenhouse effect:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

I recast Willis\u2019 first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).<\/p>\n

Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. If plants were doing climate science<\/a> instead of us<\/a> humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous carbon dioxide level.<\/p>\n

Some of the IPCC climate models predict that temperature will rise up to 6\u00b0 C as a consequence of the doubling of the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. So let\u2019s add that to the graph above and see what it looks like:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

The IPCC models water vapour-driven positive feedback as starting from the pre-industrial level. Somehow the carbon dioxide below the pre-industrial level does not cause this water vapour-driven positive feedback. If their water vapour feedback is a linear relationship with carbon dioxide, then we should have seen over 2\u00b0 C of warming by now. We are told that the Earth warmed by 0.7\u00b0 C over the 20th<\/sup> Century. Where I live \u2013 Perth, Western Australia<\/a> \u2013 missed out on a lot of that warming.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

Nothing happened up to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, which gave us<\/a> a 0.4\u00b0 warming, and it has been flat for the last four decades.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s see what the IPCC model warming looks like when it is plotted as a cumulative bar graph:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u00b0 C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43\u00b0 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.