Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 month ago

NASA (early 1970s): “CO2 would have to increase 10 times to achieve a 2.5-degree rise in temperature”?

The chemistry and physics of carbon dioxide DOES NOT support the global warming theory, and NASA was aware of this way-back when the notion of wielding climate science as political weapon was but a twinkle in a young Al Gore’s eye.

In the early 1970s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a strong and consistent theory regarding the trace gas that is carbon dioxide.

“The amount of atmospheric CO2 would have to increase 10 times to achieve a 2.5-degree rise in temperature,” scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies were reported as saying in October, 1972.

“More CO2 wouldn’t raise the temperature any further because the gas would have reached its absorption limit,” the researchers added.

This “absorption limit” is one of the most critical points in the AGW myth.

Alarmists’ linear thinking tells them the more carbon dioxide you add to the atmosphere the hotter it will get — but this is a scientifically-baseless assumption, a li(n)e they’ve been fed by the dippy-eco-journalists (non-scientists) of the world who couldn’t recognize a nefarious controlling agenda if it kicked them up the ****.

A paper published in 1971 by NASA scientists Rasool and Schneider entitled “Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate” explains why the alarmists’ assumption is fundamentally wrong.

Update:

“From our calculations, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8-degree. However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase levels off. Even for an increase in CO2 by a factor of 10, the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5-degree. 

Update 2:

Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15-um CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.”

Update 3:

Alarmists used to talk their way around this absorption spanner in the works by claiming that the remaining “unsubstantial” CO2-driven temperature increase would cause a chain reaction of other factors resulting in what amounted to runaway warming. However, the clock has long run out on that hokey theory — this prophesied chain reaction has been proven false by observation, and, therefore, it has largely been retired from the discussion.

Update 4:

To conclude, here is one key final point (and accompanying graph) from the Rasool and Schneider paper: “The rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Ah, the early 1970s–before climate science was wielded as a political weapon.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago
    Favourite answer

    Alarmists hate it when they're trumped by science.  Just look at these studies.

    Kouwenberg’s (2004) shows that CO2 levels reconstructed from conifer stomata are

    significantly greater than the CO2 levels found in ice-core data. Therefore, ice cores do not properly represent historical CO2 levels.

    Beck (2007) reviews thousands of direct chemical measurements of CO2 that show the CO2level was 450 ppm in 1820, 370 ppm in 1860, 310 ppm in 1920, 420 ppm in 1940 and430 ppm in 1948.Therefore, ice-core data do not prove the CO2 level was constant for thousands of years.

    Revelle and Suess (1957) used 14C data to conclude the “average lifetime of a CO2

    molecule in the atmosphere ... is of the order of 10 years.” From this they concluded, “This means most of the CO2released by artificial fuel combustion since the beginning of the industrial revolution must have been absorbed by the oceans.

    “It seems quite improbable that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of as

    much as 10% could have been caused by industrial fuel combustion during the past century, as Callendar’s statistical analyses indicate.”

    Quirk (2009) examined 13C data and seasonal and hemispherical variations of CO2, to conclude, “The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”

    Salby (2018) showed the dominant cause of CO2 increase Is the increase in temperature that increases natural carbon emissions.

    Harde (2017) showed data that supports the hypothesis that outflow from the atmosphere is proportional to the CO2 level divided by an e-time of about 4years. Harde shows how this contradicts IPCC’s core theory. He concluded that human emissions have caused only about 17 ppm of the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm and the remainder of the increase was caused by natural emissions.

    Munshi (2017) shows the “detrended correlation of annual emissions with annual changes in atmospheric CO2” is zero. Therefore, statistics show human CO2

    is not the primary cause of the increase in CO2.

    Carter (2010) published “Climate: The Counter Consensus” that discusses the null

    theory: “Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis – because it is consistent with the known facts – is that global climate

    changes are presumed to be natural unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming

    for human causation.

    IPCC’s core theory claims human CO2 emissions have caused all the increase in

    atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm and since 1750. However, all IPCC’s arguments to

    support its core theory fail. There is no scientific basis to claim human emissions caused all the rise in CO2. All peer-reviewed scientific papers that assume IPCC’s core theory is true, are invalid.

  • John P
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Whatever is causing global warming, there seem no doubt that warming is happening; just look at how the Antarctic ice sheets are slimming down, and the fact that the Arctic Ocean is now navigable for large ships in summer.

    Given that this phenomenon is recent, and given that humans have in the last 250 years, and especially in the last 70 years, been increasing the use of fossil fuels very rapidly, it might seem reasonable to conclude that the two are linked, even if not quite the whole picture. I leave it to the general body of scientists across the globe to sort out the fine details.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    CSIRO, one of Australia's foremost scientific bodies.

    Attachment image
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Ask this IPCC author.

    Attachment image
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • David
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    You say the logarithmic increase was known in the 70s then somehow ignored today in favor of a "linear" model. The fact that it's not a linear increase was observed around the year 1900, never forgotten, and is incorporated into every single climate model ever made -- climate models which have successfully predicted the actually observed rate of warming very well, since the 1980s. 

    You say a doubling of CO2 would only produce 0.8 C of warming. We are only half way to a doubling, yet have already exceeded 0.8 C of observed warming -- just *since* the 1970s. And there are several lines of empirical evidence that make it clear this warming is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, such as an observed decreasing diurnal temperature range and a cooling upper atmosphere. 

    All of this is clear in the scientific literature, rather than fringe political conspiracy theorist authors like whoever wrote the paranoid article that you copy-pasted for your post, authors who use terms like "nefarious controlling agenda" (a phrase far more sky-is-falling "alarmist", by the way, than anything you will see in an actual IPCC report or peer reviewed article.)

  • 1 month ago

    Presenting new technology modeled after the alarmist greenhouse effect, introducing the “Energy ex nihilo oven”. For an explanation on how it works contact an alarmist nearest you. They will provide all you will all the details on how 97% of the alarmist scientists banded together to create this marvel.

    Attachment image
  • 1 month ago

    Ah yes the good old days when NASA was only lying about harmless pretend space travel as opposed to the modern destructive lies about global warming.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Not a question, just rambling nonsense, first you say co2 would need to increase to warm planet then in next sentence you say co2 cannot warm planet! 😂 You're a moron

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Since 1972 they have learned more stuff with better models as it is hard to model the earth and we do not have a test planet to waste that is identical to Earth.

    . For example the permafrost that is melting up north is exposing the rotting peat underneath and that is putting out huge amounts CO2 that we did not figure with.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.