JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



ABC Rejects — Hansen admit the models are wrong, but alarmism gets the last word on the ABC.

ABC Unleashed knocked back this reply  (below) from Cox and Stockwell. The ABC is OK with publishing unsubstantiated smears, and doesn’t feel any need to muddy the water with inconvenient facts.

The essential point here is that Cox and Stockwell noticed that Hansen was inadvertently admitting the models have major flaws. Hansen effectively acknowledges the magnitude of the error by the models is almost half the entire forcing blamed on human emissions of CO2. Hansen thought he was making the point that it’s all awful and worse than we thought, because if aerosols have been cooling the planet more than we expected, then CO2 has been heating it more than we expected too! But in order to claim that, he had to first admit that the models (shock) had been wrong all along. In the end, it’s a speculative war of unknown fudge-factors.

Why does this matter so much?

The alarmists are always telling us that we know CO2 matters because they can’t explain the rise in temperatures without CO2. It’s all argument from ignorance and a fallacy from the beginning. Then when their models didn’t reproduce the cooling from 1945 – 1975, they “discovered” aerosols.

Guest Post: Anthony Cox and David Stockwell

David Stockwell and I did what we thought was a simple little number on Hansen’s latest paper and some admissions by Hansen that the models had got it wrong about ocean heat uptake and ocean heat content. These are fairly important parameters and at the very least indicate that the Science is not settled. Our humble effort was published at the ABC’s Drum.

Well, never disrespect a true believer’s messiah. Dr  Geoff Davies is a true believer and has taken great umbrage at our temerity. He claims we have misrepresented the great man, honest Jim Hansen, and Hansen’s ‘science’.

We thought a reply to Dr Davies’s misrepresentation of our alleged misrepresentation was merited but alas were informed by the ABC that we had to be content with a comment under Dr Davies’s ersatz.

We availed ourselves of the comment but Jo has been kind enough to give us some space to fully present where Dr Davies has got it wrong.

———————————————————————————————-

Hansen Redux: service and disservice.

We thank Dr Davies for his response to our recent Drum article, as it provides an opportunity to discuss additional elements of the long, but interesting paper by Dr James Hansen.

There are many areas where we agree: the main being that most computer models of climate (1) have over-estimated the rate at which heat is being absorbed by the oceans, and (2) that the corresponding net human-made climate forcing is unrealistically large. Davies explains “All climate modellers know there are inaccuracies and poorly-constrained factors in the models.” Part of the reason for our original article was to inform the general reader, who is not a climate modeller, and is in general not accurately informed of the uncertainties, that these are very significant, pressing issues with the models. For instance from Hansen’s paper:

“A substantial effort is underway to isolate the causes of excessive vertical mixing in the GISS ocean model (J. Marshall, private communication)” [page 20]

“Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing [from aerosols] is untenable” [Abstract]

By Hansen’s own account, the magnitude of the error by the models is almost half the entire forcing generally attributable to warming from human emissions of CO2 [AGW].This is a new development. It is not ‘business as usual’ as Davies portrays.

The widening gap between models and reality is shown by comparing the projections of Hansen’s 1988 paper where he predicts the future temperature from 3 scenarios of CO2 emissions. These 3 temperature scenarios were: (A) a rate of CO2 concentration growth at about 1.5% per annum; (B) decreasing CO2 growth rates and (C), growth of CO2 ceases after 2000. While CO2 levels have increased at a rate even greater than in Hansen’s scenario A, which should have led to temperatures increasing at a rate greater than scenario A, temperature has actually increased at a rate LESS than offered by scenario C.

Davies’s main complaint is that our article does not adequately highlight Hansen’s so-called “Faustian bargain”. This is that humanity has been getting away with CO2 emissions because aerosol cooling has been masking the CO2 heating. While we did mention it in the interests of balance, the problem is that the trade-off is a classic strategy of irrefutability of an auxiliary hypothesis, ala Popper, by correcting other errors such as ocean heat uptake and ocean warming with unmeasured aerosol cooling.

