The "green" activists' focus on CO2 was premeditated and designed to demonize it as the toxic byproduct of fossil-fuel driven industries that was causing runaway global warming.
In fact, C02 is a gas essential to plant life, and thereby all life, because plants produce oxygen.
The deception began with the illusion that the UN agency called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studies all climate change, as their title implies.
However, the definition produced by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) narrowed research to only human causes of climate change:
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
But it is impossible to determine human effects if you don’t know natural (non-human) patterns or causes.
And we don’t.
The definition conveniently narrows everything down to CO2. The distortion was so effective that claims about greenhouse gases (GHG) led a major US news network to post false information on their website.
Figure 1 shows an ABC News pie chart:
(Figure 1)
The graph shows only 4 percent of the greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is only the “majority” because they ignore the 95 percent that is water vapor.
Gross misinformation about CO2 is everywhere.
President Obama calls it "carbon" (a solid) when he means CO2 (a gas.) He talks of “carbon pollution” and falsely labels CO2 a pollutant.
Few know the facts, and many who do ignore them for political, or financial reward.
As Aldous Huxley said:
“Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.”
A few facts about CO2:
* CO2 is called a greenhouse gas (GHG) because it reportedly allows shortwave (SW) solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere and reach the Earth’s surface. It heats the surface, and that heat is radiated back out to space as longwave (LW) radiation.
The greenhouse analogy claims that the earth’s atmosphere is like the glass that allows SW in but stops heat LW escaping.
But it is a false analogy.
* There are three major GHGs. They are by volume: water vapor (H2O) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4), less than 0.3%.
* CO2 is only approximately 0.0397% of the total atmospheric gases. Figure 2 shows the proportional relationship between atmospheric gases and GHGs.
(Figure 2)
* The IPCC assume an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase. It doesn’t. Every record for any period shows temperature increases before CO2.
The only place a CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in IPCC computer models.
* The amount of CO2 was inconveniently small, so they concocted an effectiveness value. This claimed that each CO2 molecule reduced LW escape at a higher level than a molecule of water vapor. The trouble is the range of estimates shown in Figure 3 varies considerably. If this effect follows the laws of physics then all calculations should give the same results.
(Figure 3)
* Let’s assume CO2 IS causing warming. Then, when its density reaches a certain level, the warming ability is maximized. But it IS currently maximized -- so how will the addition of more CO2 have much effect?
Consider light passing through a window. One coat of black paint blocks most of the light and subsequent coats block only fractionally more. Doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2 has little further temperature effect. To bypass the problem, IPCC theorized a positive feedback. Higher temperature due to CO2 increases evaporation and more water vapor causes increased temperature.
It doesn’t exist. In fact, the feedback is negative partly because of increased cloud cover.
* The IPCC says the current level of atmospheric CO2 is 400 parts per million (ppm). Al Gore claims this is the highest ever. In fact, it’s the lowest in 600 million years. Plants function best at 1200 ppm, which was the average level of the last 300 million years.
* Annual human production levels of CO2 are produced by the IPCC and are lost within the error factor of two natural sources: oceans, and soil bacteria/decomposition.
* The IPCC claim the pre-industrial level was 270 ppm.
However, approximately 90,000 measures of atmospheric CO2 begun in 1812 showed pre-industrial levels of 335 ppm.
Ice core expert Zbigniew Jaworowski explains:
"The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."
* All official atmospheric levels of CO2 are measured by a system created on Mauna Loa, patented and owned by the Keeling family.
Ernst-Georg Beck explains that Charles Keeling established the readings by using lowest afternoon readings while ignoring natural sources.
Beck notes, “Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.”
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements.”
He’s also a co-author of the IPCC reports.
* 20th- century temperatures increased most from 1900 to 1940 with little increase in limited human production of CO2.
Human production increased most from 1940 to 1980, but temperatures went down.
* IPCC assumes CO2 is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. It is not: it varies considerably as recent satellite imagery showed.
In the last 19 years, CO2 levels increased, but temperatures declined in contradiction to the IPCC assumption.
