Here's a simplified explanation of why CO2 is a "non-factor" : http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/1...
" ... Solar Absorbed = Thermals + Evaporation + Radiative + Net Absorbed
161 W/m2 = 17 W/m2 + 80 W/m2 + 23 W/m2 + 40 W/m2 + 1 W/m2
This does properly balance in with the other portions of the overall energy balance. The difference that this makes is it changes the apparent value of radiative transfer to the atmosphere. The total energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere is 120 W/m2. That is 74.5% of the energy that the sun transfers to the surface of the Earth. If the flux values used by FT08 are used, then the amount transferred from the surface to the atmosphere is 453 W/m2, which is 2.8 times the amount of energy that the surface absorbs from the sun. ... "
" ... From a practical point of view it is unreasonable that the surface of the Earth transfers more energy to the atmosphere than the sun transfers to the Earth. That is really the main problem with the FT08 and any balance that uses radiative flux (forcing) instead of transfer of energy. While the values for flux are reasonable, the idea behind their usage is not as they do not accurately describe the transfer of heat from the surface to the atmosphere.
That is why it is important to show only NET energy transfers in the Earth’s energy balance. When the impact of CO2 is viewed as part of the NET energy transfers from the surface to the atmosphere, it is only 3% of the total. That is one of the main reasons that the overall effect of CO2 changes are so limited. Changes in CO2 concentration have a very, very small impact on that 3%. That in turn has almost no impact on the global temperature. ... "
550ppm means 550 parts per MILLION !!
Of course it would have no measurable affect.
CO2 is a trace gas and it does not have the ability to absorb even as much radiation as water vapor (on a molecule to molecule basis) and water vapor is usually about 100 times more prevalent in the atmosphere.
So I don't need a long calculation to see that an increase from the current 400ppm to 550ppm would make no significant difference.
Watch this nice lady demonstrate in crystal clear terms how little CO2 humans contribute to the air. All in a short 2 minute video.
I think it will cause an ice age. If we pay attention to all the global warming fear mongers then we see that the exact opposite of every alarmist prediction they concoct happens. CO2 has been skyrocketing yet winters are getting colder and antarctic ice mass and area is breaking records which is the exact opposite of what the AGW cultists claim would happen. So when AGW cultists claim increased CO2 is going to cause climate havoc and a runaway greenhouse effect then the world really should be preparing for an ice age.
The atmospheric temperature will rise, but not a lot.....the oceans however will warm and most of the ice in the northern hemisphere will melt. Summers will be weeks longer and winters weeks shorter. The jet stream will fluctuate wildly and the subtropics will advance northward to 50 degrees north or further. Tropical insects will swarm into areas where today they don't exist. Tropical diseases will follow.
Warmer seawater will evaporate more moisture into the atmosphere causing greater rain depending on where the jet stream happens to be. At higher elevations more snow can be expected leading to more springtime flooding. Lots of really cool things will happen. The atmosphere itself won't warm much because heat moves rapidly from warm to cold....the 'cold' being seawater and ice...the water will warm and the ice will melt.
Very much so. The average temperature rise would (or will) be small -- a degree or two Centigrade. But the impact will be major. Seal level rise will accelerate and disruptions of traditional climate patterns that we already see will increase. The rate of icecap and glacial melting will accelerate. In all likelihood, the Arctic Sea ice will melt entirely in summer. That last might have the biggest effect. Sea ice reflects sunlight and limits water evaporation, thus warming and cloud formation would increase. And the Arctic is where much of the Northern Hemisphere weather starts.
Since I believe your link is a lying propaganda site, I calculated this myself. He claims less than 0.25%, I calculated 0.6%. Furthermore, that change is purely radiative and ignores feedbacks.
Steven Goddard is a liar and you repeat "his" lies. I put "his" in quote because he doesn't even seem to be a real person.
EDIT: Every time you link to Goddard, when it's examined in detail it is misleading and often false. He gives no detail of his calculations, and the number he gets is too low. What is the reason to ignore feedbacks? If it's "We can't show exactly what part of temperature rise is from feebacks at the present" is not good enough. Like I've said before, it's hard to imagine that as temperatures go up that there won't be more water vapor in the atmosphere. That not only goes against what you'd expect from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation it also goes against "common sense" that deniers are always hawking as an alternative to science.
Zippi62's link appears to be nothing by sophistry. He takes differences of outgoing and incoming radiation and without proof essentially says "Move along, nothing to see here, CO2 doesn't matter"
Yes, it equates to about 0.2 of a degree.
Ask this guy.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
no
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/550-ppm-co2-will-have-very-little-impact-on-the-climate/
