<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Real Science]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[stevengoddard]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[NASA Proves That CO2 Is&nbsp;Good]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p style="padding-left:30px;">A closer look at the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html">NASA paper</a> referred to by the <a href="https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/nasa-global-warming-bs-taken-to-a-new-level/">AOL article</a>.</p>
<p style="padding-left:30px;"><em>Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state</em></p>
<p style="padding-left:30px;"><em>carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.</em></p>
<p style="padding-left:30px;"><em>water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect.</em></p>
<p>Apparently the authors believe that CO2 is a good thing. Nevertheless, this study looks flawed<em>.</em> It doesn&#8217;t represent an actual planet Earth.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<ul>
<li>1. CO2 is emitted from volcanoes. It would be impossible to have a CO2 free atmosphere on Earth. In fact, CO2 concentrations were much higher in the past.</li>
<li>2. The vast majority of the CO2 caused greenhouse effect occurs from the first few ppm. The effect tails off logarithmically after that. Given 1 and 2, the whole premise of this paper is fatally flawed. It represents a hypothetical situation which could never occur, and is backwards from the evolutionary history of the planet.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg"><img loading="lazy" data-attachment-id="4632" data-permalink="https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/nasa-proves-that-co2-is-good/capture-146/" data-orig-file="https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg" data-orig-size="608,281" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;Tony&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;1287208707&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;}" data-image-title="Capture" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg?w=608" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4632" title="Capture" src="https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg?w=608&#038;h=281" alt="" width="608" height="281" srcset="https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg 608w, https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg?w=150&amp;h=69 150w, https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg?w=300&amp;h=139 300w" sizes="(max-width: 608px) 100vw, 608px" /></a></p>
<ul>
<li>3. Next problem is that radiative transfer models show that the loss of all CO2 in the tropics causes <a href="https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect-in-the-tropics/">less than 2% reduction in downwelling longwave radiation</a> at the surface. It doesn&#8217;t seem credible that this causes the equator to freeze up.</li>
<li>4. The authors claim that all clouds disappear. Did they forget that this also means a lot more more SW radiation reaching the surface? Imagine a body of water in the tropics being warmed by directly overhead sunshine 12 hours a day. Is this water not going to warm, evaporate, and return water vapour to the atmosphere, thus massively increasing the greenhouse effect and warming higher latitudes?</li>
<li>5. The claim that water vapour is only responsible for 50% of greenhouse warming is absurd. The number is much higher, particularly when considering that clouds are made of water vapour.</li>
</ul>
<p>This study is a marketing exercise, not a scientific one. It represents an impossible hypothetical situation, the claims are incorrect, and it tells us nothing about the effect of increases beyond 390 ppm.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture124.jpg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>