Tag Archives: CO2

High Fuel Use Activities

All leisure, travel and sports activities are not necessary so to most people, it seems like they are just levels of the same thing. Car racing, jets(travel), luxury yachts, speed boats, quads, 4×4 trucks, helicopters are all high fuel use so where do we draw a line. Over consumption and waste are real issues but high fuel use is only an issue if you believe the advocacy around CO2. People are gradually catching on that the Climate Change issue is much more than just science and physics. They also have to believe in the input assumptions and theories and the projections from climate models and then impact forecasts from notoriously unreliable economic models. Even if you believe the warming disaster forecasts, it may take much less GDP and be better for the environment and the economy to adapt to the warming versus spend trillions and cripple the economy to try control climate by reducing the increase in CO2.

What if we waste all that money and debt and it turns out that the warming is all due to natural causes?

Climate Change – Belief versus Behavior

The whole world votes on Climate Change every day with their behavior. They choose to continue to grow crops, feed their families, heat their homes, commute to work, power their industries, run their electronics, drive, fly and travel to the beach, the parks and mountains. They spend their money to survive and to enjoy life.

Climate Change has been sold as an end of the world crisis but people can sense the hype, the over sold, the exaggerations… No matter how passionately anyone “believes” in Human caused Climate Change, the reality is that almost no one sees or experiences real reasons to force them to change their behavior.

Another Reality is that Cheap plentiful energy has been really good for the world.




People are gradually catching on that Climate Change is much more than just science and physics.  They also have to believe in the input assumptions and theories and the projections from climate models and then impact forecasts from notoriously unreliable economic models. It may take much less GDP and be better for the environment and the economy to adapt versus spend trillions to try reduce CO2.


The theories project that adding CO2 from burning hydrocarbons will destabilize the global climate but the world has been through a lot of natural glacial and warming cycles.  It has been much hotter, had much more CO2 (up to 20X), had faster temperature and CO2 changes and yet runaway warming has never happened.  This is what is expected as all long term systems in nature are self-correcting.  The climate changes naturally and the climate is within natural ranges so is there really much effect from man?


Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

Everyone who cares about Climate Change and the Carbon issue should read this excellent article by Patrick Moore.

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

or here


Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide  – Video  

Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life that enables all plant life on earth which creates everything we eat and the Oxygen we breathe.  We breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2 with each breath.

The geologic records do not scientifically support the theory of CO2 as a control knob of temperature.

Science versus Politics and Religion on CO2

Scary climate model forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C or higher depend on two separate theories. Carbon Dioxide is a GHG(Green House Gas) but doubling the CO2 alone can only add about 1 C because of the logarithmic decline in back radiation from CO2 let alone balancing from negative feedbacks. The forecasts of greater than 1 degree C assume a second theory of large positive feedbacks (amplification) from large increases in humidity which is supposed to cause runaway warming. The 30+ years of balloon and satellite readings of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect because positive feedbacks in nature have to be local, short term or balanced by negative feedback in long life systems.

Bottom line is the climate models based on positive feedbacks forecast warming rates that are high by 3 to 4X versus reality so it is now becoming apparent that the warming is way overestimated. The forecasts are so far outside reasonable confidence ranges that CO2 levels cannot be considered a major climate control knob. There are new peer reviewed papers that have been published since the IPCC AR5 that have dramatically reduced the climate sensitivity to less than 1.5 degrees C.

Climate sensitivity
Glaciers, sea ice, ocean heating, cycles, storms, weather, etc are all just distractions and noise. The main theory that ¾ of the warming is based on doesn’t work and is wrong! The scare is over but the general public will take a while to see that man cannot control the climate. The next big realization is that mild warming and higher CO2 levels are net positive for the planet!!

The world has been constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man is “to blame” for some of that warming. Let us breakdown that politically worded message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization (UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2 but how much of the temperature rise is natural? Science is not about belief but about the scientific method where theories are proposed, facts are collected and theories are tested. Scientists should not jump to conclusions and have to be open to changing their minds if the theories fail.
Now that the climate model forecasts are shown to be overestimating the warming and that climate sensitivity estimates have to be reduced, the real question is how many scientists would be willing ”to stake their lives”(interesting phrase!) on the possibility that CO2 levels will cause enough warming to cause problems. Mild warming has historically been good for the planet and humanity.
Strongly held religious and political beliefs have caused and continue to cause wars, genocides and atrocities. That is why most of the world has tried to separate the powers of the government, the church and the military because sometimes those beliefs are wrong. A Canadian example is the combination of religion, politics and social science with great intentions created the residential school system.
Do you not find it ironic that someone with a theology degree would call for people with different “belief” to be burned at the stake (sorry – suffer consequences). Skeptical scientists are people who are still trying to determine the correct answer using the scientific method.
Terms like “Denial and Denier” are political/religious terms and have no place in a science discussion. We should immediately distrust anyone using terms like that because they are abusing their positions to make political points.
Many people with no scientific background just adopt the thinking that comes down from the leaders of their social and political groups. The need to belong is stronger than the need to confirm the “received knowledge”. Current Political and social leaders are abusing that trust as they use it to create a political divide of them and us to the point of demonizing or dehumanizing the other side so they can justify “burning them at the stake” for holding a different opinion.This did not start out as a scam but now many people’s trust is being misused for political purposes.

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide Concentrations The world is being constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man has contributed to that warming. Let us breakdown that message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization(UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2.  Carbon Dioxide is a Green House Gas in theory but in the atmosphere the back radiation spectrum is dominated by existing water vapor and the amount of additional back radiation declines logarithmically with additional CO2 so the actual effect of more CO2 is unknown. The accepted effect of doubling CO2 concentration is about 1C max.

These parts of the message should have near universal agreement. (maybe even 97%) So where are the important differences in opinion?

1. How sensitive is the Climate to changes in CO2 concentration?

2. Is the positive feedback/amplification theory real and can it cause large changes in temperature?What about negative feedbacks? What if feedbacks are net negative as would be expected in a natural long term system?

3. Can CO2 warm the climate enough to cause catastrophic events?

4. What is a reasonable probability of this occurrence?

The measurements from the three world satellite temperature sets and 4 balloon sets show an increasing divergence with the projections from the Climate Models. The assumptions that have been plugged into the Models appear to massively overestimate the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperatures. This is most noticeable in the tropics where the models and theory say CO2 should cause the most warming (see http://tinyurl.com/me5jlcd ) The temperature of the world has shown very little increase for over 19 years now which is close to the length of the previous warming period despite a rapid rise of over 40% in CO2 concentration.

There has been no increase in humidity which was theorized to massively amplify the temperature increase.  (actual decrease -see graph)


The temperatures are now so far outside of the model projections (in the less than 5 % probability range) that it is now very unlikely that CO2 concentration is the primary driver of climate. There are now 14 new peer reviewed published papers that estimate lower climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 and many sensitivity estimates are now below the estimated safe limit of 2 C.

Climate sensitivity

Unfortunately belief in Carbon Dioxide as the control knob of climate has become less of a scientific issue and more of a tool which is being used for political benefit.

Does LW Back Radiation From Incremental CO2 Actually Heat Oceans?

Lots of good physics and theories on how this should work but then we see a NASA graph like this  from the ARGO floats and ask how can CO2 only heat the Southern ocean. Carbon Dioxide is throughout the atmosphere but the highest average concentrations of CO2 are generally thought to be in the Northern Hemisphere. This may not be right as the latest satellite data suggest that at various times the concentrations are highest along the tropics over the rain forests which would mean that the CO2 source attribution and takeup assumptions are off   All those joules of energy would only amount to a .01 C change which has to be smaller than the error in the measurement given the sparse ARGO coverage.  I still have problems understanding how the few incremental molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere that are close enough to the ocean surface can radiate(in 3D) enough extra energy down to the ocean to cause a measurable temp increase without heating the atmosphere. And how did it heat the atmosphere for 20 years and then decide to only heat the ocean? Lots of grand explanations by very smart people that don’t work in the real world.argo-change-by-hemisphere

Death of the Positive Feedback Theory – Climate Sensitivity Continues to Decline

This post was inspired by this article by Dr. J Curry about her new paper about lower climate sensitivity. see here http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/  Note that she also presented this data before Senate Energy Committee.

The vast majority of global warming is predicted to occur from positive feedbacks to the small warming caused by the increased backradiation from increased CO2 content(max of 1 degree is possible due to logarithmic decline in backradiation). The warming is theorized to increase humidity which is predicted to increase temperature by increasing the greenhouse effect and cause up to 85% of the total warming. But what if the humidity in the air is already mostly saturated? Positive feedback is also known as the amplification theory. Positive feedbacks in nature usually are short term or local and are balanced by negative or reaction feedbacks that cause the system to return to equilibrium. Long term systems in nature by definition have to have net negative or balancing feedbacks or the system would be unstable and therefore be short life.

The CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen dramatically every year for many decades now and yet the humidity and the temperatures have not risen a fraction of what was predicted by the theories. The latest IPCC AR5 lowered the climate sensitivity estimates and there have been  many new peer reviewed and published papers that have even lower sensitivity estimates.(less than 1.5 degrees) . The new estimates are converging to be less than the safe limit of less than 2 C.

The Positive Feedback Theory and Catastrophic Climate Change are on the final circle of the sewer drain of scientific history. If there is NO significant amount of warming then there is NO CRISIS.

Climate sensitivity

Click on image for higher res version.