At this stage Hansen’s remedy of greater cooling from aerosols is only speculation; speculation that contradicts Hansen’s previous work which concluded some warming from aerosols. We wholeheartedly agree with Hansen on the need for direct empirical measurements of aerosols to diminish this major source of uncertainty. But this has not been done and in fact nearly all the forcings that Hansen relies on to support the worsening of AGW are, according to the IPCC’s 4th report, either unmeasured or very uncertain. Yet we are told by Davies that he and Hansen are certain of their effect, in conjunction with CO2, on the climate. How can that be?

This blurring of the distinction between fact and speculation is habitual in climate science and exasperates scientists from other fields.

Did you know — the evidence doesn’t come from models? O’really?

Like Hansen, Davies assumes that the estimation of the cooling effect of aerosols by the computer models must be less than the actual cooling by aerosols. Why? Because, he claims, the evidence for global warming by CO2 is NOT supplied by the models, but by other ‘real’ evidence. (What evidence?)

[Note from Jo: The IPCC team often claim that "we can't explain the recent temperature rise without CO2" and they show us those nice pink and blue kinder graphs that only models create. See my post How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps for more information on why these are so meaningless].

In making the claim that the case for AGW does not rest on computer models and is therefore not vulnerable to the aerosol uncertainty, Davies has nothing but a slur:

This misconception is part of the disinformation put about by the professional deniers funded by the likes of ExxonMobil.

IPCC computer modelling studies been used to “estimate” the contribution of CO2 to global warming in the last half-century and Hansen has been at the forefront of that process.

In our original article we did not deal with the wider issue of AGW, but in respect of Davies’ distinction between the computer models and ‘real’ evidence we can say that the ‘real’ evidence shows even greater departure of models from reality, as the most recent forcing estimates of 0.23 Watts per meter squared is significantly below the 0.6 Watts per meter squared predicted by Hansen from the GISS model for the time period 1993 to 2003 (see here).

As for wild funding claims, we are volunteers, not funded by anyone.

We are, however, familiar with Hansen’s palaeoclimatic ‘real’ evidence for 3C ‘fast’ climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling, as we are with a number of other findings of ‘fast’ climate sensitivity of less than 1.5C: Douglass, Shaviv, Spencer, Schwartz, Lindzen, Idso, McKitrick, and Scafetta to name a few. 

The main palaeoclimatic ‘real’ evidence put forward by Davies concerns the infamous CO2 lag where CO2 changes supposedly follow temperature changes. Using the same graph, which Davies does to illustrate this supposed lag of a few hundred years, Frank Lansner, also retired, shows that, in fact, there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature. The supposed lag of CO2 disappears when the graph is examined properly. The graph shows that temperature actually drops when CO2 is at its maximum levels and therefore maximum warming capacity. Davies like other people makes the mistake of only looking at the graph when both temperature and CO2 are increasing not when CO2 is increasing and temperature is DECREASING. This lack of a relationship between CO2 and temperature is also seen in the recent record with temperature going the opposite direction to CO2 from 1940 to 1976. Then, as now, an unmeasured human aerosol cooling effect is invoked.

It is not clear why, but Davies repeatedly draws attention to the draft status of Hansen’s paper (which has since been published at the Cornell archive), and so creates the impression that it contains significant inaccuracies.

Hansen is finally being forced to acknowledge some uncertainties that sceptics have been pointing out – that sea level rise has decelerated from 3.1 to 2.3 mm/year, the importance of enhanced indirect solar influences proven in recent cosmic ray studies, that CO2 sinks are not becoming less efficient, the large uncertainty associated with aerosols, clouds, and of course, that the climate models are more uncertain than are usually portrayed.

Once again, we ask the question, based on the poor performance of the models against observations in recent years: do we really have an adequate scientific case that demands a policy response? More generally if policies are implemented on the back of a one-sided presentation of the science, then it is those policies and science which do society a “disservice”, not us.

Davies could read the views of around 80 prominent climate scientists, geophysicists and related hard scientists expressed in a letter to the US Congress 8th February 2011:

Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

Dr Davies should rethink his position.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
ABC Rejects -- Hansen admit the models are wrong, but alarmism gets the last word on the ABC., 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3u6xy77

36 comments to ABC Rejects — Hansen admit the models are wrong, but alarmism gets the last word on the ABC.

