Herein, I would like to review a series of recent scientific articles and older information that definitively prove mankind’s paltry release of CO2 to our atmosphere will NOT cause more planetary warming.
In 1546, John Heywod famously said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." But for some inexplicable reason (at least to me), liberalism here in America and around the world has created a cult of willfully visionless people who violently oppose any fact presented to them, a dogmata of intentionally blind people who will not see. This sightless cabal attacks anyone who presents an alternative fact. They idolize the lies, and they vehemently oppose the truth, even calling on duplicitous "fact checkers" to deny that truth. But isn't this exactly how liberalism succeeds, by the willful defeat of reason, intellect, and logic?
we know that most of the energy absorbed by co2 is in the first 100ppm, then the next sizable amount is through 200ppm. After that, each increase in ppm increases the atmospheric energy by a small amount. This is analogous to ozone protecting us from UV with a ppb concentration. The temperature increase from adding CO2 is negligible. That temperature is driven by the sun, as evidenced by the day/night cycles (unless you're now going to tell me that increased CO2 causes the sun to rise). The 1W/m2 increase since the pre-industrial ice-age is the equivalent of 2 Hiroshima events per second of energy impacting the earth. Models don't begin to take into account evaporation and clouds, even models at 1degree resolution, which is 60nm by 60nm at the equator. I haven't seen any data from models that accurately predicted temperature. Any model can be tweaked to predict the past.
If nature is a net absorber of atmospheric CO2, then human emissions would be beneficial replacing what is being lost. Otherwise the biosphere would eventually be starved of CO2.
As to your assertion that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic, there is only one place where there has been a measured increase in atmospheric CO2 -Mauna Loa. This is taken by the IPCC with data from ice cores, which is proxy data. Taking the proxy data and the measurements from only one location it is derived that atmospheric CO2 has increased.
I would refer readers here to 180 Years of Atmospheric Co 2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by E. G. Beck, which examines data going well back to the 19th century with tens of thousands of samples. Using data from direct measurements at numerous locations globally over two centuries there is no increase in atmospheric CO2. It's peculiar that the IPCC relies on proxy data when direct measurements are available, or when they use direct measurements, it is from only one location. It is also peculiar that through decades of policy discussion on this topic they can't, or won't, present data outside of Hawaii.
I would also point out your assertion that the current increase you believe has occurred is faster than any time in history and 100% human caused is something neither you nor anyone else can possibly know. You have no way of knowing that. It's an assumption. Models are built on assumptions, which is normal, but those assumptions have to be explicitly stated as such. If you presume atmospheric CO2 is higher you can't state with any certainty that 100% comes from any given source.
In your second paragraph, that is not true; I prove that only 1.3% of the total CO2 added in the last 200 years is anthropogenic. In the second part of the paragraph, I agree that CO2 is only measured at Mauna Loa, but I did not mention in this article that it sits at 11,300 feet, so we would expect far higher CO2 levels at that elevation than at sea level.
Regarding your 3rd paragraph, thanks for the reference! I have long questioned the current increase, especially since we now know that mankind has contributed so very little CO2, and only measuring CO2 one place on earth controlled by our government makes me very suspicious.
Regarding your third paragraph, I don't know where you get this impression; I certainly did not say or imply this: in fact, I debunk that it is 100% human caused by proving it is only 1.3% caused by us.
isn't Mauna-Loa in the middle of the Pacific? wouldn't warming oceans outgas co2? Since the sun is hitting earth with an additional 2 Hiroshima events of energy per second, and most of earth is covered in water or covered in plants made mostly of water, wouldn't we expect warming & outgassing. Could a dormant volcano still be emitting? don't trees themselves (presumably being net-sinks) emit massive amounts of CO2?
the last I read, the natural cycle was over 700billion tons per year, while humans contributed 35, or about 5%, which is probably well within any margin of error for a system we barely comprehend. If you're going to spend Trillion$$, you need to be dealing with knowns
Focusing on the increasing atmospheric CO2 part of the equation, this increase is analogous to the obesity epidemic and the scientific controversy surrounding it. Like the obesity epidemic, blaming people for being greedy eaters, blaming people for driving pickup trucks may be an oversimplification.
