June 27th, 2010

Another reason why CO2 doesn't warm

While I'm working on the next fraud post, here's yet another explanation why CO2 doesn't drive warming.


The Atmosphere as Refrigerator

[...] The atmosphere will thus act like a refrigerator giving additional cooling under increased energy input. More greenhouse gases will thus cause global cooling!
Article by Claes Johnson, professor of Applied Mathematics here: claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/06/atmosp...

Also see Stephen Wilde's thoughts here.

Thanks to Climaterealists

Deliberate Fraud? 6 AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)

The title is a claim made by the UN IPCC, the Royal Society, CRU, Brit Met, WWF and other advocacies.

In return for many tens of billions of dollars the claim by the warmist science is that human emissions of the satanic gas, annual volume currently at 4 parts per million (0.0004% of the atmosphere), drives warming.

To support that claim climate science has yet to explain how sum annual emissions of oceans and land at a guesstimated 98 ppm (UN IPCC ARFour report fig. 7.3) are reabsorbed as well as 2 ppm from human emissions leaving less than 2 ppm of human emissions in the air. (According to NOAA global additions average ~1.9ppm p.a.)

Natural absorbers of CO2 do not show preference otherwise there would be e.g. a 4 ppm addition to the air in 2007 and global increases would be escalating along with human production. They aren't. There is an almost perfect straight line increase of ~1.9 ppm p.a. When the raw data for CO2 additions are considered, there is no resemblance to escalating human output.

Science has yet to show how almost 2 parts per million (0.0002% of the atmosphere) per year addition drives the climate both up and down. Weather cannot be predicted by human CO2 emissions let alone all emissions. Climate cannot be predicted at anytime in the past by CO2 volume. Gang-green scientists have yet to show evidence of CO2 leading temperature or prove how it drives warming when it rises and falls after temperature changes. Ice cores around the world agree CO2 volume follows temperature up to a thousand years after temperature change. Ice core data has been ~confirmed by sediment core data. Yet climate variation can and has been predicted by the Pacific Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino influence on surface layer ocean temperature variation together with solar emissions. For the last few years, Piers Corbyn of Weather Action has very accurately predicted weather events ahead of time using solar "weather" conditions. He uses a hand-held calculator.

The only support the warmista has is models that crazily assume CO2 drives warming. There are dozens of them that all produce different outcomes by "tweaking" included variables. The UN IPCC selected a dozen that best suited their contention and declared the science was settled. None has been able to predict the climate. The UN IPCC put the results of the models together and said there you go, we got it right. Projecting the "homogenised" model results gives millennia scale projections of between Uranus conditions (-200C) to solar surface temperatures. The fact is that none of the selected models predicted that, and as one of the UN IPCC's central scientists admitted, there was no warming of any significance for the last 15 years. There has been almost continuous criticism of the faith put in climate models as predictors of climate, even notable modellers admit that all they can produce are "what if" scenarios. Since 1988, being extremely generous, models have scored the first 7right from 22 years. Next year it will be from 23 and so on.

The famous consensus is just another glint in the IPCC's one eye. Link (consensus=1) Link (consensus=a few dozen)

What other credible scientific evidence is there that human emissions in any way significantly affect the climate? None. Joanne Nova has produced the Sceptic's Handbook I and II that detail why the protagonist claims are false.

Scientists unconvinced by warmist rhetoric are searching for the real drivers of the climate. Debunks of the fancy that CO2 is a climate driver abound. The leading contender is that the Sun is the primary source. The amount of radiation that reaches the top of the troposphere after passing through high atmosphere filters is guessed to be around 341 Watts per sq. mtr (Wm2). The amount that reaches the surface, that is available as IR is guessed to be 161 Wm2. This last is a highly variable number, the reason being that we have ozone, a strong absorber of UV, oxygen and water in the air that diffuse sunlight and of course clouds that reflect much sunlight back to space. We also have to account for the albedo of ice that varies depending on the season, penetration of warm currents and crops. Light coloured crops have a high albedo and darker crops absorb more solar energy. Models based on CO2 being the agent of doom are hopeless at predicting albedo, cloudiness, precipitation etc. i.e. useless.

Dr Spencer is the most public and possibly leading researcher and theorist concerning the influence of cloud and he has found that small changes in cloud extent can have a large impact on lower atmosphere temperatures.

The deeply superstitious Sir J Houghton (spawner of the Hadley clan and co-architect of the UNEP/IPCC disaster) in cahoots with the fugitive former UN/FCCC/UNEP/IPCC star M. Strong looks to have been the main instigator in the UK for all the CO2 crud that spawned all the gang-green crap.

