carbon dioxide

Science and Politics News Roundup 2022 July

A monthly review of climate, energy, and environmental policy issues

Keep this in mind:

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton (1794)

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” —Joseph Story (1833)

“Americans rightly concerned with the drift of our public officials away from the constitutional principles that were designed to keep us a free people should not be looking to change the Constitution, but rather to enforce our Constitution. Why do we have so many members of Congress — and of our state legislatures — who are either ignorant of, or disdainful of, our Constitution?”- Steve Byas (2022) in The New American Magazine

CLIMATE ISSUES

Some Background:

Geologic evidence shows that Earth’s climate has been in a constant state of flux for more than 4 billion years. Nothing we do can stop that. Much of current climate and energy policy is based upon the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, which make up just 0.1% of total greenhouse gases, are responsible for “dangerous” global warming/climate change. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global temperature/climate. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile with regard to climate change, but such efforts will impose massive economic harm to Western Nations. (See links to Wryheat articles at the bottom of this post for details on climate.)

The “climate crisis” is a scam. U.N officials have admitted that their climate policy is about money and power and destroying capitalism, not about climate.

03-Antropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect

(more…)

Why Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on planet Earth

The main hobgoblin of the current climate scam is carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels (which represents only 0.1% of total greenhouse gases). Our civilization depends on fossil fuels and life on Earth depends on carbon dioxide. The following essay shows why carbon dioxide is necessary for life.

Farming the air

by David Wojick, CFact.org

You are built almost entirely out of carbon dioxide and water. So is all the food you eat. Likewise for all the energy you use moving about and staying alive. Carbon dioxide and water! In short the carbon dioxide in the air is the global food supply. This is why all life on Earth is said to be “carbon based”.

The climate alarmists play a tricky word game here. They call carbon dioxide “pollution” and wind and solar power “clean.” Our food supply is not pollution. Nor is emitting carbon dioxide (which we all do when we exhale) unclean. This is just false advertising. Watching a child grow is watching processed carbon dioxide be reprocessed.

Here is how it works. Plants collect carbon dioxide from the air then use sunlight and water to create the stuff they consume to build their bodies and to live on. They also use tiny amounts of vitamins and minerals, just as we do. Fertilizer is like vitamins, not like food. So almost all of what they use is carbon dioxide and water. Animals eat the plants for food, basically reprocessing the carbon dioxide and water. Then we eat both plants and animals.

There is a saying that you cannot live on air but in fact that is just what we do. All of our food begins as airborne (or waterborne) carbon dioxide. Our farmers are literally farming the air!

Go into a grocery store and look around. All the food you see — vegetables, fruit and meat — fresh, frozen or canned — is processed carbon dioxide. So are the people shopping there. So are you.

The climate scare is based on the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been slowly increasing for the last hundred years or so. That this might cause a tiny bit of global warming is really not a problem. The good news is that plant productivity is increasing around the world as a direct result of the increasing carbon dioxide. This is called the “greening” of planet Earth and it has been clearly observed by NASA satellites.

So the global food supply of carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. This helps explain how we are able to feed our growing human population. Crop yields have consistently increased even though the amount of farm land has actually gone down.

The actual process is a miracle. Plants are passive consumers. They sit there and wait for carbon dioxide molecules to bump into them, where they are then combined with water and sunlight to make the plant’s food. Carbon dioxide is called a trace gas because there is very little of it as a fraction of the air. A hundred years ago it is estimated that there was something like one carbon dioxide molecule out of every 3,000 air molecules. Today it is more like one out of 2,500 which is a big help to the passive plants.

Note that this increase in global plant growth due to increasing carbon dioxide is incorrectly called the “fertilization effect”. It should be called the food effect. Imagine putting on a table everything you will eat in a day. Next to that put a vitamin pill. Fertilizer is like the pill while carbon dioxide is like the pile of food.

Also the carbon dioxide is not there because of our burning gasoline, diesel, natural gas, oil and coal. It is part of a natural “carbon cycle” that is twenty times bigger than our emissions. Life on Earth is part of and depends on this natural carbon cycle. Our carbon dioxide just adds a little bit to it, which is a good thing.

Unfortunately you will seldom, if ever, hear any of this, because of climate change hysteria. Carbon dioxide is called dangerous pollution, when it is actually the stuff of life. The increase is decried as bad when it is actually good. The alarmists want to stop the increase or even reverse it, ignoring that this is the global food supply. As a carbon based life form we should be leery of calls for “decarbonization”.

