How To Break The Climate Deadlock

[genuineoriginal]

Not sure what to make of the chart by David MacKay (trouble finding it).

It may have exposed too much of the problems with the IPCC's plan for world domination.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Who's Afraid of CO2?

Brief Analyses | Energy and Natural Resources


No. 256
Friday, January 23, 1998
by Merrill Matthews Jr.

For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world." The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is tasteless, colorless, nontoxic to humans at concentrations up to 13 times present levels and is essential to life. Plants breathe CO2, and as they grow and reproduce they exhale oxygen, making the earth habitable for humans. Instead of a disaster, the expected doubling of CO2 due to human activities will produce a number of benefits over the next century.

The Role of CO2. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," one of several that partially trap solar radiation in the atmosphere. Without these gases the earth would be uninhabitable - at least by humans. CO2 occurs naturally and accounts for 2 to 4 percent of the greenhouse effect (water vapor is responsible for virtually all of the rest). Most of this CO2 is used by or stored in oceans, plants and animals. However, over the past 150 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased approximately 30 percent, rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm).

CO2 and Global Warming. Ground-level temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850, but human-generated carbon dioxide could have been only a small factor because most of the warming occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused CO2 emissions. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.

The global warming hoaxers still can't refute the fact that CO2 is beneficial, not a threat.

 

[gcthomas]

Imposing limits on 3.27% of the carbon dioxide emissions in order to change the the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from .035% to .03% is a stupid plan, but when you add in the fact that the method of doing this will disrupt the economy of the world and funnel wealth into the pockets of the richest 1%, it is obvious that the plan is completely evil.

If cutting the CO2 content by a tenth reduced temperatures by a quarter of a percent, wouldn't that be worth it?

 

[exminister]

Yes, the oceans and biosphere contain lots of CO2, but its a balance.
David notes that and the small amount comparatively speaking is throwing off the balance and needs to be address.

How has this significant extra flow of carbon modified the picture shown in figure 31.2? Well, it’s not exactly known. Figure 31.3 shows the key things that are known. Much of the extra 8.4GtC per year that we’re putting into the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere, raising the atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide. The atmosphere equilibrates fairly rapidly with the surface waters of the oceans (this equilibration takes only five or ten years), and there is a net flow of CO2 from the atmosphere into the surface waters of the oceans, amounting to 2GtC per year. (Recent research indicates this rate of carbon-uptake by the oceans may be reducing, however.) This unbalanced flow into the surface waters causes ocean acidification, which is bad news for coral. Some extra carbon is moving into vegetation and soil too, perhaps about 1.5GtC per year, but these flows are less well measured. Because roughly half of the carbon emissions are staying in the atmosphere, continued carbon pollution at a rate of 8.4GtC per year will continue to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and in the surface waters.

What is the long-term destination of the extra CO2? Well, since the amount in fossil fuels is so much smaller than the total in the oceans, “in the long term” the extra carbon will make its way into the ocean, and the amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, vegetation, and soil will return to normal. However, “the long term” means thousands of years. Equilibration between atmosphere and the surface waters is rapid, as I said, but figures 31.2 and 31.3 show a dashed line separating the surface waters of the ocean from the rest of the ocean. On a time-scale of 50 years, this boundary is virtually a solid wall. Radioactive carbon dispersed across the globe by the atomic bomb tests of the 1960s and 70s has penetrated the oceans to a depth of only about 400m. In contrast the average depth of the oceans is about 4000m.

The oceans circulate slowly: a chunk of deep-ocean water takes about 1000 years to roll up to the surface and down again. The circulation of the deep waters is driven by a combination of temperature gradients and salinity gradients, so it’s called the thermohaline circulation (in contrast to the circulations of the surface waters, which are wind-driven).

This slow turn-over of the oceans has a crucial consequence: we have
enough fossil fuels to seriously influence the climate over the next 1000 years.

That's page 242-243.

Good source. Thanks.

 

[ClimateSanity]

If cutting the CO2 content by a tenth reduced temperatures by a quarter of a percent, wouldn't that be worth it?

But there is no experiment that shows exactly how much co2 increases temperature each time it doubles. We do know its logarithmic however. All imagined increases due to increased water vapor are unproven and lack supporting evidence in the unadjusted temperature record.