  • #
    Len

    Just received a love email from Julia

    Dear Len,

    I lead a government committed to tackling climate change. We know we must cut carbon pollution and the cheapest, most efficient way to do it is to make big polluters pay.

    This week, the Climate Commission’s report The Critical Decade: Climate Science, Risks and Responses confirmed now is the time to act. The longer we wait, the more it will cost. The Report highlighted:

    • In the last 50 years the number of record hot days in Australia has more than doubled. This has increased the risk of heatwaves and associated deaths, as well as extreme bush-fire weather in south eastern and south western Australia;

    • Sea levels have risen by 20cm globally since the late 1800s, affecting many coastal communities. Another 20cm increase by 2050, which is likely at current projections, would more than double the risk of coastal flooding; and

    • The Great Barrier Reef has suffered from nine bleaching events in the past 31 years. This iconic natural ecosystem, and the economy that depends on it, face serious risks from climate change.

    I believe taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for our economy, for jobs and for the environment. Importantly, it’s the right thing to do for those who will inherit our nation from us.

    The Critical Decade strengthens my determination to make sure we price carbon. When big polluters pay, every cent of that money can be used to help families, protect jobs and fund programs to tackle climate change. That’s why it’s so important that we act now.

    Julia Gillard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    This style of science has been instituted for many years.
    Manufactured studies by companies paying for research in their favor, ignoring and hiding negative results and hiring of these experts by governments.
    Scientists came up with a consensus of how each area of science was contained into individual areas of study and LAWS were put in place as starting points. But scientists took these LAWS as absolute with no unknowns or uncertainties taken into account.
    Any new area of study MUST follow current science rules of following formulas and mathematical equations. These area of formulas fail as they are not flexible to a changing planet or changing solar system.
    They also fail when brought back billions of years to a totally different atmosphere and planet than we have today.

    Science and scientist created a house of cards on theories that is slowly collapsing on itself. We could very well be much further in our understanding of this planet if the science followed mechanically how it operates.
    This cannot happen currently as science and careers have been created by this incredibly terrible system.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Len,

    At least she did not quote on following the scientists of the IPCC. I have had many replies from each individual party in the past years in Canada quoting the absolute faith in the IPCC reports.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Lawrie

    This misconception is part of the disinformation put about by the professional deniers funded by the likes of ExxonMobil.

    The professional disinformation crowd all work for and are paid by government. Flannery, Steffen and Karoly are all on the Labor/Green payroll. Indeed ExxonMobil spent far more supporting the AGW scam than it ever gave to sceptics. Who pays Davies wage?

    Len @ 1. The Critical Decade strengthens my determination to make sure we price carbon. When big polluters pay, every cent of that money can be used to help families, protect jobs and fund programs to tackle climate change. That’s why it’s so important that we act now.

    Now I distinctly heard Combet say they were returning 50% of the tax to the nations poorest and 10% goes to the UN so the “every cent” needs another query I would think.I’m sure that somewhere the government takes a fair chunk to try and balance their books in 12/13.

    Did you ask her just how the tax would effect the climate? What changes should we be able to observe and when? Surely there are milestones which the government will be able to tick off and gloat over. No? How will we know we are not buying a pig in the poke? That’s right, it’s a Gillard Labor programme so we don’t have to have any due diligence or cost benefits. How stupid are we?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Anthony & David – a tactical suggestion. I have gone away from mentioning the names of people: Spencer, Idso, Lindzen and Friis-Christiansen. This is because the warmist warriors say “xxx has been debunked” and link to John Cook’s site. I’ve had this with each of these scientists’ papers when I’ve mentioned them by name. Usually the ‘debunk’ is no such animal, but once said there is little recourse and further useful comment is not very possible. You just get mired in he-said-she-said trench warfare.

    My recommendation is to link to Spencer’s & Lindzen’s papers but using the code acronyms CERES and ERBE respectively, as in “2XCO2 has been directly measured as 0.5 C using the CERES satellite instrument”. I’ve found you don’t get pat answers then, and in fact usually the point is ignored by the warrior (but hopefully those in the background wanting information may actually click on the link). Another trick is to use less well known names, so Prof Svensmark’s new paper on the Danish accelerator work is “Enghoff et al 2011″, which it is.