Likewise calling wind and solar power “clean energy” just because they do not create carbon dioxide is false, bordering on a hoax. There is nothing unclean about carbon dioxide. It is our food.

We should be very thankful that carbon dioxide is increasing, not demonizing it. We are all made of carbon dioxide. (Source)

See also: Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate

New Study shows that impact of carbon dioxide rising to 700 ppm is about 0.5°C

As reported by Kenneth Richard, NoTricksZone, a new study (Stallinga, 2020 Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere) assesses the climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations is just 0.0014°C per ppm.

Dr. Peter Stallinga has published a comprehensive analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. He finds an inconsequential role for CO2. Doubling CO2 from 350 to 700 ppm yields a warming of less than 0.5°C. Feedbacks to warming are likely negative, as adding CO2 may only serve to speed up natural return-to-equilibrium processes. As for absorption-re-emission perturbation from CO2, “there is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere.” (Read full paper , caution lots of math)

Paper’s conclusion: “we find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. Henry’s Law—out-gassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena. Moreover, the greenhouse hypothesis cannot explain the atmosphere on Mars, nor can it explain the geological data, where no correlation between CO2 and temperature is observed. Nor can it explain why a different correlation is observed in contemporary data of the last 60 years compared to historical data (600 thousand years). We thus reject the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, both on basis of empirical grounds as well as a theoretical analysis.”

 

See also: Carbon Dioxide Is Responsible for Only Seven Percent of the Greenhouse Effect

Estimates of global warming reduction by reducing CO2 emissions

The current political climate is all about a “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” that is claimed to be in our future if we don’t drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions. To me, this claim is promoted either by people ignorant of how climate works or who are using it as an excuse to drastically change global economies away from capitalism and establish socialism.

In a previous post (Who is afraid of two degrees of warming?) I show that nothing bad happens even if we surpass the claimed climate tipping point. In this article I review several estimates of global temperature that will occur with various reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Bottom line: even if we stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it would not make any real difference.

Here are some estimates:

Bjorn Lomborg and John Christy Shred Climate Alarmism

by Marlo Lewis, Jr., Competitive Enterprise Institute (link)

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. Even a complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C. A doubling of current atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce global warming of just over one degree Celsius.

Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential “Savings” in Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise by Paul Knappenberger, Science and Public Policy Institute (link)

This paper shows that if Arizona stops all carbon dioxide emissions it could possibly prevent a rise in temperature of 0.0029°C by 2100. If the entire U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could prevent a temperature rise of 0.172°C by 2100.

The impact of a complete and immediate cessation of all CO2 emissions from the U.S. on projections of future sea level rise would be similarly small—a reduction of the projected sea level rise of only 0.6cm by 2050 and 1.8cm (less than one inch) by the year 2100.

Impact of Current Climate Proposals (Paris agreement)

Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Consensus Center (link)

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions To Zero, And The Temperature Decrease By 2100 Will Be Undetectable by Patrick Michaels (link): Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions To Zero, And The Temperature Decrease By 2100 Will Be Undetectable (0.052°C by 2050 and 0.137°C by 2100).

If these estimates are close to reality, then a total cessation of carbon dioxide emissions will hardly effect global temperature, but such reductions will devastate our economies.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H. L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”- H.L. Mencken

 

Related articles:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Top UN official admits climate change is about transforming world economy

Climate Madness 13 – Climate Emergency Scam and other nonsense

Former EPA scientist and economist Alan Carlin opines, “Climate alarmism is probably the most insidious, largest, and most dangerous scam ever perpetrated on the American public and most of the developed world. Unless brought down by reality, it is now reaching such dimensions that it could even end the position of the current developed countries as the primary engine for economic and technological progress. Instead, the dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signaling.” (Source)

The following are news stories concerning global warming and the quest to stop climate change, a natural process that has been happening for about four billion years. There is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature. There are several lines of physical evidence showing that it doesn’t, see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Here are the latest bits of climate madness:

The craziest: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are pushing Congress to declare a “climate emergency.” “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency…requiring a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.” (Read story in the Washington Times)

But Sanders and AOC are not alone: Universities to declare ‘Climate Emergency’ – Seek ‘drastic societal shift’ to help shape ‘young minds’ [i.e. brainwashing]

As institutions and networks of higher and further education from across the world, we collectively declare a Climate Emergency in recognition of the need for a drastic societal shift to combat the growing threat of climate change. The young minds that are shaped by our institutions must be equipped with the knowledge, skills and capability to respond to the ever-growing challenges of climate change. We all need to work together to nurture a habitable planet for future generations and to play our part in building a greener and cleaner future for all. (Read more at Climate Depot).

