copy-Leesburg-e1411600345533.jpg

CO2 vs Global Temperature

Somehow the debate on Climate Change has gotten off point. The Skeptics have been insisting that Global temperature has not increased since 1998, and that Arctic ice is recovering, so climate change has ceased. The Warmists, while denying all that, publish more and more horror stories indicating that Global Warming has already caused massive disruption to our lives, as well as to the lives of plants and animals everywhere, not to mention droughts and hurricanes, and that everything is going to get much worse very soon.

Whatever the truth is about current Climate, the well known facts are that climate does change all the time, always has and always will. The debate should be: can humans do anything about it? Or perhaps: do human activities cause drastic changes in climate? Those questions boil to: does CO2 have a sufficient greenhouse effect, along with water vapor forcing, to cause significant changes in worldwide climate, and if so, do human activities generate enough additional CO2 to drive Global Warming to a “tipping” point, beyond which disaster will descend on all mankind and animal kind?

These questions are crucial, considering the very drastic and economically ruinous measures being proposed to reduce the emissions of CO2. Given the importance of establishing the certainty of the answers, I would expect that the proponents of man-made global warming would have relatively simple, definite, scientifically formidable, and understandable explanations for their decisions that the answers to these questions are YES.

I have not, however, been able to find compelling answers to the questions that would move me to agree with these proponents of CO2 as a controlling factor of climate change. The clearest and simplest explanations that I could find are the correlation between an increase in atmospheric CO2 with  rising temperature, and the claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and is a pending disaster. The latter has been shown to be a deliberate falsification by  means of a statically flawed survey of scientific studies.

The former can only indicate that temperature is controlled by atmospheric CO2; or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by temperature; or that both are controlled by something else. Beyond that, there is only arcane calculations which depend on accepting that CO2 is causing climate change, aided by powerful positive feedback, which must be taken on faith. Because of the importance of the questions, one would think that a physical model of atmosphere, insulated from all influences except for water, heat, and carbon dioxide could be built which could narrowly control and measure the effects relating to carbon dioxide and temperature.

Instead, numerous computer models, which cannot know all influences and factors, have been developed at great expense that have failed time and again to predict present day climate changes, and have failed completely to account for past glacial periods. None the less, promoters of manmade climate change ask the public, the media, and the scientific, and political communities to accept the output of these models as settled science. Inexplicably, they all seem to be doing so.

For myself, I find compelling answers to the questions that indicate otherwise. Firstly: does CO2 have a sufficient greenhouse effect, along with water vapor forcing, to cause significant changes in worldwide climate? 

Carbon dioxide is a minor trace gas, comprising 3 or 4 molecules out of each ten thousand of atmosphere.  That is .04%. To counter the intuitive sense of proportion that this is not enough to bring on worldwide climate calamity, they say that CO2 makes it a bit warmer which causes more sea water to evaporate, and water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. At first blush, this might seem somewhat reasonable until you realize that more water vapor means more clouds which reflect the warming rays of the sun. Besides, that same sense of intuitive proportion says that any additional evaporation that the tiny amount of anthropogenic CO2 might engender will be hugely overwhelmed by the constant evaporation in the tropical seas around the world.

Then: do human activities generate enough additional CO2 to drive Global Warming to a “tipping” point, beyond which disaster will descend on all mankind and animal kind? 

It turns out that of all the carbon dioxide that is generated and absorbed by the atmosphere annually, human endeavors, includingthe burning of fossil fuels, is only a very small part.

The following estimates are taken from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA web-sites of 2005 and 2006, when these sites carried detailed analysis of natural CO2 emission sources. It may be significant that the web-sites no longer include these data. These are interglacial estimates, such as present time. PgC = Petagrams of Carbon, annually. Variation are estimates.

Oceans:                                             130-220 PgC     variation =  70%

Microbial activity                              85-100    ”        variation =  18%

Insect activity                                    60-90       ”        variation =  50%

Frozen terrestrial                               20-30       ”       variation =   50%

Volcanic release                                10-20       ”       variation =   100%

Forest fires                                        10-15       ”       variation =    50%

Mammalian                                        8-12        ”       variation =   50%

Anthropogenic (mostly fossil fuels)   8-9          ”       variation =   12%

Totals                                321-496     ”       variation =  54 %

The 70% variation in Ocean out gassing depends on variations of water temperature, wind currents and atmospheric humidity.
The 50% variation in Insect CO2 production depends on the many variations in insect life cycles.
The 50 & 100% variation in Volcanic and Forest Fire production depend on naturally occurring events.

So, it just doesn’t seem likely that our puny 3 or 4 percent contribution to the earth’s carbon dioxide budget is the deciding factor in climate change. Especially since all other contributors vary by much more than 4% and any manmade CO2 is lost in the noise of natural variations.

It seems that the real question that needs an answer is: Why are the IPCC, many so called climate scientists, environmentalists, and UN Government advocates misrepresenting the role of Carbon dioxide in climate change? 

My intuition tells me that they have another plan that has nothing to do with climate, or greenhouse gas. The mythical 97% of scientists who claim to believe that carbon dioxide controls climate may have an environmentalist/political agenda.