Nearly all of the arguments used by global warming advocates and skeptics are based on assumptions about carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide debate in general is usually mired by widespread ignorance of both atmospheric and molecular processes. Most people are not educated in spectrometry or the laws of thermodynamics, so in most cases it simply is not possible for them to understand the science (or the misuse of it) that is presented as arguments for or against the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. This can be coupled with the fact that there are many misconceptions about our atmosphere concerning its makeup, the interaction of multiple elements, and what these elements contribute to our climate.

Basically, most people will either believe or not believe global warming claims based on something other than being formally educated and properly informed.

Advocates of AGW will use this lack of knowledge as leverage to promote their agenda. Carbon dioxide has become a target because of the widespread use of fossil fuels, which cannot be avoided by industrial nations and their citizens in most cases. If most of us are tied to industrial carbon emissions in one way or another, then we will be affected by both the emotional appeal and the consequences of an assault on the element that is essential to our very existence. Because of this, it should be beneficial for each of us to have a basic understanding of carbon dioxide and how it affects our climate. This knowledge will help anyone decipher the misrepresentations, the erroneous calculations, and the outright fabrications that continually come from the advocates of man-made global warming.

A degree in atmospheric sciences is not required to understand basic concepts and calculations. Much of the information used by scientists in the global warming debate is subject to elementary verification procedures. If the claims don’t hold up under light scrutiny, then they certainly won’t stand a chance under rigorous scientific analysis. So, let’s do a rudimentary breakdown of the science in question.

Different molecules absorb different radiation at different wavelengths, which are measured in micrometers (or microns). Both carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb outgoing infrared radiation. The wavelengths at which they absorb this radiation are somewhat different, but there is overlapping in the spectrum. (See an image of the spectrum here.) If enough radiation is absorbed by one or both types of molecules, virtually no outgoing infrared radiation can escape past them. At this point, the absorption at these wavelengths is said to be “saturated” and essentially no relatively small amount of added molecules that can absorb radiation at these wavelengths will have any noticeable effect.

At wavelengths between 4 and 5 microns – where water vapor practically does not absorb radiation – carbon dioxide is already saturated. This means, without a vast amount of added carbon dioxide, there will be little to no effect on temperature. There is only one significant area of the spectrum – between 13 and 17 microns – where water vapor’s absorption is not saturated and does not entirely swamp the effects of carbon dioxide. However, at this range, carbon dioxide and water vapor combined already absorb infrared radiation to levels of saturation. Since the wavelengths are at or near saturation for all of the critical bands of absorption, any increase in carbon dioxide will have little overall effect, especially when we consider the vast amount of water vapor.

(This may sound confusing at first, so think about it in terms of the old window shade analogy: If you want to block sunlight coming through your bedroom window, you would install a window shade. If that shade covers the entire opening, you could expect that nearly all of the light that previously came shining in is now being blocked. Installing a second shade may possibly reduce the amount of light further, but in an exponentially smaller amount than the first shade. If you were to continue installing them, each additional shade would become decreasingly effective. The original window shade blocked nearly all of the sunlight. Installing ten more may block most of the remaining light, but nowhere near the amount of the initial one.)

From here, the second law of thermodynamics can be applied to carbon dioxide and its effects. In order for a linear increase in temperature to result from increasing carbon dioxide, there must be an exponential increase of the gas. The carbon dioxide-temperature effect is logarithmic, which means there would need to be a significant increase in the gas in order to yield the same temperature results from the prior amount of it. In other words, each doubling of carbon dioxide will only give us the temperature increase from the previous doubling. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to double the gas from 300 parts per million (ppm) to 600, and temperatures only increased one degree as a result, we could expect to get the same one degree increase in temperature if we doubled it again from 600 to 1200ppm.

At our current level and emissions rate, it would take over 250 years to double the amount of carbon dioxide, which would only give us a potential 1.7 to 1.8 degree maximum increase in temperature (but because of other factors in our atmosphere and beyond, it will most likely be lower or may not rise at all).

Another problem many advocates of the global warming hypothesis encounter is that they underestimate the effects of water either intentionally, or because of the general lack of reliable information. And to make matters worse, climate models are notoriously inaccurate at computing and predicting effects from water vapor, evaporation, precipitation, and clouds.

It is true that water vapor is the most abundant of infrared radiation-absorbing gases in our atmosphere. It is capable of reaching quantities about 100 times more than that of carbon dioxide. As previously mentioned, water vapor molecules are capable of absorbing more infrared radiation in a larger range of wavelengths. Consequently, water in its various forms – including vapor, ice droplets, and clouds – comprises nearly ten times more “greenhouse” effect than carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Water content alone contributes over 90% of all “greenhouse” warming in the troposphere while carbon dioxide and other trace gases comprise the rest.

Carbon dioxide can potentially absorb up to twelve percent of the outgoing radiation when combined with other greenhouse gases in the troposphere. By itself, it can absorb approximately three times that amount – but our atmosphere does not allow for such absorption to occur. Carbon dioxide is a major factor of warming when it’s studied in a laboratory by itself and in a non-convective atmosphere. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works in nature. Carbon dioxide does interact with the rest of the air so it is only capable of absorbing the amount of radiation while interacting with those other elements, which at most, amounts to only one third that of water vapor alone and far less than that of both water vapor and clouds.

If we perform a simple calculation, we can see the potential human contribution to “greenhouse” warming. Although carbon dioxide actually contributes less than 10% of the “greenhouse” effect (typically about 8 to 9 percent), we will attribute a full 10% to make this calculation easier. Human carbon dioxide emissions amount to roughly 3% of the annual global total. Three percent of ten gives us 0.3% of total “greenhouse” warming for the given year. This means that if the temperature increases one degree over a period of one year, humans would be accountable for three thousandths, or 0.003 degrees of it. To look at it in another way, human carbon emissions are not responsible for the other 0.997 degrees of warming.

With these ratios, over a period of 100 years, our carbon dioxide contribution would yield about 0.3 degrees of warming while nature’s contribution to temperature would result in an increase of 99.7 degrees. Quite expectedly, these figures are grossly exaggerated, but it demonstrates just how little the effect is that human carbon dioxide emissions have compared to the rest of nature.

The atmosphere is very complex and the interactions between the multitudes of variables are not completely understood. But what we have seen so far shows us that carbon dioxide is certainly not the primary agent of either the “greenhouse” effect or global warming. The slight increase in temperatures we have seen over the past 100 years or more has not made this planet uninhabitable for humans. Despite the predictions of catastrophic warming and the eventual destruction of Earth, the temperature trends as of late are heading in the opposite direction that the warming hypotheses have suggested. This has led many to believe that the carbon dioxide-runaway greenhouse argument has a very serious flaw.

Regardless of what the alarmists preach and according to the calculations based on the actual scientific data, we have already seen a majority of the alleged anthropogenic warming due to our carbon “pollution.” All rhetoric and hyperbole aside, if the advocates of human-caused climate change are right, it doesn’t seem to be alarming whatsoever.

Sources:

Cold Facts on Global Warming
The Climate Effects of Water Vapour
The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
The Water Vapor Fraud
CO2 Absorption Spectrum
Energy Information Administration
Climate Change Models may be Inaccurate

*Other articles in the Climate Change Stupidity series:

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis (Part Two)

Great Ball of Fire

The Earth Also Shines

The Carbon Dioxide Scapegoat

**For more articles by this author, click here.

Do you write? Get PAID for it (like I do) by clicking HERE!