AOC’s Green New Deal would boost gas tax $10-$13, ‘destroy economy’

by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

The socialistic Green New Deal, pushed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and winning broad support from Democratic presidential candidates could lead to a $10 increase on a single gallon of gas, according to a new study of the so-called “carbon tax” and the liberal bid to rid vehicles that burn fossil fuels. (Read moreSee also: AOC’s Top Aide Admits Green New Deal Not About The Climate; it is more about drastically overhauling the American economy.

Prince Charles: 18 Months To Fix Climate Change Or Humans Will Go Extinct

by James Delingpole

The Prince of Wales has warned global leaders that “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.” (Read more)

Pop Star will not have children due to climate anxiety

“Pop star turned Planned Parenthood activist Miley Cyrus will not consider having a child due to global warming-related anxiety, vowing not to reproduce until she is confident her offspring can ‘live on an earth with fish in the water.’” (Fact check: fish currently exist in bodies of water all over the planet). (Source)

Climate Extremists Offering Lessons to Activists on How to Use Super Glue

An Aussie climate activist group is worried that their supporters can’t read the instructions on tubes of super glue, so they are holding training sessions to ensure activists know how to glue themselves to pavements and miscellaneous landmarks. (Read more).

A Debate Over Whether Air Conditioning Should Be Banned Has People Fired Up

The New York Times recently published an op-ed titled “Do Americans Need Air-Conditioning?” which makes the argument that our dependence on air conditioning and intolerance of the heat is a First World learned behavior. Yet, the author also acknowledges that women tend to have more of an aversion to chilly offices than men. It’s not difficult to see things from both perspectives, however the debate took on a whole new life when Atlantic writer Taylor Lorenz weighed in. “Air-conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist,” she wrote, tweeting the article. “I can’t explain how many times I’ve gotten sick over the summer because of overzealous AC in offices,” adding the hashtag “#BanAC.” (Source)

Predictions are hard, especially about the future:

Coffee Bean Apocalypse Called Off As Surplus Sends Prices Tumbling

For years, the mainstream media was predicting a coffee bean apocalypse caused by climate change. Now we’re drowning in too much coffee (must be all that CO2 that plants love) while demand for anything with caffeine surges. Even in Central America, where pandering Democrats tell us climate change is decimating the area, they’re overproducing too much coffee. (Source)

See some other failed predictions:

Earth Day predictions

Predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean

Global temperature continues divergence from model predictions

‘Climate Emergency’: Ireland Set to Ban Private Cars While Planning Mass Third World Migration

Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionize’ people’s lifestyle and behaviours, according to local media. “Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boost the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration. In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals — which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide — are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports. (Read more)

New York Virtue Signaling:

New York’s climate change solution: Harm regular people for no noticeable benefit

By Gregory Wrightstone

Last week, the New York City Council approved a resolution declaring a climate emergency that it hopes will mobilize efforts to forestall the devastation of purported global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. While entirely symbolic and not even needing presidential hopeful Mayor Bill de Blasio’s signature, the council said its action could make America’s largest city a global leader “by organizing a transition to renewable energy and climate emergency mobilization effort.” (Source)

New York to Ban Hot Dogs Because Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

New York’s famous hot dogs could soon be a thing of the past. NYC considering banning hot dogs and other processed meats over climate change. Read more

The Man-Made Natural Gas Shortage Just Hit NYC

Following moves by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to nix a pipeline that could deliver vital gas supplies to the city and Long Island, National Grid can no longer offer new gas hookups or additional service for current customers. The govs nixed the pipelines in a pander to climate-change radicals. Yet the shortage won’t only hit well-off developers and businesses: It’ll also threaten projects meant for low- and middle-income New Yorkers. (Source)

Back to the Dark Ages: German Greens Look to Ban All Industrial Farming

The Daily Telegraph

The Green party in Germany has said it intends to ban industrial farming as part of a wide-ranging and costly package to combat climate change should they come to power. (Source)

Bad timing:

A new climate modeling study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison claims that ice fishing, hockey, skating and skiing on frozen lakes are endangered by global warming. The study states that such “iconic cold-weather past-times could become a rare winter treat” due to global warming. The report was released in Janurary during an historic cold spell that is shattering low-temperature records across the USA. See: NEARLY 90% OF US BELOW-FREEZING Chicago’s record for coldest temperature ever could fall.

