Abstract, References, Full Paper: PDF (Size:1794KB),
The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas reabsorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.
This paper shows that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and T as used in models. There is a visible causal relationship between T and CO2 though but the close correlation is on the production side as CO2 uptake is lagged by 9 months to 12.5 years (observed).
For CO2 to have a significant effect there must be a product, e.g. when CO2 increases there would be an acceleration in warming and for decreases, an acceleration in cooling. None is seen in the proxy records. None is seen in the observational data. Did any alarmist science actually look to see whether CO2 was functioning as claimed? Apparently not. Models trump observation always.
Time and time again I see the same points made that have been made since the onslaught of the destructive-to-civilisation gang green CoR con job began, little new information in the way of observation has been presented. The "insulating" capacity of CO2 is demonstrably insignificant, arid deserts get cold at night, humid rain forests don't. Water vapour stores energy, CO2 doesn't, hence the contrast. Alarmist science waffles on about the reflectance of CO2 in the IR range. It is of such minor import that except for luxuriant growth and healthiness of vegetation, 4 times today's level would be undetectable in the temperature record. We are supposed to believe that increasing crop yields is bad for the grand kids?
One notable addition, a concession, an escape clause if you prefer was added by alarmist NASA that explained the additional vegetation product due to CO2 concentration increasing above plant starvation levels was found to be a cooling factor due to evapo-transpiration (ET) change (here).
An obvious fault in the study - failure to note a reduction in time the stomata (pores) are open due to CO2 concentration causes a reduction in ET.This leads to the simple deduction that the increasing probability of higher ET due to increasing extent of vegetation is balanced out. A further straw man is set up in the article in that ET is suggested to cause cooling.
CO2 allegedly causes more evaporation (despite the consistent decrease since 1948) so adds to the GHG content of the air, a fanciful warming influence that we are suffering massive deprivation for, yet ET from vegetation cools? It was noted that where vegetation replaces ground with a high albedo, warming is implied due to reduced reflectance. Apples and pears. Bare ground is comparatively non reactive and does not provide shade, shade causes the air affected to cool. Biomass transports ground water to the air when it is hot, a regulatory factor dependent on a third that is external to the atmosphere, ground water availability. Shallow rooted crops (e.g. oil palm, soya) replacing deep rooted natural forest confounds this regulation and the consequences are likely seen as drought in the partially deforested S. Americas and the disruption in Indian Ocean climate cycles, particularly monsoons due to extensive deforestation of S.E. Asia and perhaps eastern coastal India. Western African coastal deforestation has been linked to stronger Atlantic hurricanes, the Atlantic having shown an increasing trend in storminess compared to a decrease seen in the rest of the world.
The short version for policy makers. More trees leads to greater regulation of both internal and external driven climate and extreme events. An obvious demonstration is the devastation caused by typhoon incursion in Indonesia that was amplified by coastal deforestation. N.E. India has suffered similar consequences with the effects affecting Bangladesh despite the success of the Banglas' commendable conservation efforts. Less obvious is the incidence of extreme heat and cold waves in Europe that has a high probability of being at least amplified by deforestation. To demonstrate that even on a small scale trees are important parks in cities, especially those wooded, cool in summer and where evergreens are grown, warm in winter.
I've been following (as time permits) the Global Warming Skeptics blog:
What is a Watt?
and Hide the decline
What surface temperature is your model really predicting?
Discussion or debate?
Slaying a greenhouse dragon - Last post Feb 14
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part II - Last post Feb 4
Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part III: discussion - Last post Feb 18
And this kind of news is exactly what the beleaguered agenda driven and drivers, eco nuts, renewable energy and "green" tax bent politicos, sham and fooled scientists and all the other deceivers do not like to see, counter propaganda. Except there is more truth in this than baked Alaska (or was that frozen toasty) grand kids.
Magnetic polar shifts causing massive global superstorms
Ends with; "So, the start of a new Ice Age is marked by a magnetic pole reversal, increased volcanic activity, larger and more frequent earthquakes, tsunamis, colder winters, superstorms and the halting of the Chandler wobble.
Unfortunately, all of those conditions are being met."
2002 - Scientists may have detected the beginning of the field's next such reversal:
2005 - Movement of North Magnetic Pole is accelerating:
2008 - Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
2008 - Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to Sun
2009 - North Magnetic Pole Moving Due to Core Flux
2009 - The earth's climate is significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field:
Jan 2011 - British Geological Survey *Possible Pole Shift Occurring* South Atlantic Anomaly is Growing:
2009 - A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System:
2009 - The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist:
Feb-08-2011: Yellowstone Supervolcano, New Ice Age Could Topple US Government - Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
Now how the hell do you turn an ice age into a scam? (Alternative, CO2 works in mysterious ways...)