|The Shrill at work.|
|"Increasing has little to no effect"||The strong effect has been observed by many different measurements.|
Why the Shrill via people like UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) imagine that human's emissions of carbon dioxide have anything to do with the climate is an exercise in hubristic nonsense, which seems to be the Shrill and the Green's greatest talent.
NZCSC write in
Temporarily suspending science by assuming the UN radiative back-warning 'theory' of global warming is valid. Purely for purposes of illustration one can calculate an indicative impact of human production of CO2 on rising temperature.
Use relevant assumptions widely acknowledged world-wide:
- CO2's theoretical maximum share of the greenhouse gas theory's effect is 3% (water vapour is 95%)
- Total human production of CO2 is 3% of Earth's annual production (UN IPCC figure), and
- Using temperature increase of 0.8°C since 1860 - close to start of industrialisation and the end of Little Ice Age.
These indicative calculations exaggerate the UN IPCC's theorised impacts of human CO2 because
they ignore the logarithmically decreasing impact of raising CO2
First 20 ppm causes warming of 15.3 watts per square metre;
next 20 ppm causes warming of 2.9 W/m2;
next 20 ppm causes warming of 1.7 W/m2.
Anthony Cox continues
It’s the logarithmic decline in extra CO2. This means more CO2 has LESS effect on temperature. It’s a diminishing return. This has been known for a long time.
Even the IPCC concedes this noting that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.
But alarmists still maintain temperature could go up basically forever (items 7, 34, 91, 110); this is another prime example of alarmists ignoring their own ‘evidence’.
Professor William Happer has a straightforward explanation of where the IPCC goes wrong in respect of the log effect.