IPCC predictions were wrong because their CO2 facts and science are wrong.
Because of their lies, damn lies, and statistics, they achieved their goal of demonizing CO2, so the world suffers.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349
Soon, W., R.Connolly, & M.Connolly. 2015. Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century. Earth-Science Reviews 150 pg. 409–452
doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.08.010
Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006
After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.
In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following: “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming…. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming; “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996; “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Ball dropped his lawsuit.
I can’t believe it. The U.N, finally fesses up after decades of pedalling their snake oil and Brown throws in the towel.
Wynne’s laughing her head off.
But I digress .
My father retired over 30 years ago but taught Masters courses in Physics at university afterward . I remember him being puzzled about the IPCC coming out and taking James Hansen and Micheal Mann’s position about global warming. He once commented on the issue and stated that he could understand how calculations could be be adjusted but to do an entire180 degree change was totally bizarre given all the previous work done. His puzzlement is now coming to the light of day.
People are done with the scam.
“No one on the planet ever called it toxic.”
The EPA has designated CO2 as a pollutant and a hazard to human health. That aligns with a lot of people’s perception of what is ‘toxic’
“So is sodium. But we all know that too much sodium will kill you.”
Except CO2 isn’t dangerous to humans until 5000 ppmv, and that will never happen on earth since the proliferation of vascular land plants. Nice try though.
“The definition serves to define the debate. It does not imply lack of awareness that climate has not always been static. Rather, it means that when discussing “climate change”, we are discussing AGW. They could just as easily replace the term with AGW. “
AGW and climate change are not interchangeable, they are not synonymous. The UN has dropped AGW in its usage very specifically, namely due to the fact that there hasn’t been any warming since 1998, despite concomitant increases in CO2. Yeah, I know you don’t believe it even with Nature’s recent article (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=rO_LAj7Squh3f_qt6natqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9ble9FcNagQ1ss5L1V0KiWd-xzbFQjp8p3e-nUsgU7jNuUykRRWZpgMltUfROWf3xSKeGSSY7TvMiWdaeBCmNzlbQKCodQ3ivWje8eZYAs8Dr1uu8L-i3CHt8f_jYiil5eUpRpdxdWDCSCvqts_NYB_l8yUG-b6Qu0dtrZLMnaUyec%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com). It doesn’t define the debate it obfuscates it by making a false tautology.
“We know more about them ever year, and every bit of USEFUL knowledge on these non-human factors is entering into the models. The science is getting better with every passing year.”
Yes it is. Though 99% of computer models are failing, so they haven’t quite gotten that part down.
“Come ON. This is semantics.” – language and specificity are paramount in any scientific endeavour.
“On the “greenhouse” analogy. Sorry that you don’t like the analogy. Can you propose a better terminology that can be roughly understood by a lay person who does not have advanced knowledge of physics? Suggestion: some advanced study in physics would help before being able to suggest a good alternative terminology.”
It’s actually a terrible analogy, and the case you make that science needs to be understood by “lay person” is stupid. Why should scientific concepts be dumbed down to make it digestible to you? Especially when the analogy poor. “Greenhouse effect” was a term used by Arrhennius in 1896, based on Fourier’s Law. It’s a misuse, because it doesn’t take into account heat transfer for one—the analogy most people understand is actually one of a greenhouse trapping heat. That’s not how it works. In fact, GHG moderate temperature—this is why the dark side of the moon is incredibly cold whereas the sunny side is incredibly hot; there’s no atmosphere. Likewise it’s why arid regions such as hot deserts can get so hot during the day whereas they can be very cold at night. It’s a terrible analogy and should be scrapped.
“That’s a pretty big claim. You should link to some credible peer-review science in making such a claim.”
It’s a HUGE claim. But wait…it’s true. Once again other people have to do your homework. It’s getting tedious:
Indermuhle et al. (2000) – Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20kyrBP
from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 27, p 735-738 (they note a time lag of 900yrs CO2 behind temperature with an R=0.83)
Petit et al. (1999) – Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420’000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Nature, 399 , 429-426. (they note a 1000 yr lag CO2 behind temperature)
Fischer et al. (1999) . Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science, 283, 1712–1714. (they note a 600 +/- 200 year lag).
