Tag Archives: environment

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

PATRICK MOORE: SHOULD WE CELEBRATE CARBON DIOXIDE?

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.

Mild Warming and Higher CO2 Levels are Net Positive for Planet

Climate Change – Note that forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C 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 reading of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect for engineers. 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 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.

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!!

A good level of CO2 for most plants is 1500 to 2000 ppm versus current level of 400 ppm(from Greenhouse experience).  Plants die at less than 200 ppm and 1000’s of feet of biomass was laid down in the Permian when CO2 levels were 7,000 to 9,000 ppm.  Note humans/mammals breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm every breath!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2581.html

crop yields

grain production

CO2 plant growth

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)

GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb

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