Streaming online pornography produces as much CO2 as Belgium

From The NewScientist

The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third. This means the watching of pornographic videos generates as much CO2 per year as is emitted by countries such as Belgium, Bangladesh and Nigeria. That’s the conclusion of a French think tank called The Shift Project. (Source)

 

See also: Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

 

Previous Climate Madness posts:

 

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6

Climate Madness 7

Climate Madness 8

Climate Madness 9

Climate Madness 10

Climate Craziness, Politics, and Hypocrisy

Climate madness 12 – California is the craziest

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The purpose of this article is to provide a quick reference to some of my articles dealing with climate so that you can cite facts to counter the ongoing scam.

Climate has been constantly changing for billions of years and will continue to do so no matter what human do or don’t do. The major current controversy is that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will adversely affect global climate. However, there is no physical evidence to support that claim.

The climate system consists of the sun acting upon two turbulent fluids, the atmosphere and the oceans. This is a coupled, non-linear chaotic system consisting of many variables. The notion that just one variable, carbon dioxide, which comprises just 0.04% of the atmosphere, is the major controlling factor, is absurd.

About evidence:

Computer modeling is speculation, not physical evidence. Output from computer modeling of the climate diverges widely from observations because input assumptions are wrong.

Correlation does not prove causation, but it may be suggestive. Still, correlation is not physical evidence.

Consensus is merely opinion, not physical evidence. Remember back in the 1970s the scientific consensus was that Earth was about to enter another glacial epoch.

Here are some reference articles: (click on titles to read the article)

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists

“What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?”

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The “greenhouse” hypothesis fails on four major predictions probably because it ignores convective heat transfer.

The Broken Greenhouse – why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

The “greenhouse effect” does exist but water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.

Carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

New Study shows that impact of carbon dioxide rising to 700 ppm is about 0.5°C

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

It’s the gravity of the planet and density of the atmosphere. We have a practical demonstration of this in the Grand Canyon.

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

This shows that carbon dioxide has never been a controlling factor no matter what time scale is considered.

The 97 percent consensus of human caused climate change debunked again

On Consensus in Science

Consensus is “the first refuge of scoundrels.”

 

The Sea Level Scam

Tuvalu and other Pacific islands resist sea level rise and add land area

In spite of rising sea level, islands are increasing in land area. It’s all about geology.

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Climate Change in Perspective

This 30-page article reviews all the contentions and evidence about climate change

See the Article Index for more

 

The Broken Greenhouse – why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

Climate has been changing for about four billion years in cycles large and small. Climate will continue to change no matter what humans do or don’t do.

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the major bogeyman of our time. As H.L. Mencken wrote: “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” As we will see below, neither increasing carbon dioxide emissions nor reducing such emissions will have a significant effect on global warming.

Even the UN IPCC admits that the climate change bogeyman is about money and power, not the environment. The real goal of UN climate propaganda: “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.” – UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth” — Ottmar Edenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The real goal is one-world government.

Let’s review the “greenhouse effect” to see if carbon dioxide is really a major factor in controlling global climate.

We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which absorbs almost all wavelengths of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation, three of which are also absorbed by water vapor. Other minor greenhouse gases are oxygen and ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Once a particular wavelength becomes saturated, i.e., almost completely absorbed, additional quantities of greenhouse gases have no effect.

Even the IPCC agrees that the hypothetical capacity of carbon dioxide to change temperature is given by the formula: △Tc = αln(C2/C1), where △Tc is the change in temperature in degrees Centigrade and the term ln(C2/C1) is the natural logarithm of the CO2 concentration at time two divided by the concentration at time one. The constant α (alpha) is sometimes called the sensitivity and its value is subject to debate. This relationship was proposed by Svante August Arrhenius, a physicist and chemist, around 1896. This logarithmic formula produces a graph in the form shown below. This shows that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, it has less and less influence. This graph is the pure theoretical capacity of carbon dioxide to warm the atmosphere in absence of any confounding feedbacks. The different curves represent different values of sensitivity.

 

Carbon dioxide is currently about 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. Yet this nearly negligible amount is touted as the main driver of global temperature. Notice that even at the highest sensitivity on the chart, doubling carbon dioxide from 400ppm to 800ppm results in a theoretical rise in temperature of only slightly more than 1°C – nothing to worry about.