    The other tactic is to go directly to the data without naming anyone. So for example saying that HadCRUT has a strong correlation with previous SCL (which it does) cannot be argued against, since it is obvious to anyone with a spreadsheet. Likewise I think Dennis Jensen got a good lick in today when he told the ABC TV lunchtime news that global temperature hasn’t risen for a decade.

    No warmist warrior has ever been convinced by this, but we’re all chipping away at the edifice. It’s tottering, and eventually is going to come down in a great crash. Or maybe a whimper.

    [Good call Bruce. --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops, correction – Lindzen used ERBE and got 0.5 C but you get the idea.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Gosh .. you still don’t get the “lag”!?!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Does anyone have a Summary for Policy Makers on the main sceptical arguments? I’ve noticed more dissenting voices in parliament of late, not just on the tax but on climate science itself. The Sceptic’s Handbook is great but I think some debate coaching is needed for sceptical politicians. They need to be confident enough with the essential talking points to debate the true believers(politicians, activists and even scientists) in the MSM.

    Lines like, “The temperature has been on the decline for the last decade”, are a good example of talking points which politicians can, and are starting to, vocalise to the disinterested public who know nothing of the science. When the tide start to turn in war, you definitely should be manufacturing more ammo, not less.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    “I believe taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for our economy, for jobs and for the environment. Importantly, it’s the right thing to do for those who will inherit our nation from us.”

    “The Critical Decade strengthens my determination to make sure we price carbon. When big polluters pay, every cent of that money can be used to help families, protect jobs and fund programs to tackle climate change. That’s why it’s so important that we act now.”

    It is very likely Gillard did not write this speech. The person who did, if it was not her, is incredibly stupid and Gillard is no less stupid for mouthing this nonsense.

    Para 1. tells us that taking action on climate change will be the right thing to do for the economy and jobs. Presumably, by a twisted logic, strengthening the economy and providing more jobs.

    Para 2 flatly contradicts what is implied in para 1. It tells us that money will be appropriated from those who supply the energy that keeps workers in jobs and will be distributed so that jobs will not be lost(ie protected) and to help families who will suffer loss because energy will be more expensive for those who use it.

    That is meaningless, unadulterated bullshit in any language.

    Combet, Flannery and Steffen are crazy incompetent propagandists, who all live off the public purse and are, with Gillard’s blessing, economy wrecking fools into the bargain.

    Gillard is all that plus she puts her tenure as PM, dependent on the Greens support, before the welfare of the vast majority of Australians.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here’s some talking points to start off:

    1. Global temperatures falling since 1998
    2. Earth has been warmer before with no run-away greenhouse effect
    3. Sea levels rising slower than predicted at a decreasing rate
    4. Antarctic sea ice growing
    5. Polar bear populations increasing
    6. C02 levels have been 20 times higher in the past
    7. North Atlantic current not slowing down
    8. Species extinction rate not greater than in short to medium term past

    Sorry, I just realised I might be hijacking the thread. But, then again, ABC silencing sceptic voices is not news. ;)

    Oh yeah,
    9. Models are totally cluster F@#&ed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Blimey@8: ‘Gosh .. you still don’t get the “lag”!?!”

    Get it for us then.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Excellent piece… amply exemplifies the shoddiness of the modelling capers.

    The real problem is beyond the science, however, as the deceptions and outright lies have been repeated so many times that much of the general population accepts the dogma.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    2dogs

    The petroleum industry (basically, OPEC) actually wants an ETS.

    When an ETS is introduced, OPEC, in its usual manner, will respond by reducing production. This has the effect of reducing the carbon price and increasing the crude oil price so that, ceteris parabis, the end price of petrol including the carbon tax remains unchanged (its limited by the alternatives under an ETS regime). They can do this until the ETS carbon price reaches zero.

