/CoSy/views/warm

Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for YOURSELF.
Joe Bastardi , AccuWeather.com

CO2 is the ultimate "green" gas . It is a grade school fact that every green tree , every blade of grass , indeed all life is ultimately CO2 + H2O combined by sunlight plus a bit of ash and it is proven in both laboratory and practice that plants thrive on more than twice our current 3 or 4 molecules per 10,000 . Life could not have started on earth without a ( 20% ) CO2 rather than O2 atmosphere . Only photosynthesis converted it to an oxygen atmosphere bouncing along the minimal CO2 necessary to keep the plants alive . So any downside to the few percent of the natural CO2 budget we are restoring to our atmosphere from carbon sequestered in previous incredibly lush epochs must be weighed against this indisputable greening of the planet .

World class graphic ,by Dr Sherwood Idso . 2 yr old Eldarica pines . Click for almost great .pps

Is the virtue of lusher forests and agriculture outweighed by the effect of CO2’s couple of spectral lines on the the mean temperature of the planet ? Classical physics going back to 1859 says the temperature of our planet is inexorably constrained to be about 1/21st whatever temperature the sun decides to be . ( See my Basic Temperature Physics of Radiantly Heated Balls for the computations . ) Calculated & Observed Temperatures of Inner Planets

Calculated & Observed Temperatures of Inner Planets

Astoundingly , the most ubiquitous explanation of the need for a "greenhouse” effect is based on the false notion that a radiantly heated white ball will come to a lower temperature than if it were black . Perhaps consequentially , it appears impossible to find either quantitative analytical theory or experimental validation of the purported "greenhouse" effect on mean temperature .

To contemplate imposing enormous costs on the population for the benes and bureaucracies of the anti-life alarmist elite would be literally criminal without requiring before-hand quantitative experimental verification of the supposed effect of minor changes in atmospheric spectrum on mean temperature . The needed experiments would be quite simple and quick . On the scale of a ping-pong ball the atmosphere is about as thick as a heavy coat of lacquer and whole issue of planetary temperature boils down to the effect of slight changes in its color .

| 20110304 | The best graph I've seen showing most of the relevant spectra other than our surface . That CO2 already has little more ability to effect our temperature is shown by the fact that its peaks are already absorbing 100% .
| 20110318 | Give me tables with these specta , and Il'll calculate their equalibrium temperature . Add the spectrum of the surface and I'll give you the mean temperature of the planet . I'll pay $300 to any student who masters the algorthms and does the calculations . I suggest a good highschool project would be to experimentally confirm the calculations .

Basically :

Bob Armstrong speaking at Marty Hertzberg's "Climategate" and Scientific Inquiry presentation
Click for YouTube ( last portion of 7th part )
Start with Part 1

If one draws a sphere around the earth and its atmosphere , Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff specifies the mean temperature over that sphere as a function of the five millionths of the sky subtended by the sun at around 6000k and the all the rest at near 0 . It works out that objects in our orbit are constrained to be about 1%21 the temperature of the sun . It is a mistaken notion that average Absorptivity=Emissivity ( gray value ) will affect that ratio . I have this basic function now implemented in several Array Programming Languages on my http://CoSy.com and would love to see someone translate it into more common languages like Mathematica or MatLab . It currently handles any angular distribution of gray value , eg , differences between day and night sides , or latitude . I am awaiting indications of outside interest to elaborate the vocabulary to full spectra so that , eg , the extreme which any lumped spectral distribution ( 1.0 correlated with the sun ) could produce , or the calculated effect of some delta in CO2 saturation .

( The above would be rejected as gibberish on a realityDenier blog ; their talent sure ain’t basic physics . )

A couple of major points :
Lumped earth/atmosphere temperature is linear with sun temperature . Any nonlinearities within this envelope must cancel by this boundary . We are about 8c warmer than a uniform gray body in our orbit . Any discussion of “runaways” and “feedbacks” macht nichts . The SB/K equation has held up to at most a few percent of earth/sun temperature ratio . The idea that we are at some particular ratio where some nonlinearity occurs is non-sensical .

It’s useful to keep in mind that the total change in temperature we’ve seen a century is only about 1%300 = 0.33% . I’m delighted that the sun is that constant .

Boston temperatures with THICKNESS of red line total change in mean in century . by MIT's Richard Lindzen . Click for YouTube .

The spectrum of CO2 is pretty fully saturated at levels which barely support life .

The most ancient "precautionary principle" is "First do no harm" , and "cap and trade" and other less bureaucratic "carbon" taxes are explicitly designed to do harm . So , like prescribing chemotherapy , you better make sure the patient is actually sick first . And it is NOT .

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. Robert Frost

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
who said, "future generations
will wonder in bemused amazement
that the early twenty-first century’s
developed world went into hysterical
panic over a globally averaged temperature
increase of a few tenths of a degree,
and, on the basis of gross exaggerations
of highly uncertain computer projections
combined into implausible chains
of inference, proceeded to contemplate a
rollback of the industrial age."