But you AGW folks have not only removed the lag we’ve seen through geologic time, but inverted it altogether starting ~150 years ago. Ya, you folks are real science-y like.
“Figure 3 is VERY VERY interesting. I want to know more! Pleeease link to credible peer-review science in posting such information.”
Of for goodness sake. You really don’t know how citations work do you? If it’s considered common knowledge, included in most textbooks (in this case any first year earth science text) you don’t have to cite it. The fact that you don’t know this tells me you’ve never had to cite anything in your life for any real purpose. Now we have to teach you how to use Wikipedia too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
“the black paint analogy is interesting. HOWEVER, please link to credible peer-review science in claiming that the warming ability is maximized. You are making unsubstantiated claims, otherwise easily assumed to be peddling in misinformation for the fact that you do not substantiate the claims.”
Again, this common knowledge, and CO2 absorption is well understood. This is actually an analogy that is apt, unlike the former one discussed; it’s known as HITRAN transmission spectra. It’s not even disputed by the IPCC, and is the main reason “feedbacks” are cited as the real danger in elevated CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
If you want to buy a textbook covering the topic, try:
Varvadas & Taylor (2007) “Radiation and Climate (International Series of Monographs on Physics)” Oxford University Press. 492p.
“ALL ELSE EQUAL. Yields suffer ENORMOUSLY as a result of heat stress.”
This is a huge strawman. Even if a 4 degree increase happens (which it won’t), that is not sufficient to count as ‘heat stress’. One just needs to look at the global gradient to know this. In fact, we know from NASA’s own remote sensing data that the earth is getting greener due to the increase in CO2, and C4 vascular plants are becoming more drought resistant as well. Typical alarmist catastrophism.
“Honestly, this just means that you don’t understand the studies. Ice core samples are a more reliable source of information than 1812 methods of measuring CO2 levels.”
The papers by Jaworowski are actually very cogent in discussion the errors with ice core data and their comparison to stomatal indices and GEOCARB (you only need 2 other methods, not 1812). The problems are air-age vs ice-age deltas, effects of burial past certain depths where ice flows plastically, and finally clathrate contamination during drilling. Stomata are better for a shorter time series and GEOCARB is best for a lengthy time series. You see a lot of disagreement between stomatal indices and ice cores and are routinely higher than ice core data.
There’s nothing wrong with using stomatal indices except that it upsets your theory.
“There are a lot of underlying natural factors. Two factors are proposed as explanations for this…” – what a bunch of hogwash. You provide links to a blog run by one of the main culprits of this farce whilst previously demanding peer reviewed materials. Thanks for your baseless echochamber links but that’s all complete nonsense without an iota of data. . The second link shows a slow in CO2 increase with a decline in temperature. It gels fine with Dr. Ball’s article. There’s not one scientific piece of data supporting this whacko theory you linked.
“So what? For practical purposes, this is a reasonable approximation…”
– yeah, that’s what we call in the science field as “fudging the data.” Garbage in….garbage out. It’s not a reasonable approximation in fact that’s why them models continue to fail..because the approximations are completely unreasonable and not accurate to the real world.
“This is an outright fraudulent lie, and you continue to spread it…”
I cited the Nature article above corroborating this though it’s just under 19 years. The article also debunks the adjustments made by Karl et al., upon which your links rely heavily. It’s not a lie at all…you just refuse to believe what’s in front of your eyes. That’s called willful ignorance.
“The science is improving. If you have useful suggestions on how the science improve further, I’m sure it would be welcome.”
Agreed, though in case you haven’t noticed, skeptics are pretty much blacklisted these days, so I doubt anyone would listen.
The UN is one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet today. Much of the UN is controlled by the Cabal of 57 moooslim States, all despots and diktators.