The climate system consists of two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and the oceans) interacting with each other. As the IPCC rightly says in its Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” The claim that one minor variable acts as the major control knob is absurd.

In the graph, the numbers shown in parentheses are the estimated temperature increase from quadrupling carbon dioxide concentration. Many climate models use much higher values for the sensitivity. That’s why most climate models run much hotter than measured temperatures. Recent research suggests that sensitivity could be as low as -0.03°C, i.e., cooling. (Source)

The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate analogy because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis deals only with heat transfer by radiation and completely ignores convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer (weather) puts many holes in the “blanket” of carbon dioxide. The “greenhouse” is effectively broken.

I have often heard it claimed that without the “greenhouse effect” Earth would be an iceball. Well, it ain’t necessarily so. There is an alternate hypothesis of what warms the atmosphere and this alternative is supported by physical evidence.

Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. This happens regardless of atmosphere composition. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Physical evidence supports this hypothesis. See more of this story here: What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

The “greenhouse” hypothesis of global warming is not supported by physical evidence, see:

A simple question for climate alarmists – where is the evidence.

On the other hand, there are several lines of physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions do not intensify the “greenhouse effect” see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The global push for renewable energy generation of electricity is based on the false premise that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to forestall dangerous warming. How much warming is dangerous? The IPCC says 2°C is dangerous. They are ignoring the Cretaceous Period when global temperature was at least10°C warmer and the Paleocene-Eocene when temperatures were up to 19°C warmer. (link) The IPCC’s arbitrary 2ºC (3.6ºF) “tipping point” has no basis in science. In fact, during the last 10,000 years, the temperature has cycled several times through warm and cool periods of 2ºC or more.

See also:

Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential “Savings” in Future Global Temperature and Global Sea Level Rise(link)

This paper shows that if Arizona stops all carbon dioxide emissions it could possibly prevent a rise in temperature of 0.0029°C by 2100. If the entire U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could prevent a temperature rise of 0.172°C by 2100.

More Evidence Water Vapor Is Dominant Influence on Temperatures (link)

This article by meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains how water vapor moderates temperature.

Much of the climate scaremongering is based on climate models. Climate models are complex mathematical constructs, not physical evidence. But the atmosphere is even more complex, so modelers must ignore many variables such as Sun-Earth relationships and clouds, in favor of a few basic parameters. The fundamental assumption of climate models is that changes in CO2 concentration drives temperature change, but evidence from geology and astronomy show that the relationship is just the opposite. Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentration because temperature controls CO2 solubility in the oceans.

CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas 

Article by Dr. Tim Ball: The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist? (Water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gas.)

Lindzen explains the climate system

The following are excerpts from a lecture presented by Dr. Richard Lindzen to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. Dr. Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until his retirement in 2013. He is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF.

Each of the following sections has more to it. Read the entire lecture here:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-AnnualGWPF-lecture.pdf

The climate system

The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least controversial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the description. I will also try to make the description intelligible to the non-scientist.

The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and the oceans) interacting with each other. By ‘turbulent,’ I simply mean that it is characterized by irregular circulations like those found in a gurgling brook or boiling water, but on the planetary scale of the oceans and the atmosphere. The opposite of turbulent is called laminar, but any fluid forced to move fast enough becomes turbulent, and turbulence obviously limits predictability. By interaction, I simply mean that they exert stress on each other and exchange heat with each other.

These fluids are on a rotating planet that is unevenly heated by the sun. The motions in the atmosphere (and to a lesser extent in the oceans) are generated by the uneven influence of the sun. The sun, itself, can be steady, but it shines directly on the tropics while barely skimming the Earth at the poles. The drivers of the oceans are more complex and include forcing by wind as well as the sinking of cold and salty water. The rotation of the Earth has many consequences too, but for the present, we may simply note that it leads to radiation being distributed around a latitude circle.

The oceans have circulations and currents operating on time scales ranging from years to millennia, and these systems carry heat to and from the surface. Because of the scale and density of the oceans, the flow speeds are generally much smaller than in the atmosphere and are associated with much longer time scales. The fact that these circulations carry heat to and from the surface means that the surface, itself, is never in equilibrium with space. That is to say, there is never an exact balance between incoming heat from the sun and outgoing radiation generated by the Earth because heat is always being stored in and released from the oceans and surface temperature is always, therefore, varying somewhat.