    Overall sales of petrol will be largely unaffected; most of the change in use will come from electricity production and not from converting vehicles from petrol. An ETS means OPEC can increase prices and not be demonised; it will be the ETS imposing governments that take the blame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    2dogs; interesting concept; I don’t quite follow why reducing production will also reduce the carbon price.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] ABC Rejects — Hansen admit the models are wrong, but alarmism gets the last word on the ABC. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Blimey, did you even read the Lansner link in the paper; CO2 DOESN’T follow temperature rise. In addition the CO2 -> CO2 -> CO2 process which Cook describes as the mechanism for continued heating is defeated by Frank:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html

    In addition it is now apparent that H2O does not provide the necessary positive feedback, even if H2O atmospheric levels were increasing, which is debatable. The reason for this is that CO2 REDUCES the emissivity and therefore heating potential of H2O in the overlapping spectrum:

    http://climateclash.com/2011/01/09/g5-carbon-heat-trapping-a-critique/

    http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/

    There are other papers to this effect but it is illustrated graphically here:

    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/spectra-h2o-co2-15um.png

    Spare me Skeptical Science as ‘proof’ of anything.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    cohenite, ” the mechanism for continued heating is defeated by Frank”

    So he’s published this finding? Or is this just another web page we’re supposed to follow and believe. Climate Denialists are all the same. Ignore the mainstream science and believe in crap written on some blogger page.

    (You need to cut out the trolling replies) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Last comment Blimey; the link to the Frank paper is to a PAPER, a PEER REVIEWED paper.

    You’re an idiot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Just want to point out that the fact that temperatures have dropped when CO2 levels were not dropping is completely beside the point. Quite clearly there are “things that are not CO2″ that have an effect on the temperature. It is like claiming that because my car stopped upon impact with a large convrete barrier, the fact that my foot was still on the accelerator demonstrates that accelerating does not make cars go faster.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    cohenite

    Apart from telling us more then we need or want to know about your driving skills, that is indeed the point; to extrapolate from your 2-bob scenario: natural factors are the concrete wall, the accelerator is the completely dominated input from CO2 and you behind the wheel represent the motley crew of ‘scientists’ who have been pedalling this AGW garbage. In fact pedalling suggests a slightly better analogy; instead of a car accelerator symbolising the CO2 ‘driver’, more like a pedal car: which one is you Matt:

    http://www.pedalcar.net/nicepictures.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    COhenite the existence of natural factors that may well one day stop CO2 in its tracks says nothing of the warming potential of CO2. Before it hits the wall it is the pedal to the metal that makes it go fast.

    Interestingly your 1st pic appears to be a car devoid of pedals btw.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: Davies states that the paleoclimate record is the proof that CO2 causes warming.

    “The measured variations of temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide during the ice ages accurately constrain the so-called climate sensitivity to 3 degrees per doubling of carbon dioxide, plus or minus about 0.3 degrees.”

    I have not seen anything in other than a correlation in the literature, and from the evidence it looks more parsimonious of causation going from warming to CO2, though it could be interpreted the other way, if you are prepared to assume enough auxiliary factors. But mainly, the record doesn’t prove causation, which is his claim.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    The climate model paradigm can be summarized as this: 1-Dimensional Climate Scientists using 2-Dimensional computer models to describe a 4-Dimensional world. Perhaps we could have Hansen and co. up for crimes against geometry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar

    To Matt and Blimey,

    This is just getting silly, first you tell me as CO2 goes up so will temp i ask for proof and you point to a model.

    I then produce the ice core data and you spew out a fairy tale which states “sometimes CO2 drives temp and sometimes it does not”

    I then show you two 30 year periods in the past century where co2 has risen whils temp have not and you envoke a magical (unproven)theory about aerosols, do you not see how brittle your CO2 theory is?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Blimey:
    May 25th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Sure will get it for you. http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html


    Yep..but you go down to another page on that site
    I have asked one very simple question regarding wind shears and temp…silence..
    Whats the difference between not finding the evidence you needed..making up a novel way of measuring heat, ie wind shear and ad hoc/post hoc games..

    And this pearl.

    The biggest misunderstanding about the tropospheric hot spot is the mistaken notion that it’s caused by the greenhouse effect.

    When I pointed out IPCC/Aust govt using the term greenhouse forcing I was then told

    the sentence you quote is poorly phrased. As the current warming is predominantly due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, any tropospheric hotspot observed will also be due to that enhanced greenhouse effect.