Their IPCC klimate scam is based entirely on faulty Komputer Models . . . the same IPCC founded by far-left loon the now deceased Maurice Strong. You are obviously a “Believer” . . . but you are dead wrong. Countries have been put into Economic distress following this insanity. Spain comes to mind, and of course Cap and Trade in the EU has led to Fuel Poverty, Death and Inflation . . . and who could forget Ontar-i-owe, the “Green” disaster.
This is ALL about Globalist Control and Wealth Transfer . . . nothing more. Anyone who thinks puny man is going to control the Weather and hence the Climate is smokin dope with Justin and Butts !
All aspects of this planet and its solar system should be considered. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense and grade school science. Back when I was in school they actually taught us what was important, real stuff. Instead now they teach us to be sheep. With participation ribbons.
Forget new math or Fawlty Science or Liberal social studies. Anyone over 35, remember grade 5 science when half the class did the experiment, how photosynthesis and CO2 works. How many of us talk to our plants to make it grow? This planet could easily handle even a 9 degree rise in temperature, its the human condition that cannot. There are a thousand things going wrong in this world that takes a pedestal above Climate Change.
Interesting Freudian analogy, but a subjective non sequitur to the facts at hand. We are talking about the effect of several nanometers of momentarily retained long wave IR can have on geological chronology of the climate. I see nothing offered in comparing alcohol consumption to radiant IR dynamics in the upper atmosphere that can refute the fact that a miniscule minor agent is mistakenly blamed for the work of the primary warming agent – unless of course the object was to confuse the issue with irrelevant equivocation and apologize for the monetization/politicization of this gas/element. (are we chasing CO2 molecules or Carbon molecules around the atmosphere these days – politicians seem to bet them confused) I do routinely see politics and biased opinion being substituted for mathematically proven fact and objective reality in this debate. The warming effect of CO2 is irrelevant at this point because we are at the lowest levels in millennia and it is at an IR saturation point(ie a neutral IR sink) – YET we are experiencing the cusp of a global cooling period.
IOW- debating the theories of an over heated climate at a time when A) this is not occurring at any rate inconsistent with pre industrial eras, and B) we are cooling, – is logically immaterial.
Come to grips with the fact there has been a lot of crisis mongering disinfo and bad science out there masquerading as climate science – as a scientific discipline, climate science is in its infancy and largely speculative and full of competing hypothesis.
As a professional engineer with some science background, I know the first job of a scientist is to be sceptic and only believe in what can be proved – anything beyond that is the realm of “theory science” which is the most imprecise and fallible end of the discipline. Theories may be good, even “probable” but they remain just that, a “hypothesis” – no rational conclusion is based in hypothesis.
Mark me down as a professional sceptic who needs to see proof that justifies the political actions taken are rational and effective.
At least you do your research as you can actually compose a decent argument. But the fact is that humans have been manipulating interpretations and complete meanings of words as to fulfill their agenda.
I know for fact Agenda 21 is a UN initiative of wealth and power transfer. And the Global Warming boogeyman is part of that agenda. The plain and simple fact that the same kooks that preach GW still get around and live their lives depending on the same companies and products that are labelled GW offenders. These few points are enough for me to believe that it is nothing more than a cash grab. Even as we wind up with the mildest winter in Alberta for as long as I remember.
http://www.uigi.com/Temperature_swings_11000_yrs.jpg
I’ll leave it at that and let the rest of you sort things out for yourselves. Have a nice weekend.
Lad Reme – UN scientists have enormous autonomy. I do editing and translations for a few, and they can say whatever they bloody well please. However, when you get 2500 researchers together, they will not agree on everything and not every research output can make it to the final cut, because otherwise you’d have 10,000 page reports, not 200 page reports, which are already 20 times longer than the vast majority of people can be bothered to read, let alone skim.
Bill Elder – "Any increase could be at most logarithmic and of proportions much less than the climate models show. "
This is not new. The fact that doubling CO2 doesn’t QUITE double the greenhouse effect does not therefore mean that doubling has no effect, which you almost seem to imply. If this were so easily empirically demonstrated, all you’d have to do would be to publish a very simple peer-review article on the topic, and the whole discussion would be open and shut. However, that is not what you will find.