On a daily basis, we consume a certain number of calories from the food we eat that would add to our body weight, whereas we expend a number calories in energy, in our metabolism to maintain body temperature and brain and other organ functions and in the exertion of our muscles. There are said to be regulatory mechanisms, feedback mechanisms, influencing our hunger to consume more food, our sense of satiety that we have eaten enough along with the countervailing expenditure of calories by activity, regulated whether we feel energetic or feel tired.
It is said by way of shaming us into strictly limiting our indulgence in food that eating a mere one extra pat of butter per day is enough to tip this balance to some number, let's say a weight gain of a "mere" 3 pounds per year, over a 50-year span of adulthood to add 150 pounds of weight over one's young-adult weight, making a person dangerously obese.
Many of us in prosperous, industrial countries gain 10's of pounds over our adult years, but even so, there must be regulatory mechanisms controlling not only our hunger/satiety balance but also our activity level. Why these mechanisms are letting us get heavy is a bit of a mystery because the mechanisms to regulate our body weight are failing us, but they are not failing us completely. Even a slight 36 calorie per day (1 pat of butter) imbalance, say, about 1.5 % of daily caloric intake, could send us in the direction of needing a mobility device to get around. Some of us are in this situation, but not most of us.
The explanation of why humankind is responsible for the rising CO2 levels is like the explanation that consuming an extra pat of butter per day puts a person on the road to a seriously unhealthy weight. It is known that there are large-in-comparison-to-humanity's-contribution natural flows of CO2 into the atmosphere as stated in the start of this essay, these are regarded to be balanced by natural flows of CO2 out of the atmosphere into "sinks", and if it were not for that extra pat of butter of human-caused CO2 emissions, everything would be in balance with a steady CO2 level.
Well, not exactly. By eating that daily butter portion, we have an excess of 3600 calories every 3 days, so we should be roughly gaining 3 points every year, but we are finding that we are only gaining 1 and a half points of weight per year. Why? Or at least that is the way CO2 is behaving.
But is that pound-and-half yearly weight gain the result of that increased butter intake? Why doesn't that extra butter serving make us feel more full, sooner that we would maintain more or less a constant body weight. If this isn't happening, is something else going on, that for whatever reason, we are feeling more lethargic as we age and burn fewer calories, and if that weren't happening, our regulatory mechanisms would shrug off that pat of butter?
To carry this analogy further, suppose that a person weighs themselves accurately on a daily basis and keeps records. There may be a long term trend of gaining a pound or a pound and a half every year, but there are fluctuations in body weight on daily, seasonal and year-to-year that may exceed that amount. We might blame the wintertime gain in body weight on eating tasty cookies at office Christmas parties, but what if the wintertime gain in weight is our body's response to colder temperatures, and we would gain weight in winter in the absence of Christmas parties? Similarly, there is the inexorable multi-decadal increase in atmospheric CO2 that is attributed to the half-pat-of-butter that isn't being compensated by natural regulatory mechanisms, but there are largish swings around this trend line, with a strong seasonal component and also a multi-year fluctuation.
In the case of CO2 increase, many point to the shifting proportions of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere as a "smoking gun" for humans being to blame for the long-term increase. I will just say that I looked into that, it takes a detailed model of the carbon cycle to get the right values for the isotopes, and the carbon cycle has some free parameters to tune a model to match the isotope numbers, and that it is possible that only about half the increase of CO2 can be blamed on us humans, with the remaining half the increase is the result of a long-term, natural upward temperature trend driving carbon out of temperate-region soils into atmospheric CO2?
The different parts of the Climate Change narrative are indeed based on the work of scientists, but different scientists are expert in piece of this, and the go-to scientist on the Carbon Cycle is Pieter Tans at NOAA.