    So..in this den of weirdness,,greenhouse effect is not greenhouse forcing..its an enhanced greenhouse effect.. :)
    But word games aside..its not “poorly phrased”..its WRONG…but no other warmists on the site admitted this..

    As for the comment

    debate coaching is needed for sceptical politicians

    by Waffle..as Jo said..this aint going to happen…..they have swallowed the garbage…I talked to the Liberal climate change minister once by email..he had zero interest in talking to anyone not paid by the govt/Un about any of this..and the independents..you have got to be kidding..as long as Gillard pays the bribes they wanted for their electorate..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cole

    Hi Jo!

    I would just like to point out a few things that should be sent to ABC…Then tell them to get up to date and their credibility is quickly going down the tubes when they don’t report this stuff.

    Peer reviewed paper shows IPCC models underestimate solar forcing by 6 times.

    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2011/05/aa16173-10/aa16173-10.html

    Chinese scientists have accounted for all of the recent natural warming. (peer reviewed)…Goes far when they say they can’t think of anything else.
    http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/EN/abstract/abstract501373.shtml

    And finally the cosmic ray theory has been demonstrated in reality and therefore proven.
    http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

    That should make them squirm to your satisfaction.

    Cheers,
    Cole


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cole

    The Global Warming/Climate Change Paradox – Why CO2 has not, is not, nor will not be an issue.

    Written by Cole Jeffrey, | May 21 2011

    The Global Warming/Climate Change (GW/CC) paradox is similar to the Moon Paradox. For decades all the modeling scenarios could not explain how or why The Moon exists until the recent impact theory was proven plausible, so apparently the Moon did not exist until recently.

    Since most modeling scenario’s show that earth cannot or will not be able to deal with anthropogenic CO2, it is believed that anthropogenic CO2 will cause untold disasters. The two most predominant issues for anthropogenic CO2 are, 1.) Is the increase of anthropogenic CO2 a factor for influencing the climate. And 2.) Can the planet deal with an increase of atmospheric CO2.

    To look at the issue of GW/CC, a scale of 400,000 Years Before Present (YBP), 10 Million YBP, or even a 600 Million YBP is not an adequate scale to understand how Earth has dealt with atmospheric CO2 levels and volumes. There are a few mitigating factors that Earth has had to contend with that are exponentially larger factors than the small percentage of anthropogenic CO2 humans currently or will emit even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions double or triple that of today’s emission rate.

    To understand the causes and effects of anthropogenic CO2, understanding how Earth evolved from 2 to 3 Billion YBP is needed. About 2 Billion YBP, Earth was a planet of water until volcanic activity breached the oceans surface to create land. Through photosynthesis, stromatolite microbes that formed in shallow waters converted the near saturated CO2 red atmosphere into the blue oxygen atmosphere similar to today’s atmosphere, and the olive green iron rich oceans into the oxygen blue oceans similar to today’s oceans.

    Tectonic activity converged the land masses into the single land mass of Rodinia about 1 billion years ago, which was a baron rock surface devoid of life. It is widely accepted that since Rodinia was one large land mass stretching from pole to pole, Rodinia blocked the ocean currents from being able to circulate to the poles causing the Snowball Earth Event about 700 Million YBP, though recent findings suggest that a Gamma Ray Burst may have stripped Earth of its atmosphere causing the temperature to drop to an average mean temperature of -40 to – 60 degrees Fahrenheit causing the Snowball Earth Event.

    Since Earth was blanketed in ice, it is widely accepted that Earths internal temperatures rose causing volcanic venting and eruptions about 650 Million YBP, raising atmospheric CO2 levels which allowed the atmospheric temperatures to rise, releasing the glacial blanket. This allowed for the Cambrian explosion of life on land and in water. It is estimated that the amount of water in the mantle is from 2 to 12 times the amounts of water on the surface, allowing for the release of large amounts of CO2 through volcanic venting and eruptions.

    So when the atmospheric CO2 levels rose to more than 7000 PPMA due to volcanic activity, the explosion of stromatolites flora and algae that formed in the Cambrian explosion, were more than sufficient to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Due to tectonic activity and volcanic venting and eruption, Rodinia broke apart and reformed into the continent of Pangia.

