Someone was complaining earlier about graphs not being zeroed. In order to correct this, I plotted CO2 mole fraction vs. year.
Hopefully that makes everyone happy.
Someone was complaining earlier about graphs not being zeroed. In order to correct this, I plotted CO2 mole fraction vs. year.
Hopefully that makes everyone happy.
It is easy to demonstrate that CO2 growth is not an adequate explanation for recent changes to the Earth’s temperature. I plotted GISS vs CO2 for three different time periods 1910-1940, 1940-1975, 1975-2009. Each time period shows hugely different results, ranging from +7 sensitivity down to -0.3 sensitivity. Even the polarity changes.
CO2 as an explanation is a major fail.
Historical comparisons of Arctic sailing conditions are clueless. The reason why people can slip through the NWP in a narrow window of time is because of technology.
US, Canada, Greenland and Mexico temperatures have plummeted over the last five years.
People’s belief systems have done the same.
Continue reading
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Using the RRTM radiative transfer model (incorporated in NCAR’s climate and weather models) we can easily calculate that a 100% CO2 atmosphere would be extremely cold.
CO2 only absorbs a few narrow bands of LW radiation, meaning the vast majority would radiate directly out into space.
Another clueless Colorado organization displays their ignorance.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/26/MN4F1G291R.DTL
He declared the “Aspen Global Change Institute” to be a credible organization.
A few paragraphs later says that John Christy (lead IPCC author, recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement) is not credible.
The “Aspen Global Change Institute” wrote a report “Aspen Climate Study Finds Serious Risk to the Future of Skiing” right before Aspen’s snowiest ski season in history.
Romm’s judgment is identical to the 16th century Vatican. Truth is based on adherence to religious dogma.