A simple CO2 model

10/18/2019 09:23 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
In this video Professor of Astronomy Michael Merrifield (University of Nottingham) presents a simple model of the CO2 greenhouse effect.

He leaves out clouds, albedo effect, ocean interaction, sun cycles and a lot of other factors that affect the climate and discusses only the CO2 radiation in the atmosphere.

Then, he explains his hypothesis for a surface temperature of 15 °C. And yes, that might be the Earth's approximate average temperature, but in the real world, temperatures vary from -40 °C to 35 °C at any given moment. He does not explain how this hypothesis works under these circunstances.

His main argument is that when the CO2-concentration rises, the atmosphere will start emitting from a higher layer. The temperature at that emitting layer has to be -18 °C. So, if the -18 °C temperature layer is higher up in the atmosphere and as the temperature rises 6.5 °C for each kilometer we go down from that layer, the surface temperature will go up.

That's the model. Now, let's fire up some modeled diesel-engines, build some modeled coal plants, emit some additional CO2 and take this model to the limit.

As we add more CO2 the emitting point will go up, so if we add a lot more, at some point the emitting level will reach the tropopause. In the tropopause, the temperature won't decrease any more with higher altitudes, so from that point on, adding more CO2 will not have any effect on the Earth's temperature according to this model.
If we still add a lot more CO2, the emitting point will reach the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, the temperature will go up with higher altitudes so, according to this model, the surface temperature must go down.

If you take this model to the limit, it tells you that temperatures will drop when you add more CO2

Doesn't sound very convincing, right? The CO2-concentration goes up and the temperature goes down. But that is what the model tells us.

Clearly this model fails. It's an oversimplification of the real world.

In the real world, the CO2 greenhouse effect has a logarithmic progression and is mostly saturated. Adding more CO2 has no measurable effect on the surface temperature. This is reflected in real-world empirical data.

Tom van Leeuwen, October 18th, 2019.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

An estimation of the human influence on the climate

The month of May has come to an end. Another month of economic paralysis and reduced human CO2 emissions. And again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise to record levels in modern measurements.

It is time to remove the blindfolds and thoroughly analyze the question of the effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperature. I propose to divide the problem into four issues, open for discussion:

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.

Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.

Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!

Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".