    About 250 million YBP, high amounts of CO2, approximately 49 Million tons of CO2 per year (1.66 X today’s anthropogenic emission rate) were vented during the Siberian Traps Event alone, and with the additional volcanic venting caused massive flora growth, which was the means that herds of tens of tons dinosaurs could exist, since flora is the base of the food chain.

    Dinosaur size was a biological adaptation of favorable environmental conditions, and the abundant food supply attributed to high CO2 emission volumes and levels. The average size animal during the reign of dinosaurs was the size of a Grizzly Bear. Today, the average size animal is the size of a medium size dog.

    About 65 Million YBP, the continent of Pangia was breaking up into the continental configuration we know today. During that time, a meteor struck the Chicxulub peninsula which is attributed to the demise of dinosaurs, but the meteor impact may have been the trigger of the Deccan Trap eruption, causing massive CO2 venting again, approximately equal to today’s 30 million tons per year of anthropogenic CO2 from the Deccan Traps alone.

    The Siberian Traps flowed about 1 million cubic miles of lava, which would cover the United States in 1 thousand feet of lava, and the Deccan Traps flowed about 600,000 cubic miles of lava which would cover the United States in about 600 feet of lava. Though these were not minor events, Earth’s stromatolite flora and algae and other means, were more than adequate to remove the high volumes of CO2 emitted from the mantle plumes events and other volcanic activity exceeding today’s CO2 emission rate of 1.03 Billion tons annually.

    Due to the continental positions and tectonic activity, the climate was as much as twenty degrees warmer than current average mean temperatures. Earths orbit, gyroscopic progression of Earth’s rotation, Solar activity, ocean currents, and the volcanic activity all contributed to the tropical environment that allowed life to thrive.

    That all changed 2 Million years ago when volcanic activity breached the ocean surface in the Isthmus Of Panama cutting off the Atlantic and Pacific ocean current creating the Gulf Of Mexico current stream, and along with Earths orbit, gyroscopic progression of Earth’s rotation, Solar activity, and the change in ocean currents, contributing to the approximate 100 thousand year cyclic climate conditions earth has experienced for the last 800 thousand years or so.

    CO2 and temperatures became cyclical due to the division of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, due to the 600 to 2400 year lag in CO2 rise after the temperature rises along with the other astro factors. With higher levels of atmospheric CO2, flora stromatolite and algae populations rise abundantly.

    Farmers are experiencing the highest crop yield per acre than ever in thousands of years of recorded history, partly due to farming techniques and fertilizer technologies, but more predominantly due to higher atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 then falls below the 200 Parts Per Million Atmosphere (PPMA) threshold because when CO2 levels are above the 200 PPMA, along with other factors, photosynthesis life thrives more abundantly, causing the absorption rate of CO2 to exceed the CO2 emission rate. Then, at or slightly below 200 PPMA, growth of life that uses photosynthesis is stifled.

    When CO2 levels are at 180 PPMA photosynthesis flora begin to respire (exhale) CO2, and at levels of 150 PPMA all photosynthesis flora will die, including food crops that rely on photosynthesis. With a reduction in growth of photosynthesis life due to lower atmospheric CO2 levels (at or below 200 PPMA), atmospheric CO2 levels are able to rise again.

    As atmospheric CO2 levels rise, the photosynthesis organisms thrive and over populate, eventually causing atmospheric CO2 levels to drop to the levels that atmospheric CO2 cannot support the photosynthesis organisms (below the 200 PPMA threshold), causing an amount of photosynthesis organisms to stifle growth, allowing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise again.

    A lag in growth and reduction of photosynthetic life is a probable factor for the rise and fall of atmospheric CO2 levels. If growth and reduction were near the rise and fall of CO2 emissions, then atmospheric CO2 levels would remain near constant levels. This is a mechanism for why the atmospheric CO2 levels rise and fall cyclically, along with Earths orbit, gyroscopic progression of Earth’s rotation, Solar activity, ocean currents, and volcanic activity.

    Greenhouses deliberately use CO2 generators to keep the atmospheric CO2 levels at levels 2 to 4 times today’s CO2 PPMA rate of 385 PPMA to the levels of 1000 to 1500 PPMA. With the lag in growth and reduction of photosynthesis organisms when atmospheric CO2 levels rise and fall, there is a lag in CO2 rise after the rise of temperatures which contribute to cyclic factors – temperature rise precedes CO2 rise; CO2 rise does not precede temperature rise.