Most climate scientists let along people waying in on Climate Change are not Carbon Cycle experts but Pieter Tans is such an expert and also a very smart guy. He is not unaware of those free parameters and the model tuning I mention above, but he is aware that increasing atmospheric temperature can "drive" more carbon out of soils through increase bacterial metabolism into CO2 and put it into the atmosphere. Tans ascribes this mechanism being dominated by tropical soils that are a very shallow reservoir of carbon and hence claims that the longer-time trend is almost 100% human driven instead of the 50% I get if temperate-climate soils are the primary source.
In conclusion, how much of the atmospheric CO2 increase is from industrial and land use activities and how much from multi-decadal natural trends is not conclusively known, much as we we are getting fat has a more complicated explanation than we just eat too much.
How much of the CO2 increase is from industrial and land use activates ad how much is natural IS KNOWN, as proven in this essay! It is 4% and 96%, respectively!
yay! more CO2 makes for happy plants, and plants are food.
given that plants were designed or evolved to thrive in much higher concentrations of CO2 is just another indication that we are still recovering from the CO2 nadir of the pre-industrial ice-age marked by plague and famine. Why you greeniacs want to return to plague & famine is a mystery.
CO2 is truly the Gas of Life, and, without it as we approached recently when CO2 reached 160 ppm, or nearly at a 130-ppm mass world extinction level event, we would not exist at all. Without plants, there are no animals, and, thus, none of us, either.
Dude: You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about! Did you even read the science papers I referenced, upon which everything I say is based? Did you follow the links? I don't think so! For one, I doubt you would understand the science about molecular chemistry, isotopes, or anything presented. I am a geologist and an earth scientist. What I present is the truth! After all, it is based on scientific papers, not opinion. People like you should endeavor to understand the real science presented, instead of, saying incredibly stupid things like "CO2 absorption is never saturated," and "direct IR spectrum measurements in the atmosphere and numerous examples throughout millions of years of our planet's climate history clearly demonstrate this." What "numerous examples throughout millions of years" are you even talking about? But I am sure you don't know!
While I am glad that you just "know" what the residence time of CO2 in our atmosphere really is, compared to reading the numerous isotope studies out there, including the one I reference, which measures directly what that residence time is, science is not about "just knowing." It is about measuring, measuring, and remeasuring.
I am sorry that you learned nothing. But I suspect that you are incapable of learning, having been programmed to repeat the lies, like an automation, chanting mindlessly while marching blindly, not "Imhotep, Imhotep, Imhotep", but "Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change."
In a new (April 4, 2024) climate research paper titled "Relative Importance of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Greenhouse Effect: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?" the author concludes "the contribution of CO? to the greenhouse effect is 4% - 5%. Of this, 4% is due to human emissions, which means that the total human contribution on the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% - 0.20% -a negligible effect. Irrespective of the origin of the increase of CO2 in the last century, its contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.5%, below any threshold to make it observable. In contrast, water (including clouds) contributes to the atmospheric greenhouse effect by 87% - 95%. In addition, 50% of Earth's cooling and atmosphere's warming is due to water (against 39% due to LW radiation, which again is dominated by water." So, again, recent scientific studies proof without a shadow of a doubt that our (mankind's) burning fossil fuels has ZERO negative impact on the environment!
if earth is a net-absorber, then increased greening would increase absorption, and the competitive nature of nature would fight to be that most successful organism that pulls in the most co2 by which it grows and and expands.
MGC, please read this Essay in Climate Truth by Mike titled “Arctic and Antarctic Ice Melting: The Truth” I live hearing from you! Mike
https://open.substack.com/pub/mikebroch/p/arctic-and-antarctic-ice-melting?r=l7dr5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Ken:
Great comments! I finally get an intelligent response, instead of unintelligible denials based only on a blind desire to believe. Thanks!
just for perspective:
CO2 contributes less than 10% to the ghg effect by spectral absorption (5-7%)
there are over 3200gtons of CO2 in the atmosphere
humans generate about 35gton/year; the US generates about 5gton/yr
there are over 300million in the US
(10%)(5/3200)/300M < 1-trillionth...that's an individual's CO2 impact on atmospheric warming.
in drops:
(1T drops)(1ml/20drops)(1L/1000ml)(1olympic pool/2.5M liters) = 20 Olympic-sized pools
your "carbon footprint" ghg effect: 1 drop in 20 Olympic swimming pools full of drops...."NetZero"
so, for 10billion people: 10B-trillionths = 1/100 = 1% is the maximum effect of NetZero...