In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a hugely irregular land surface. As air passes over mountain ranges, the flow is greatly distorted. Topography therefore plays a major role in modifying regional climate. These distorted air-flows even generate fluid waves that can alter climate at distant locations. Computer simulations of the climate generally fail to adequately describe these effects.

A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast impacts on energy flows. Each component also has important radiative impacts. You all know that it takes heat to melt ice, and it takes further heat for the resulting water to become vapor or, as it is sometimes referred to, steam. The term humidity refers to the amount of vapor in the atmosphere. The flow of heat is reversed when the phase changes are reversed; that is, when vapor condenses into water, and when water freezes. The release of heat when water vapor condenses drives thunder clouds (known as cumulonimbus), and the energy in a thundercloud is comparable to that released in an H-bomb. I say this simply to illustrate that these energy transformations are very substantial. Clouds consist of water in the form of fine droplets and ice in the form of fine crystals. Normally, these fine droplets and crystals are suspended by rising air currents, but when these grow large enough they fall through the rising air as rain and snow. Not only are the energies involved in phase transformations important, so is the fact that both water vapor and clouds (both ice- and water-based) strongly affect radiation. Although I haven’t discussed the greenhouse effect yet, I’m sure all of you have heard that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that this explains its warming effect. You should, therefore, understand that the two most important greenhouse substances by far are water vapor and clouds. Clouds are also important reflectors of sunlight.

The unit for describing energy flows is watts per square meter. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and re-emission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. The Earth receives about 340 watts per square meter from the sun, but about 140 watts per square meter is simply reflected back to space, by both the Earth’s surface and, more importantly, by clouds. This leaves about 200 watts per square meter that the Earth would have to emit in order to establish balance.

The sun radiates in the visible portion of the radiation spectrum because its temperature is about 6000K. ‘K’ refers to Kelvins, which are simply degrees Centigrade plus 273. Zero K is the lowest possible temperature (-273?C). Temperature determines the spectrum of the emitted radiation. If the Earth had no atmosphere at all (but for purposes of argument still was reflecting 140 watts per square meter), it would have to radiate at a temperature of about 255K, and, at this temperature, the radiation is mostly in the infrared.

Of course, the Earth does have an atmosphere and oceans, and this introduces a host of complications. So be warned, what follows will require a certain amount of concentration. Evaporation from the oceans gives rise to water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor very strongly absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared. This is what we mean when we call water vapor a greenhouse gas. The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the surface to heat, and, as in a heated pot of water, convection sets on. Because the density of air decreases with height, the buoyant elements expand as they rise. This causes the buoyant elements to cool as they rise, and the mixing results in decreasing temperature with height rather than a constant temperature. To make matters more complicated, the amount of water vapor that the air can hold decreases rapidly as the temperature decreases. At some height there is so little water vapor above this height that radiation from this level can now escape to space. It is at this elevated level (around 5 km) that the temperature must be about 255K in order to balance incoming radiation. However, because convection causes temperature to decrease with height, the surface now has to actually be warmer than 255K. It turns out that it has to be about 288K (which is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface).

This is what is known as the greenhouse effect. It is an interesting curiosity that had convection produced a uniform temperature, there wouldn’t be a greenhouse effect. In reality, the situation is still more complicated. Among other things, the existence of upper-level cirrus clouds, which are very strong absorbers and emitters of infrared radiation, effectively block infrared radiation from below. Thus, when such clouds are present above about 5 km, their tops rather than the height of 5 km determine the level from which infrared reaches space. Now the addition of other greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide) elevates the emission level, and because of the convective mixing, the new level will be colder. This reduces the outgoing infrared flux, and, in order to restore balance, the atmosphere would have to warm. Doubling carbon dioxide concentration is estimated to be equivalent to a forcing of about 3.7 watts per square meter, which is little less than 2% of the net incoming 200 watts per square meter. Many factors, including cloud area and height, snow cover, and ocean circulations, commonly cause changes of comparable magnitude.

It is important to note that such a system will fluctuate with time scales ranging from seconds to millennia, even in the absence of an explicit forcing other than a steady sun. Much of the popular literature (on both sides of the climate debate) assumes that all changes must be driven by some external factor. Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary. This is actually something that all of you have long known – even if you don’t realize it. After all, you have no difficulty recognizing that the steady stroking of a violin string by a bow causes the string to vibrate and generate sound waves. In a similar way, the atmosphere–ocean system responds to steady forcing with its own modes of variation (which, admittedly, are often more complex than the modes of a violin string). Moreover, given the massive nature of the oceans, such variations can involve time scales of millennia rather than milliseconds. El Niño is a relatively short example, involving years, but most of these internal time variations are too long to even be identified in our relatively short instrumental record. Nature has numerous examples of autonomous variability, including the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle and the reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field every couple of hundred thousand years or so. In this respect, the climate system is no different from other natural systems.