    Today about 1 billion tons of CO2 are emitted annually naturally, and humans only contribute 30 million tons of CO2 annually, which is only 3% of total CO2 emissions. At that rate, humans would have to cease all fuel burning for cooking of foods, about 50% of electrical generation, all automotive transportation, and heating in the winter for more than 33 years to be equal to the naturally emitted CO2 annual amounts.

    Above and beyond the ability for Earth to deal with atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis and other means, there is more solar radiation (heat dissipated into space) through water vapor which is 78 to 82% of climate influence, when temperatures rise. CO2 is only currently 0.036% climatic influential, which translates into a rise of only 0.05 Degree C in average mean temperature if atmospheric CO2 levels are more than doubled to 800 PPMA, and the influence would only be experienced at night. Earth has natural checks and balances for regulating atmospheric CO2 levels and climate.

    Since 1 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 is being presented to change climate average mean temperatures by 1 degree C, then the average mean temperatures should rise 1 degree C every year but does not, due to the fact that Earth is able to deal with much more than the 1 billion tons of annual anthropogenic and natural CO2 emissions.

    Since there is a range of 2 to 12 times the amount of water in the mantle than on the surface through oceanic subduction, thousands of tons of water are subducted and vented daily. The entire world’s oceans are cycled about every 30 million years through the crust and mantle through subduction and venting. If subduction rates were to diminish, it is very possible for venting of water vapor into the atmosphere to cause ocean levels to rise.

    Without venting, the ocean level would continuously drop, and without subduction the level would continuously rise. If the estimated volumes of water in the mantle were to be vented to the surface all at once, the ocean would be about 2 miles above Mt. Everest. Subduction and venting may be a factor for the ocean’s levels varying from 430 feet lower average mean level and 30 feet higher average mean level than today’s levels, beyond glacial storage and release of reserve waters to cause ocean average mean levels to vary.

    In short, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not, nor will not be a climate issue. If Earth could deal with the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps emitting tens of millions of tons of CO2 for thousands and millions of years as well as other mantle plume events in addition to the continuous rate of venting at plate boundaries, then the 30 millions tons of annually emitted anthropogenic CO2 is not nor will not be a problem for Earth to deal with, even if anthropogenic emissions are more than doubled.

    By far, the largest contributing factors for Earths climate and temperature variant are influenced by Solar Output, and Water Vapor that is 78% to 82% of temperature influence. The bottom line is that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are more favorable for life to flourish. Keep in mind that most GW/CC presentations deliberately omit the big picture of the CO2 cycle (cherry picking the information), and there is a deliberate reason that children and teens are selected to promote GW/CC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JPeden

    [Note from Jo: The IPCC team often claim that "we can't explain the recent temperature rise without CO2"....]

    While at the same time the ipcc team can’t make any correct predictions whatsoever with/using CO2 concentrations. Therefore, its CO2-dependent “explanations” of past temperatures are incorrect – mere curve-fitting at best, adjusting the other factors as needed.

    After all these $billions, the ipcc team doesn’t understand anything. Hey, maybe it should try doing some real science instead?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I finally have gotten abreast of the electric solar system stuff to be able to promote it as part of the global warming fraud debate. Everyone ought to bring themselves up to speed on this matter. There are two main versions. The James McCanney version and the others. But they are both very sound, and we now have mainstream confirmation in the form of the generally accepted Dyson-Harrop satellite concept.

    The thread in question was where I laid this matter on pretty thick. I know that Louis Hissink has been promoting this gear for some years. But I didn’t understand it well enough to put it about until recently.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    But if you see what I wrote I made a mistake when I said 5-6 orders of magnitude. My crude calculations were more in the 4-5 range. Though I really had little basis for any proper figures.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Cole @29.

    Just a quick question from an inquisitive mind. How do you know for certain that the paper you mentioned QIAN WeiHong et al is peer reviewed?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Good Lord? You mean a paper might not have been through the tax-eating priesthood? Oh the humanity.


    Report this

    00

  • #