...if china & india were not increasing their output 10:1 to our self-imposed austerity.
In 1546, John Heywod famously said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." But for some inexplicable reason (at least to me), liberalism here in America and around the world has created a cult of willfully visionless people who violently oppose any fact presented to them, a dogmata of intentionally blind people who will not see. This sightless cabal attacks anyone who presents an alternative fact. They idolize the lies, and they vehemently oppose the truth, even calling on duplicitous "fact checkers" to deny that truth. But isn't this exactly how liberalism succeeds, by the willful defeat of reason, intellect, and logic?
we know that most of the energy absorbed by co2 is in the first 100ppm, then the next sizable amount is through 200ppm. After that, each increase in ppm increases the atmospheric energy by a small amount. This is analogous to ozone protecting us from UV with a ppb concentration. The temperature increase from adding CO2 is negligible. That temperature is driven by the sun, as evidenced by the day/night cycles (unless you're now going to tell me that increased CO2 causes the sun to rise). The 1W/m2 increase since the pre-industrial ice-age is the equivalent of 2 Hiroshima events per second of energy impacting the earth. Models don't begin to take into account evaporation and clouds, even models at 1degree resolution, which is 60nm by 60nm at the equator. I haven't seen any data from models that accurately predicted temperature. Any model can be tweaked to predict the past.
If nature is a net absorber of atmospheric CO2, then human emissions would be beneficial replacing what is being lost. Otherwise the biosphere would eventually be starved of CO2.
As to your assertion that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic, there is only one place where there has been a measured increase in atmospheric CO2 -Mauna Loa. This is taken by the IPCC with data from ice cores, which is proxy data. Taking the proxy data and the measurements from only one location it is derived that atmospheric CO2 has increased.
I would refer readers here to 180 Years of Atmospheric Co 2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by E. G. Beck, which examines data going well back to the 19th century with tens of thousands of samples. Using data from direct measurements at numerous locations globally over two centuries there is no increase in atmospheric CO2. It's peculiar that the IPCC relies on proxy data when direct measurements are available, or when they use direct measurements, it is from only one location. It is also peculiar that through decades of policy discussion on this topic they can't, or won't, present data outside of Hawaii.
I would also point out your assertion that the current increase you believe has occurred is faster than any time in history and 100% human caused is something neither you nor anyone else can possibly know. You have no way of knowing that. It's an assumption. Models are built on assumptions, which is normal, but those assumptions have to be explicitly stated as such. If you presume atmospheric CO2 is higher you can't state with any certainty that 100% comes from any given source.
ps: We did land men on the moon.
John:
I agree with your first sentence.
In your second paragraph, that is not true; I prove that only 1.3% of the total CO2 added in the last 200 years is anthropogenic. In the second part of the paragraph, I agree that CO2 is only measured at Mauna Loa, but I did not mention in this article that it sits at 11,300 feet, so we would expect far higher CO2 levels at that elevation than at sea level.
Regarding your 3rd paragraph, thanks for the reference! I have long questioned the current increase, especially since we now know that mankind has contributed so very little CO2, and only measuring CO2 one place on earth controlled by our government makes me very suspicious.
Regarding your third paragraph, I don't know where you get this impression; I certainly did not say or imply this: in fact, I debunk that it is 100% human caused by proving it is only 1.3% caused by us.
Thanks for the comments and the read!