Why waste money in the trillion dollar range when the likely culprit for late twentieth century warming is ozone depletion?

The following is copied from another post:

Dr. Peter Langdon Ward gave the following challenge to climate change believers recently. He is a retired geologist and will be making a presentation at the next national meeting of the American Geophysical Union concerning ozone depletion as the major culprit behind recent warming and major warming periods of the past.


The Climate Change Challenge: I hereby agree to give $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) of my children’s inheritance to the first person or team of people who can demonstrate through direct measurements in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%.


Here are my comments:


The two most voluminous extrusive volcanic eruptions since Permian times were the ontong java igneous province and the north Atlantic igneous province delivering 8 and 6.6 million cubic kilometres of basalt respectively. These coincided with the Cretaceous hot house and the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum respectively. These two time periods were the hottest periods in earths Phanerozoic history. An extended period of extrusive basaltic volcanism also occurred during the time period that brought the last ice age of 12,000 years ago to a close.

Extrusive eruptions differ climatically than explosive eruptions. The latter spewing sulfur dioxide particles high into the atmosphere cooling the planet. The former releasing ozone destroying chemicals into the atmosphere like chlorine and bromine. When ozone is destroyed in the atmosphere, it allows type B ultra violet rays to reach earth's surface. The energy of these rays is 48 times greater than the energy trapped by so called greenhouse gasses.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If cutting the CO2 content by a tenth reduced temperatures by a quarter of a percent, wouldn't that be worth it?

Absolutely not, that would be a horrible thing to do.

We are currently moving out of an ice age towards a Climatic Optimum.

Why would we want to move away from a Climatic Optimum and back into an ice age?

 

[gcthomas]

Why waste money in the trillion dollar range when the likely culprit for late twentieth century warming is ozone depletion?

The following is copied from another post:

Dr. Peter Langdon Ward gave the following challenge...

I judge Peter L Ward to be a crank, having reviewed his website where he claims to have improved both Maxwell's theory of EM Radiation, and Quantum Electro-Dynamics. His conclusions about ozone should be rejected as utterly implausible, alongside his supporting claim that light does not have wavelength. He also seems unaware that ozone is itself a greenhouse gas based on it's absorption and emission characteristics, and it's reduction would therefore cause a cooling effect, not the warming effect he, and you, claim.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I judge Peter L Ward to be a crank, having reviewed his website where he claims to have improved both Maxwell's theory of EM Radiation, and Quantum Electro-Dynamics. His conclusions about ozone should be rejected as utterly implausible, alongside his supporting claim that light does not have wavelength. He also seems unaware that ozone is itself a greenhouse gas based on it's absorption and emission characteristics, and it's reduction would therefore cause a cooling effect, not the warming effect he, and you, claim.

So, he is a crank because he makes your favorite theory absurd? Why should his conclusions about ozone be rejected as utterly implausible? You do realize ozone depletion matches the unadjusted temperature data more accurately than co2? You do realize the two largest extrusive basaltic eruptions in the past occurred during the two hottest periods in the past?

As far as ozone depletion having a cooling effect, you do realize the energy absorbed in the greenhouse theory is 48 times less than the energy absorbed by class B ultra violet radiation?

Admit it, you have totally ignored the robust evidence and use his other theories as an excuse to do so.

I don't think you understand his objections in using wavelength to calculate energy in calculating the greenhouse effect.

Doubling of co2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature of which it appears is less than one degree. It is foolhardy to place your confidence in that when solid evidence shows ozone depletion is much more powerful.

 

[gcthomas]

So, he is a crank because he makes your favorite theory absurd?

He is a crank because he attempted to use high school level mathematical arguments to overturn the most accurately tested theory humanity had ever produced - QED.

If he had done what he claims then he would be the most celebrated scientist of the century. But he isn't. He substitutes simplistic reasoning for a proper conceptual understanding and he doesn't even realise how wrong be is.

Go on, CS, read his website. Do you really think he has outdone Maxwell, Feynman and Einstein in one go? Because that is what got have to believe to trust his climate change claims.