“The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, representing over 90 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. "
Right, and whisky is stronger than beer. Doesn’t mean that the three beers at the end of a long session didn’t put me over the edge, for the fact that the first 15 shots were stronger.
No one on the planet ever called it toxic.
“C02 is a gas essential to plant life”
So is sodium. But we all know that too much sodium will kill you.
“the definition produced by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change …”
The definition serves to define the debate. It does not imply lack of awareness that climate has not always been static. Rather, it means that when discussing “climate change”, we are discussing AGW. They could just as easily replace the term with AGW.
“But it is impossible to determine human effects if you don’t know natural (non-human) patterns or causes.”
We know more about them ever year, and every bit of USEFUL knowledge on these non-human factors is entering into the models. The science is getting better with every passing year.
“He talks of “carbon pollution” and falsely labels CO2 a pollutant.”
Come ON. This is semantics. Call it what you want. There is nothing false about his labelling, you just disagree with it. It is not a pollutant in the traditional sense of being toxic, but in the sense of imposing negative externalities (welcome to introductory economics), it can very much be considered as on.
The first fact on CO2 is true. This is the definition of a greenhouse gas. If it has such a property, then by definition it is a greenhouse gas. For a couple generations aready, this has been the explanation for why Venus is so much hotter than its position to the sun suggests it should be.
On the “greenhouse” analogy. Sorry that you don’t like the analogy. Can you propose a better terminology that can be roughly understood by a lay person who does not have advanced knowledge of physics? Suggestion: some advanced study in physics would help before being able to suggest a good alternative terminology.
“Every record for any period shows temperature increases before CO2”
That’s a pretty big claim. You should link to some credible peer-review science in making such a claim.
- Figure 3 is VERY VERY interesting. I want to know more! Pleeease link to credible peer-review science in posting such information.
- the black paint analogy is interesting. HOWEVER, please link to credible peer-review science in claiming that the warming ability is maximized. You are making unsubstantiated claims, otherwise easily assumed to be peddling in misinformation for the fact that you do not substantiate the claims.
“Plants function best at 1200 ppm, which was the average level of the last 300 million years.”
ALL ELSE EQUAL. Yields suffer ENORMOUSLY as a result of heat stress. Even a few additional days above critical temperatures can be disastrous for yield. Moreover, not all plants are created equal – corn, for example, is one of the most productive crops on the planet, and has a special C4 evolutionary adaptation to adjust to the CO2 levels that have been the norm in the last tens of millions of years.
“This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”
Honestly, this just means that you don’t understand the studies. Ice core samples are a more reliable source of information than 1812 methods of measuring CO2 levels.
“Human production increased most from 1940 to 1980, but temperatures went down.”
There are a lot of underlying natural factors. Remember that you’re really interested in those? This is a highly volatile data series, with many different micro-trends and other factors involved. Two factors are proposed as explanations for this sub-period here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm. Also, things do not look so anomalous is looking at the graph here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html
“IPCC assumes CO2 is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. It is not: it varies considerably as recent satellite imagery showed.”
So what? For practical purposes, this is a reasonable approximation, and should have essentially zero effect on the modelling, while making the computability of the models orders of magnitude easier.
“In the last 19 years, CO2 levels increased, but temperatures declined in contradiction to the IPCC assumption.”
This is an outright fraudulent lie, and you continue to spread it. 1998 was an El Nino year. Moreover, the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 (http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally) and the hottest year on record was 2015 (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/). Moreover, for a data series which is inherently volatile, it is more suitable to aggregate the data to see the long-term trends, as can be visualized here: (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/).
“IPCC predictions were wrong because their CO2 facts and science are wrong.”
The science is improving. If you have useful suggestions on how the science improve further, I’m sure it would be welcome.
I clicked a link and ended up on God Suzuki’s site and thought I would just ask about the latest report from the IPCC regarding the 18 year hiatus in global warming. Got an auto response, it is closed for the holiday season and will re-open Jan 4. Where could he be now? Maybe he is hiding out at Al Gore’s house for a bit. Haven’t heard from any of the AGW Gods respond to this admission of misinformation !