Thursday, January 8, 2015

Mother Nature's Experiment with CO2--Will raised CO2 level increase temperature?

"Climate sensitivity" claims are based on models not observation. There is no empirical data showing CO2 acting as a GHG.

In fact, there is a fantastic physical observation that totally debunks the “CO2 is a GHG” fallacy.
It’s just lying there waiting for a grad student to seize hold of and destroy the AGW hypothesis once and for all.
What is it? 
The massive CO2 emissions from certain volcanoes, like Mt Nyos in Africa, provides real-world events that provide data on the “heat-trapping” effects of high concentrations of CO2. But apparently no scientist has seen the connection between the theory and the physical data available for them to use to test the theory. 
The theoretical basis of AGW is: “Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will increase surface temperatures.” 
An ideal experimental design to test that hypothesis would have scientists injecting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and then monitoring local temperatures. Evidently no scientist has been able to conduct such an experiment. Instead we have amateurish propagandic showcases like Bill Nye’s jar full of CO2 “experiment.” 
Mother Nature helpfully implemented the experimental design: 
“On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages…
“Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to “hug” the ground and descend down the valleys, where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (160 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres per hour (12–31 mph). For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos, Kam, Cha, and Subum.[4] About 4,000 inhabitants fled the area, and many of these developed respiratory problems, lesions, and paralysis as a result of the gases…”
So, in Mother Nature’s experiment, she created a 160 foot thick, 14 mile long atmospheric concentration of CO2. 
The research that needs to be done would involve collecting temperature readings from before, during, and after the CO2 cloud covering the area. 

The AGW hypothesis would be: In the areas subjected to the experimental increases in concentrations of CO2, temperatures will increase following the IPCC’s “sensitivity formula” for CO2’s effects on surface temperature. 
The experiment has been conducted. Someone just needs to collect the data. Fame, fortune, and the survival of the free world await.


Snapple said...

When a volcano explodes, it also releases a lot of small particulates that block out the sun. This can cause cooling until it clears. This would also happen in a nuclear war--the soot in the high atmosphere would cause nuclear winter.
Climate science is very complicated. Michael Mann has two PhDs.

Snapple said...

Not all the heat is on the surface. Much of the heat is going into the oceans.

Kent Clizbe said...


Not sure what your point is:

"Michael Mann has 2 PhDs"

Here's what his own bio at Penn State's website claims:

"Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University."

That's just one PhD. So what?

His dissertation title was: "A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system
by Mann, Michael Evan, Yale University, 1998, 283 pages; 9835268"

That has nothing to do with either CO2, tree-rings, or volcanoes.

But, back to your volcano lesson--read the details of the African volcano referenced in this article. It "burped" gas from the bottom of a lake--there was NO "eruption" that blocked the sun.

Locals did not even know the volcano had belched--there was no warning.

The volcano "out-gassed" a massive amount of CO2--filling an entire valley with CO2.

This is a perfect real-world laboratory experiment to prove the "CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'" theory.

If, in fact, CO2 IS a GHG, then the massive proportion of CO2 in the valley, would trap massive amounts of heat, raising the temperatures to unbearable levels.

Remember the GHG proponents say that CO2, in normal proportions in the atmosphere, 0.004% is so powerful as to "boil the oceans."

Therefore, CO2 must be vastly more powerful in proportions of 50% or more.

Thanks for the chance to clarify.

Unknown said...

"Remember the GHG proponents say that CO2, in normal proportions in the atmosphere, 0.004% is so powerful as to "boil the oceans."

Please link to a quote in which a GHG proponent claims that Co2, in normal proportions in the atmosphere, 0.004%, is powerful enough to "boil the oceans".

At 400 ppm right now, CO2 constitutes 0.04% of our atmosphere. 0.004% is much, much lower...and not a normal proportion.

Kent Clizbe said...


Oops--will edit the extra zero out. The point is that the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere is miniscule--even at ten times more than the typo above.

As for "a quote in which a GHG proponent claims...CO2 will boil the oceans..." Coming right up!

It's quite easy to is your friend!

National Geographic, that former friend of science, now a gutter dweller with the rest of the frightened fraudulent fake science crowd:

"Will Earth's Ocean Boil Away?
Yes—a billion years from now, as the sun gets brighter. But could we make it happen sooner through climate change?"

Lots more, Unknown. They do it all the time.

Kent Clizbe said...

Another "boiling oceans" scary fantasy--from a university:

"This would be a greenhouse effect.

. . . and the Oceans Would Boil
It would become a runaway greenhouse effect if the rising temperature approached the boiling point of water, because then the oceans would begin to convert to water vapor, the water vapor would increase the effectiveness of heat trapping and accelerate the greenhouse effect, this would cause the temperature to rise further, thus causing the oceans to evaporate faster, etc., etc. (This type of runaway is also called a "positive feedback loop".) When the oceans were gone the atmosphere would finally stabilize at a much higher temperature and at much higher density, because all the water would now be in the atmosphere."