Of course, such systems also do respond to external forcing, but such a forcing is not needed for them to exhibit variability. While the above is totally uncontroversial, please think about it for a moment. Consider the massive heterogeneity and complexity of the system, and the variety of mechanisms of variability as we consider the current narrative that is commonly presented as ‘settled science.’

The popular narrative and its political origins

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature
change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary claim based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.

Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as
the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control carbon dioxide levels.

The evidence

At this point, some of you might be wondering about all the so-called evidence for dangerous climate change. What about the disappearing Arctic ice, the rising sea level, the weather extremes, starving polar bears, the Syrian Civil War, and all the rest of it? The vast variety of the claims makes it impossible to point to any particular fault that applies to all of them. Of course, citing the existence of changes – even if these observations are correct (although surprisingly often they are not) – would not implicate greenhouse warming per se. Nor would it point to danger. Note that most of the so-called evidence refers to matters of which you have no personal experience. Some of the claims, such as those relating to weather extremes, contradict what both physical theory and empirical data show. The purpose of these claims is obviously to frighten and befuddle the public, and to make it seem like there is evidence where, in fact, there is none.

Conclusion

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants.

See also:
Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect
An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

A summary of climate change principles and state of the science – a rebuttal of climate alarmism

This post collects several past articles which review the science and bring together some main points on the state of the climate debate. These points show that the politically correct, carbon dioxide driven meme is wrong. Readers can use these articles to counter climate alarmist. Read each article for more details.

Climate change in perspective

Climate change is a major issue of our times. Concern is affecting environmental, energy, and economic policy decisions. Many politicians are under the mistaken belief that legislation and regulation can significantly control our climate to forestall any deviation from “normal” and save us from a perceived crisis. This post is intended as a primer for politicians so they can cut through the hype and compare real observational data against the flawed model prognostications.

The data show that the current warming is not unusual, but part of a natural cycle; that greenhouse gases, other than water vapor, are not significant drivers of climate; that human emissions of carbon dioxide are insignificant when compared to natural emissions of greenhouse gases; and that many predictions by climate modelers and hyped by the media are simply wrong.

 

A simple question for climate alarmists – where is the evidence

“What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?”

(Remember back in the 1970s, climate scientists and media were predicting a return to an “ice age.”)

I have posed that question to five “climate scientist” professors at the University of Arizona who claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of dangerous global warming. Yet, when asked the question, none could cite any supporting physical evidence.

 

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Rather than being a “pollutant.” Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth as we know it. Earth’s climate has been changing for at least four billion years in cycles large and small. Few in the climate debate understand those changes and their causes. Many are fixated on carbon dioxide (CO2), a minor constituent of the atmosphere, but one absolutely necessary for life as we know it. Perhaps this fixation derives from ulterior political motives for controlling the global economy. For others, the true believers, perhaps this fixation derives from ignorance.

 

Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

The “greenhouse effect,” very simplified, is this: solar radiation penetrates the atmosphere and warms the surface of the earth. The earth’s surface radiates thermal energy (infrared radiation) back into space. Some of this radiation is absorbed and re-radiated back to the surface and into space by clouds, water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, and other gases. Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas; the others are minor players. It is claimed that without the greenhouse effect the planet would be an iceball, about 34∘C colder than it is.* The term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate usage because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere.*There is an alternate hypothesis:

 

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Temperature is independent of atmosphere composition. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Many publications since, have expounded on Maxwell’s theory and have shown that it applies to all planets in the Solar System.

The Grand Canyon of Arizona provides a practical demonstration of this principle.

 

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment report and the UN IPCC both claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are “intensifying” the greenhouse effect and causing global warming. The carbon dioxide driven global warming meme makes four specific predictions. Physical evidence shows that all four of these predictions are wrong.

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

 

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

In this article, we will examine the Earth’s temperature and the carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere at several time scales to see if there is any relationship. I stipulate that the greenhouse effect does exist. I maintain, however, that the ability of CO2 emissions to cause global warming is tiny and overwhelmed by natural forces. The main effect of our “greenhouse” is to slow cooling.

 

How much global warming is dangerous?