 

[ClimateSanity]

He is a crank because he attempted to use high school level mathematical arguments to overturn the most accurately tested theory humanity had ever produced - QED.

If he had done what he claims then he would be the most celebrated scientist of the century. But he isn't. He substitutes simplistic reasoning for a proper conceptual understanding and he doesn't even realise how wrong be is.

Go on, CS, read his website. Do you really think he has outdone Maxwell, Feynman and Einstein in one go? Because that is what got have to believe to trust his climate change claims.

That isn't what we have to believe in order to trust anything. Why is it you have to trust someone? Why cant you just examine the claims and the evidence supporting it? The amount of energy absorbed at the surface by incident class b ultraviolet waves is 48 times greater than the amount of energy absorbed by free houses gases. Plus, this is added energy to the troposphere that would not exist if not for depleted ozone. The greenhouse absorbed energy is not new to the troposphere. It is the grandchild of the original absorbed sunlight at the surface.


Please try arguing with that instead of telling us why you cannot trust the messenger.

 

[rocketman]

If we don't do something about climate change we're going to get WWIII from people fighting over limited resources.

Fallacy! there are plenty of fossil fuel resources and you are a tool for this climate change nonsense so your left wing bias along with your fear mongering is duly noted.

As far as the BC proposal, I think it's good. It's a general problem with free markets, they can't encompass everything. You need government intervention in the case of pollution, public safety etc.

CO2 is not pollution...absolute nonsense.

 

[Nick M]

If cutting the CO2 content by a tenth reduced temperatures by a quarter of a percent, wouldn't that be worth it?

Cutting CO2 doesn't reduce temps, and reducing temps is a bad thing.

 

[gcthomas]

CO2 is not pollution...absolute nonsense.

Cutting CO2 doesn't reduce temps, and reducing temps is a bad thing.

Your disconnect from reality is a marvel to behold.

In other news, my daffodils are up three months early. And we have only had one frosty morning all winter, and temperatures are currently running at May averages with not one day below 7 deg C, with 16C today.

It is looking like global warming has returned with a vengeance, given that this pattern has been repeated widely.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Your disconnect from reality is a marvel to behold.

In other news, my daffodils are up three months early. And we have only had one frosty morning all winter, and temperatures are currently running at May averages with not one day below 7 deg C, with 16C today.

It is looking like global warming has returned with a vengeance, given that this pattern has been repeated widely.

Here is more evidence for the ozone depletion theory of climate change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...e-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/

 

[patrick jane]

Here is more evidence for the ozone depletion theory of climate change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...e-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/

If we all stopped breathing the carbon dioxide levels would dramatically decrease

 

[ClimateSanity]

If we all stopped breathing the carbon dioxide levels would dramatically decrease

We are living at historically low levels of carbon dioxide. This place was covered with jungles and thick forests in the past and those plants would have suffocated on today's concentrations of co2.

 

[gcthomas]

We are living at historically low levels of carbon dioxide. This place was covered with jungles and thick forests in the past and those plants would have suffocated on today's concentrations of co2.

Near me there is a prehistoric pebble beach 30 feet above sea level. Good idea to return to that sea level?

CO2 levels were high in the early Devonian period and the land was covered in forests, yes, but average temperatures were 30 degrees celsius and the sea covered 85% of the globe, including most of North America.

Would you really like to return to past climates?

 

[genuineoriginal]

If we all stopped breathing the carbon dioxide levels would dramatically decrease

If we stop opening cans of cola . . .

 

[genuineoriginal]

Near me there is a prehistoric pebble beach 30 feet above sea level. Good idea to return to that sea level?

In Colorado there are sea shells on top of mountains.

Your claim that the sea level was higher in the past is only relevant to the waters of Noah's flood, which covered all the earth.

The sea level is not going to reach the level of your prehistoric pebble beach again, no matter how much methane you produce.

 

[gcthomas]

In Colorado there are sea shells on top of mountains.

Your claim that the sea level was higher in the past is only relevant to the waters of Noah's flood, which covered all the earth.

The sea level is not going to reach the level of your prehistoric pebble beach again, no matter how much methane you produce.

This is a discussion about the climate and reality, so YEC fantasists have nothing to offer.
:wave: