Tag Archives: CO2

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.

Climate Sensitivity to Changes in CO2 Has Been Overestimated.

Climate Sensitivity To Changes In CO2 Has Been Overestimated.
March 21, 2014

New research has been published that shows that Climate Sensitivity to changes in CO2 has been overestimated by Climate Scientists.  The issue of Climate Sensitivity is discussed in an article in the Economist Magazine and is a must read.

See  http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

The top climate scientists in the world have acknowledged that the global temperatures are trending way below the temperature forecasts generated by their computer simulators despite climbing world CO2 release rates.  The Climate Sensitivity to increases in CO2 has been over estimated by Scientists.  This means that something is wrong with the theories and sensitivity assumptions in the computer models.

The concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is based on three main theories that each depend on the previous theory.  The first theory is that the first doubling of CO2 will cause about 1 C of warming due to long wave back radiation from the increased CO2.  This is called the Greenhouse Gas theory and the effect may be muted due to spectrum overlap between CO2 and water vapor.  Subsequent doublings of CO2 concentration have minimal effect due to the logarithmic decline in back radiation. Therefore further Carbon Dioxide increases of any amount CAN NOT CAUSE dangerous levels of warming increases WITHOUT POSITIVE FEEDBACKS

The second theory is called the amplification or positive feedback theory.  The 1 C warming is predicted to cause higher humidity and more clouds which should trap more heat.  The problems are that clouds can also reflect sunlight or that water vapor can release heat at altitude by condensing into precipitation which then will cause cooling at lower altitudes.  The net effect is most likely negative so the model temperature predictions based on positive feedbacks will be too high which is becoming apparent. Natural systems have negative feedbacks which means they are self correcting stable long term systems as positive feedback mean that a system is unstable and would terminate.
The climate models are programmed with assumptions that these large positive feedbacks will cause major runaway warming in the troposphere in lower latitudes but that predicted warming has not occurred in the actual balloon or satellite data.  See graphs below which show prediction versus reality or see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

The Economist article refers to various new peer reviewed studies that now estimate total climate sensitivity to increased CO2 is probably less than 2 C.

The second new article that has just been published in Nature-Geoscience from a high-profile international team led by Oxford scientists that estimates Transient Climate Response (TCR) at 1.3°C along with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity at 2.0°C. The contributors include 14 lead authors of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Scientific Assessment Report(AR5) which also lowered the climate sensitivity. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

The third theory is that the estimated warming will be large enough to lead to bad catastrophic effects.  The world has warmed about .8 C in the last 100 years with at least .4 C occurred before 1950 as natural rebound from the Little Ice Age. Low climate sensitivity estimates of less than 2 C can not lead to extreme weather as there is no scientific mechanism for CO2 to influence the climate without warming. No link has been established between mild warming and droughts, tornadoes or hurricanes. See Roger Pielke Jr link to Senate testimony in July  http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/ and the recent IPCC AR5 report. The AR5 reported low confidence levels on any links between Climate Change and Catastrophic Events

Mild warming has many positive benefits like less fuel use, less cold deaths (see Europe and USA in recent cold winters), minor sea level rise and easier lives. Mild warming combined with higher CO2 concentrations also increases crop yields and greens the earth.  http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18669647-global-greening-the-other-greenhouse-effect-is-underway?lite

This is great news for the world that the Climate Crisis has been over estimated and overstated.  The hundred’s of billions that the world has spent to date is gone (not counting 100’s of billions on wind and solar) but the world will not have to spend the trillions that scientists and politicians have forecasted. 


Temperature vs Models

Climate sensitivity