The United Nation’s IPCC and other climate alarmists say all hell will break loose if the global temperature rises more than an additional 2º C (3.6ºF). That number, by the way, is purely arbitrary with no basis in science. It also ignores Earth’s geologic history which shows that for most of the time global temperatures have been much warmer than now. Let’s look back at a time when global temperatures are estimated to have been as much as 34ºF warmer than they are now. Hell didn’t break loose then.

 

Effects of global warming on humans

The EPA’s “endangerment finding” classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant and claimed that global warming will have adverse effects on human health. Real research says the opposite: cold is deadlier. The scientific evidence shows that warming is good for health.

 

Geology is responsible for some phenomena blamed on global warming

Melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets have been blamed on global warming, but both have a geologic origin. The “Blob” a recent warm ocean area off the Oregon coast, responsible in part for the hot weather and drought in California, has been blamed on global warming, but that too may have a geologic cause.

 

The 97 percent consensus for human caused climate change debunked again

It has been claimed that 97% of climate scientists say humans are causing most of the global warming. An examination of the numbers and how those numbers have been reached show that only 8.2% of scientists polled explicitly endorse carbon dioxide as the principal driver.

Read also a more general article: On consensus in science

Conclusion:

The basic conclusion of this review is that carbon dioxide has little effect on climate and all attempts to control carbon dioxide will be a futile and expensive exercise to no end. All the dire predictions are based on flawed computer models. Carbon dioxide is a phantom menace.

 

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

Nitrogen in rocks identified as major plant fertilizer not considered by climate models

Organic nitrogen compounds such as ammonia (NH3) act as plant fertilizers. Robust plant growth consumes more atmospheric carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis. However, atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is relatively inert. It is converted to organic nitrogen compounds by bacteria in the top soil layers. (See nitrogen fixation) Climate models have assumed that the atmosphere is the only source of nitrogen and have therefore underestimated its fertilization effect and also underestimated the capability of plants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. New studies show that much nitrogen comes from rocks, some already in useable organic form. Weathering of rocks releases this organic nitrogen.

“A considerable amount of the nitrogen in igneous and sedimentary rocks exists as ammonium ions held within the lattice structures of silicate minerals. In sedimentary rocks, the ammonium is held by secondary silicate minerals; in igneous rocks, the ammonium is contained largely within potassium-bearing primary minerals. Analyses indicated that most of the nitrogen in igneous rocks, and from one-tenth to two-thirds of that in sedimentary rocks (shales) occurred as fixed ammonium.” (Source)

Nitrate deposits in arid and semi-arid regions provide another source of nitrogen.

“Nitrogen bearing rocks are globally distributed and comprise a potentially large pool of nitrogen in nutrient cycling that is frequently neglected because of a lack of routine analytical methods for quantification. Nitrogen in rock originates as organically bound nitrogen associated with sediment, or in thermal waters representing a mixture of sedimentary, mantle, and meteoric sources of nitrogen.” (Source)

A new study, reported by Science Daily, concerns research conducted by University of California – Davis published April 6, 2018.

“For centuries, the prevailing science has indicated that all of the nitrogen on Earth available to plants comes from the atmosphere. But a study from the University of California, Davis, indicates that more than a quarter comes from Earth’s bedrock.”

“The discovery could greatly improve climate change projections, which rely on understanding the carbon cycle. This newly identified source of nitrogen could also feed the carbon cycle on land, allowing ecosystems to pull more emissions out of the atmosphere, the authors said.”

“Geology might have a huge control over which systems can take up carbon dioxide and which ones don’t.”

“While there were hints that plants could use rock-derived nitrogen, this discovery shatters the paradigm that the ultimate source of available nitrogen is the atmosphere. Nitrogen is both the most important limiting nutrient on Earth and a dangerous pollutant, so it is important to understand the natural controls on its supply and demand. Humanity currently depends on atmospheric nitrogen to produce enough fertilizer to maintain world food supply. A discovery of this magnitude will open up a new era of research on this essential nutrient.”

Study citation: B. Z. Houlton, S. L. Morford, R. A. Dahlgren. Convergent evidence for widespread rock nitrogen sources in Earth’s surface environment. Science, 2018; 360 (6384): 58 DOI: 10.1126/science.aan4399.

Looks like “climate science” is still not settled. For instance, a 2003 study published in the same Science journal claimed, “there will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios.” Investor’s Business Daily opines: “with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won’t warm as much, despite mankind’s pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.”

 

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists