I’ve been around the net researching AGW - those for it and against it. Each side has its paid for agenda with rebuttals being commonplace. But when I look at CO2 I find something very interesting that I haven’t seen any true rebuttal using facts and figures. It turns out CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with GW. All the talk about man made CO2 and volcanic activity are moot.
From http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide. In reality, a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by 1%. Given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36%. That would represent a 0.36% increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18% and a ceiling cooling of 0.18% of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth’s surface, offset by a cooling of 0.125ºC at the tropopause. On the scale of doubling the troposphere’s carbon dioxide, the surface warming predicted by this simple and materialistic thermodynamic approach is on the order of 0.004ºC.
[[All the talk about man made CO2 and volcanic activity are moot.]]
It’s not really moot because IF argued CORRECTLY, it proves 2 things- 1: That there is far too little CO2 to have any effect on the climate, even IF CO2 were the driver for climate change which it isn’t, and 2: That temperatures always rise first- 800-1400 years later, then CO2 rises- proving that CO2 can not be the driver of climate change
As for the quoted article you list- I’m not sure I quite understand it- is it saying an increase in earth temp is cancelled out by a decrease in upper atmosphere temp?