Mike
isn't Mauna-Loa in the middle of the Pacific? wouldn't warming oceans outgas co2? Since the sun is hitting earth with an additional 2 Hiroshima events of energy per second, and most of earth is covered in water or covered in plants made mostly of water, wouldn't we expect warming & outgassing. Could a dormant volcano still be emitting? don't trees themselves (presumably being net-sinks) emit massive amounts of CO2?
the last I read, the natural cycle was over 700billion tons per year, while humans contributed 35, or about 5%, which is probably well within any margin of error for a system we barely comprehend. If you're going to spend Trillion$$, you need to be dealing with knowns
Focusing on the increasing atmospheric CO2 part of the equation, this increase is analogous to the obesity epidemic and the scientific controversy surrounding it. Like the obesity epidemic, blaming people for being greedy eaters, blaming people for driving pickup trucks may be an oversimplification.
On a daily basis, we consume a certain number of calories from the food we eat that would add to our body weight, whereas we expend a number calories in energy, in our metabolism to maintain body temperature and brain and other organ functions and in the exertion of our muscles. There are said to be regulatory mechanisms, feedback mechanisms, influencing our hunger to consume more food, our sense of satiety that we have eaten enough along with the countervailing expenditure of calories by activity, regulated whether we feel energetic or feel tired.
It is said by way of shaming us into strictly limiting our indulgence in food that eating a mere one extra pat of butter per day is enough to tip this balance to some number, let's say a weight gain of a "mere" 3 pounds per year, over a 50-year span of adulthood to add 150 pounds of weight over one's young-adult weight, making a person dangerously obese.
Many of us in prosperous, industrial countries gain 10's of pounds over our adult years, but even so, there must be regulatory mechanisms controlling not only our hunger/satiety balance but also our activity level. Why these mechanisms are letting us get heavy is a bit of a mystery because the mechanisms to regulate our body weight are failing us, but they are not failing us completely. Even a slight 36 calorie per day (1 pat of butter) imbalance, say, about 1.5 % of daily caloric intake, could send us in the direction of needing a mobility device to get around. Some of us are in this situation, but not most of us.
The explanation of why humankind is responsible for the rising CO2 levels is like the explanation that consuming an extra pat of butter per day puts a person on the road to a seriously unhealthy weight. It is known that there are large-in-comparison-to-humanity's-contribution natural flows of CO2 into the atmosphere as stated in the start of this essay, these are regarded to be balanced by natural flows of CO2 out of the atmosphere into "sinks", and if it were not for that extra pat of butter of human-caused CO2 emissions, everything would be in balance with a steady CO2 level.
Well, not exactly. By eating that daily butter portion, we have an excess of 3600 calories every 3 days, so we should be roughly gaining 3 points every year, but we are finding that we are only gaining 1 and a half points of weight per year. Why? Or at least that is the way CO2 is behaving.
But is that pound-and-half yearly weight gain the result of that increased butter intake? Why doesn't that extra butter serving make us feel more full, sooner that we would maintain more or less a constant body weight. If this isn't happening, is something else going on, that for whatever reason, we are feeling more lethargic as we age and burn fewer calories, and if that weren't happening, our regulatory mechanisms would shrug off that pat of butter?
To carry this analogy further, suppose that a person weighs themselves accurately on a daily basis and keeps records. There may be a long term trend of gaining a pound or a pound and a half every year, but there are fluctuations in body weight on daily, seasonal and year-to-year that may exceed that amount. We might blame the wintertime gain in body weight on eating tasty cookies at office Christmas parties, but what if the wintertime gain in weight is our body's response to colder temperatures, and we would gain weight in winter in the absence of Christmas parties? Similarly, there is the inexorable multi-decadal increase in atmospheric CO2 that is attributed to the half-pat-of-butter that isn't being compensated by natural regulatory mechanisms, but there are largish swings around this trend line, with a strong seasonal component and also a multi-year fluctuation.
In the case of CO2 increase, many point to the shifting proportions of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere as a "smoking gun" for humans being to blame for the long-term increase. I will just say that I looked into that, it takes a detailed model of the carbon cycle to get the right values for the isotopes, and the carbon cycle has some free parameters to tune a model to match the isotope numbers, and that it is possible that only about half the increase of CO2 can be blamed on us humans, with the remaining half the increase is the result of a long-term, natural upward temperature trend driving carbon out of temperate-region soils into atmospheric CO2?