His theory. His perfect creator made us to emit CO2 and absorb oxygen in return for biomass absorbing CO2 and emitting oxygen. More of one causes more of the other. We are to be punished for the sin of emitting CO2. Words escape me. (That was a joke.)

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being


Physicist decries the returned radiative energy warming amplification notion. (how can thermal energy at a level lower than the emitting surface level cause the emitting surface to warm?)
Given the emissivity of the soil (0.82) (references 1 and 5) compared with the emissivity of the carbon dioxide (0.0017), the load of energy from the surface to the space capable of causing induced emission from the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 53 W/m^2 sr; in contrast, the load of energy emitted by the carbon dioxide to all directions gives a total of 0.28 W/m^2 sr, at all wavelengths corresponding to the spectral emission of carbon dioxide at all bands.

Other physicists' POV.
Freeman Dyson: The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
Robert Laughlin: The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.
Edward Teller: Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out.

Frederick Seitz: Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
Robert Jastrow: The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.
William Nirenberg: The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. ...These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.
From here.

Ferenc Miskolczi's (former NASA physicist) new peer-reviewed paper places a well-deserved death knell on the crumbling greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming, stating:
The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
Jeffrey A. Glassman, (PhD) has contributed severally to the dismissal of CO2 additions as a significant factor :
CO2 acquittal. (rev. 11/16/09)
On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere & what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. (rev. 3/14/10)
The cause of Earth's climate change is the Sun. (3/27/10. Cor. 4/17/10)


Climate Game Changer. Dust to Rust

Humans add ~4ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, annually increasing, and are responsible for the av. 1.9 ppm that remain in the air from the  sum of ~102ppm annual emissions. This has caused the planet to warm and cool at intervals last century with a net warming of around 0.6C. The fantasy has failed to find credible evidence instead relying on models adjusted to show support for the fantasy when they are homogenised. They in fact blitz the temperature line and most of the white space for a large margin either side of it.

Note how the models rapidly diverge to cover every eventuality. In the real world T cooled slightly as a trend from from 2003. CO2 increased steadily. Oops.

That and a whole load of scientists saying, "I believe..." with a lot of lies and propaganda almost totally excluding negativity in a seemingly dogmatic endeavor has caused governments and financiers to see the possibility of separating the public from vast sums. Many have gained and are gaining immense profit from the deception. They may be eco-criminals that are causing great harm to the climate, people, biomass, and business in a frenetic financial feeding frenzy and power grab.

What has been revealed and is available for confirmation is that vast quantities of dust from the Sahara (and probably other parts of Africa) were carried to the stratosphere and deposited on the Bahamas. Presumably the ocean as well. The news was given to me by AGW propagandist National Geographic in the Diving the Labyrinth series. A stalactite was recovered from a deep "blue hole", a cave collapse that produces the familiar circular hole except these are linked to the ocean. The stalactite was bisected and annular rings similar to tree rings were seen. Among the rings were narrow dark bands at intervals that put them at the time of very rapid climate change. They were found to be iron of identical composition as Saharan sand that contains iron. The Bahamas contain many dry holes so verification should be simple.

How can a "bit" of sand cause rapid climate change? The Gulf Stream flows between the islands and Central America. Were the iron rich dust to be deposited in the ocean it would likely have several rapid effects on the current. Decreasing clarity would rapidly decrease penetration of solar radiation, the surface layer rapidly warming shallowly while deeper water was being caused to cool.
A second effect, with the dust having a low mass it would sink slowly so causing prolonged iron enrichment and driving extensive algae bloom, a further depletion of solar radiation.
The third I can think of is initial "dimming" as the dust travelled and fell through the atmosphere followed by increased cloudiness due to the higher evaporation rate of the warmer surface water.
How may the current get stopped? The colder water at a lesser depth causes the warm Gulf Stream to flow more shallowly with a greater breadth. In its weakened state local ocean currents would likely have an influence to slow and vary that interfere with the flow slowing it by friction. The air currents that drive it would certainly be influenced, possibly driving it more slowly and much of it tending to gyre in the Mexican Gulf, possibly the air currents that drive it shifting direction so that its path around Florida is deflected or blocked.
With no or a far weaker Gulf Stream the flow of warm water poleward is decreased, sea ice extends southwards enhancing the increased cloud albedo. Winters quickly extend south, becoming colder and more enduring. Welcome to the start of advancing glaciaciation

The deposition of iron shown in the rings strongly indicates large sandstorms and so drought probably for more than a decade, the thickness of the iron bands should indicate the minimum term. There has been 15 years of drought in E. Africa. There were large sandstorms early in the 19th century.

