Thursday, 19 February 2015

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide.

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide. Well, what the heck does that mean? To this burnt out old Rock and Roller it means that the worst warming has been done and that warming was done long, long ago. Look at this graph prepared by David Archibald:
For WUWT, David wrote :
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15°C, it is 15°C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3°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°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. 
But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic.
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...
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 instead of us humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous carbon dioxide level.  
In Taxing Air, Professor Bob Carter wrote:

Is less warming bang really generated by every extra carbon dioxide buck?

Yes, carbon dioxide is of limited potency and waning influence as its concentration increases.
Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas for intercepting radiation across specific portions of the infrared spectrum, notably at wavelengths around 14.8 μ and 9 μ. Initially, at low atmospheric concentrations, the gas therefore has a strong greenhouse effect as it intercepts outgoing radiation at these wavelengths. However, the narrowness of the spectral intervals across which carbon dioxide intercepts radiation results in a rapid saturation of its effect, such that every doubling in the concentration of carbon dioxide present enhances the greenhouse effect by a constant amount.This is reflected as the negative logarithmic relationship that actually exists between extra carbon dioxide and the warming that it causes
The dramatic effect that a logarithmic scale has on the changing magnitude of incremental changes in two variables is illustrated by (this) Figure 

Note that the 

        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.

so the first 60 ppm produces a strong cumulative radiation forcing of 19.9 W/m2

Bob continues:
This pattern continues as one moves across the figure to the right, such that even at the relatively impoverished carbon dioxide level of 180 ppm that marked recent glacial episodes, more so at the 280 ppm level that marked the pre-industrial atmosphere and even more so at today’s 390 ppm, further 20 ppm increases in carbon dioxide produce only a tiny (0.2 W/m2, and successively lessening) amount of extra radiation forcing. 
Given where Earth’s atmosphere sits on the scale today (at 390 ppm), it is apparent that further increases in carbon dioxide will produce only very small increases in radiation forcing and thus global warming. Regarding the much- feared doubling of the pre-industrial level (i.e. an increase from 280 to 560 ppm), and noting the decreasing radiation forcing inherent in the logarithmic relationship (Fig. 16, p.103), at 390 ppm the Earth has already realised nearly 50% of the additional radiation forcing and anthropogenic warming that will be induced by a full doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels. 
Given the importance of the less-bang-for-every-additional-buck nature of the relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and extra warming through radiation forcing, it is extraordinary that an explanation of the matter is almost entirely absent from the public debate. Even if all of the up to 0.8ºC warming that occurred in the 20th century were to be attributed to carbon dioxide (an unsubstantiated and highly contentious proposition in itself), the relationship implies that a full doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial concentrations will produce under 1ºC of future additional warming. Further, if the concentration were to double again to 1120 ppm, the additional global temperature increase would be less than another 2ºC. 
So, although organisations like want to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm, their aim is actually anti-science. The current level of carbon dioxide is re-greening the planet.

Professor Carter, in his series of addresses promoting the IPA's  CLIMATE CHANGE: The Facts 2014 talked of CO2 levels through deep time and some of the Myths of Climate Change (See Myth 6 - 
Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.) noted two of the myths of climate change:

  • Atmospheric CO2 is at unusually high levels today - WRONG;  and
  • More CO2 will cause dangerous warming -               WRONG.



Lord Monckton and the push to get rid of PM Abbott

Sir David King, Chemist
Climate Change Task Force

The Climate Change Task Force describes itself as a synergy of climate experts, world leaders, nobel peace laureates, and shapers of opinion – helping create the political will to address climate change. Sir David King, Chemist, is on the Climate Change Task Force. He is chief scientistic adviser to the UK Government.

The following Youtube was recorded during Lord Monckton's visit to Australia in September-October 2014.

An extract from Lord Monckton's presentation:
David King was asked whether all the nations of the world were now, in principle, ready to sign their people’s rights away in such a treaty. Yes, but there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it. 
The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN,  will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term and , in particular, before the end of 2015, so that they can get 100% wall-to-wall Marxist agreement. They do not want any stand-outs. And the most likely stand-out at the moment is Australia. So look after him.

Lord Monckton also said that we should push for the UN to include a get-out clause.
This treaty position was written into the original Kyoto protocol

"If we were not to have such a position in the World Government treaty they are trying to put in place in 2015 in Paris then that could be then end of Freedom and Democracy. It is that serious."

- - - - - - - - - - - 
Andrew Bolt points out one of the agencies pushing  to remove the PM. (Bolt (LINK)

THE ABC is trying to destroy Tony Abbott. Its bias — actually unlawful — has never been so ruthless.
Even the ABC’s hand-picked reviewer had to admit this week that the ABC’s coverage of the Abbott Government’s first Budget was marred by anti-Liberal bias — and she hadn’t even looked hard.
Colleen Ryan, a former Fairfax editor, had been asked by the ABC to check its reporting of the Budget in the week after it was delivered.
This Budget was the country’s first and best hope of reining in Labor’s massive deficits.
If it wasn’t a make-or-break moment for the country, it sure was for Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
And he got smashed, especially by the ABC, our biggest media organisation, with four TV stations, five radio stations, an online newspaper and a publishing house.