The different parts of the Climate Change narrative are indeed based on the work of scientists, but different scientists are expert in piece of this, and the go-to scientist on the Carbon Cycle is Pieter Tans at NOAA.
Most climate scientists let along people waying in on Climate Change are not Carbon Cycle experts but Pieter Tans is such an expert and also a very smart guy. He is not unaware of those free parameters and the model tuning I mention above, but he is aware that increasing atmospheric temperature can "drive" more carbon out of soils through increase bacterial metabolism into CO2 and put it into the atmosphere. Tans ascribes this mechanism being dominated by tropical soils that are a very shallow reservoir of carbon and hence claims that the longer-time trend is almost 100% human driven instead of the 50% I get if temperate-climate soils are the primary source.
In conclusion, how much of the atmospheric CO2 increase is from industrial and land use activities and how much from multi-decadal natural trends is not conclusively known, much as we we are getting fat has a more complicated explanation than we just eat too much.
I meant to say eating that butter would add a pound of body fat every 100 days.
How much of the CO2 increase is from industrial and land use activates ad how much is natural IS KNOWN, as proven in this essay! It is 4% and 96%, respectively!
yay! more CO2 makes for happy plants, and plants are food.
given that plants were designed or evolved to thrive in much higher concentrations of CO2 is just another indication that we are still recovering from the CO2 nadir of the pre-industrial ice-age marked by plague and famine. Why you greeniacs want to return to plague & famine is a mystery.
CO2 is truly the Gas of Life, and, without it as we approached recently when CO2 reached 160 ppm, or nearly at a 130-ppm mass world extinction level event, we would not exist at all. Without plants, there are no animals, and, thus, none of us, either.
Dude: You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about! Did you even read the science papers I referenced, upon which everything I say is based? Did you follow the links? I don't think so! For one, I doubt you would understand the science about molecular chemistry, isotopes, or anything presented. I am a geologist and an earth scientist. What I present is the truth! After all, it is based on scientific papers, not opinion. People like you should endeavor to understand the real science presented, instead of, saying incredibly stupid things like "CO2 absorption is never saturated," and "direct IR spectrum measurements in the atmosphere and numerous examples throughout millions of years of our planet's climate history clearly demonstrate this." What "numerous examples throughout millions of years" are you even talking about? But I am sure you don't know!
While I am glad that you just "know" what the residence time of CO2 in our atmosphere really is, compared to reading the numerous isotope studies out there, including the one I reference, which measures directly what that residence time is, science is not about "just knowing." It is about measuring, measuring, and remeasuring.
I am sorry that you learned nothing. But I suspect that you are incapable of learning, having been programmed to repeat the lies, like an automation, chanting mindlessly while marching blindly, not "Imhotep, Imhotep, Imhotep", but "Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change."
God almighty, it is saturated with respect to its GREENHOUSE GAS EFFECT, you moron.
I still believe that we’ll be in an ice age by the year 2000.
(Adding MGC to “the list”)
In a new (April 4, 2024) climate research paper titled "Relative Importance of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Greenhouse Effect: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?" the author concludes "the contribution of CO? to the greenhouse effect is 4% - 5%. Of this, 4% is due to human emissions, which means that the total human contribution on the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% - 0.20% -a negligible effect. Irrespective of the origin of the increase of CO2 in the last century, its contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.5%, below any threshold to make it observable. In contrast, water (including clouds) contributes to the atmospheric greenhouse effect by 87% - 95%. In addition, 50% of Earth's cooling and atmosphere's warming is due to water (against 39% due to LW radiation, which again is dominated by water." So, again, recent scientific studies proof without a shadow of a doubt that our (mankind's) burning fossil fuels has ZERO negative impact on the environment!
You can lead a liberal to the truth, but you CANNOT make him think.
if earth is a net-absorber, then increased greening would increase absorption, and the competitive nature of nature would fight to be that most successful organism that pulls in the most co2 by which it grows and and expands.