Dust as a tipping element: The Bodélé Depression, Chad
Dust plays a vital role in climate and biophysical feedbacks in the Earth system. One source of dust, the Bodélé Depression in Chad, is estimated to produce about half the mineral aerosols emitted from the Sahara, which is the world's largest source. By using a variety of new remote sensing data, regional modeling, trajectory models, chemical analyses of dust, and future climate simulations, we investigate the current and past sensitivity of the Bodélé. We show that minor adjustments to small features of the atmospheric circulation, such as the Bodélé Low-Level Jet, could profoundly alter the behavior of this feature. Dust production during the mid-Holocene ceased completely from this key source region. Although subject to a great deal of uncertainty, some simulations of the 21st century indicate the potential for a substantial increase in dust production by the end of the century in comparison with current values.

African Droughts and Dust Transport to the Caribbean: Climate Change Implications
Great quantities of African dust are carried over large areas of the Atlantic and to the Caribbean during much of the year. Measurements made from 1965 to 1998 in Barbados trade winds show large interannual changes that are highly anticorrelated with rainfall in the Soudano-Sahel, a region that has suffered varying degrees of drought since 1970. Regression estimates based on long-term rainfall data suggest that dust concentrations were sharply lower during much of the 20th century before 1970, when rainfall was more normal. Because of the great sensitivity of dust emissions to climate, future changes in climate could result in large changes in emissions from African and other arid regions that, in turn, could lead to impacts on climate over large areas.

Note, I have only a small knowledge of the GS and am still on a steep learning curve. I may change the above as I learn more.

The courageous (mad? :) ) people that risked their lives to get the stalactite sample have my thanks.
The alarmist channel's website for the "Diving the labyrinth" docu is here.

From the "Facts" page:
Stalagmites and stalactites are mineral formations deposited in a cave by surface water.

·    Stalagmites and stalactites’ shape and chemistry capture a biography of the surface environment, including how much it rained, what chemicals were in the rain and soil, and temperature.
·    Stalactites and stalagmites stop growing when a cave floods.
·    A red dust forms a thick layer in the cave wall, indicating that at one time, the island’s surface was covered with red dust.
·    The red dust originated from the Sahara desert, about 6437 kilometres away.
·    Stalagmites sometimes reveal tree like rings, with each strata signifying years of growth.
·    The Bahamas stalagmite grew at a rate of 10 thousandth of a millimetre a year.
·    The Bahamas stalagmite has a bands of iron, possibly from the Sahara, corresponding with several of the Heinrich events
·    Heinrich events are global climate changes.
·    Sahara dust has been correlated with six Heinrich events from the last 80000 years.
*At the very end of the analysis, the geologist informed us the iron bands had been matched to that from the Saharan sand.

My favourite pic here.

What to do? CO2 has been greening the planet, including the Sahara. More CO2 means more biomass. Suppressing the production of what could be a glacial advance deterrent is criminal. The next 100,000 or so years of glaciation is due anytime, maybe the next major dust storm will start it.
Money must be diverted from gang-green to greening the Sahara. Oil spread on sand is not only a dust deterrent but also a moisture detainer and fertiliser. Money needs to be spent now on getting water to the arid regions. Money needs to be spent on greening the desert regions instead of lining the pockets of sharks and con men.

The science is settled however the supposed unimpeachable decide it to be.
Every politician and advisor that has promoted or voted for anything green that has cost the taxpayer needs to be investigated for financial interest. And all of the commissioners, the IPCC, UNEP, the upper hierarchy of the UN, every scientist that has received public finance, all the big banks and on and on. It is going to be an interesting year. China doesn't look to be an favourable refuge, they kill criminals. S. America or a bought ally in S. Africa perhaps?


Lord Oxburgh conducted the CRU whitewash. Chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, said prior to this inquiry, "what we don't want to see is in two years' time the government simply becoming bored with climate change after we've invested a lot of our shareholders' money"

Further, do not be misled just because he appeared on a Greenpeace platform saying "Governments in developed countries need to introduce taxes, regulations or plans such as the European Union carbon trading scheme to increase the cost of emitting CO2. This is the only way that technologies such as bio-fuel, carbon sequestration, the use of hydrogen as a fuel and wave, tidal, wind and solar power would displace the use of oil, coal and gas. None of this is going to happen if the market is left to itself"

Because, more recently, just before being appointed to lead the Inquiry, Lord Oxburgh made his impartiality known in a speech in the House of Lords, as reported in HANSARD

(Thanks Bomber the Cat here)