Friday, January 10, 2014

Carbon Dioxide Is Innocent

See “Water is the Weather Wildcard” by Viv Forbes at The Pickering Post:
The climatists claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global warming. But the past seventeen years of rising CO2 without rising global temperatures shows this to be untrue.
So now they say that carbon dioxide causes wild weather.  This too is untrue.
Water covers over 70% of the globe, is about fifty times more abundant than
CO2 in the atmosphere and it is a far more effective “greenhouse gas”.
There can be no rain, snow, hail, ice or floods without water.  And the absence of water produces deserts and droughts.
And it is water, not carbon dioxide, which plays a crucial role in the feared climate tipping points.
During periods of global warming, water plays a mainly moderating role.  As oceans, seas and lakes are warmed by solar radiation, water drives three cooling feedbacks.
Firstly, increased evaporation cools the surface water and the adjacent atmosphere.
Secondly, the moist warm air rises, cooling as it expands in the lower atmospheric pressure.  Eventually this cooling air releases its moisture as rain, hail or snow which cools the surface on which it falls, and then cools it more by renewing evaporative cooling.  Or the extra moisture forms clouds that shade the surface and also reflect solar radiation.
Thirdly, the moisture in the air releases its latent heat when it condenses high in the atmosphere. Much of this surface heat then gets radiated to space.
Water thus reduces the chances of runaway global warming.
Water, however, can magnify any cooling trends.  A covering of snow and ice quickly reflects more incoming solar radiation, thus increasing the initial cooling.  Not even the feeble warming effect of carbon dioxide will prevent this.  In fact, when oceans cool, they dissolve more carbon dioxide thus reducing the ability of the atmosphere to retain atmospheric warmth.  Ice ages are precipitated once winter snow is not melted by summer sun.  They have never been prevented by high carbon dioxide levels in ancient atmospheres.
These are all proven processes, not theories in computer climate models.
It is water in all its forms, not carbon dioxide, that is the heavy-hitter in all weather processes.
Carbon dioxide is the side-show.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Awarmist “Putting a Price on X” Game

In “Clear link between climate change and bushfires: UN adviser warns Tony Abbott”, by the credulous Judith Ireland, we learn that the useless-when-it’s-not actually-destructive UN is still hoping to persuade people that slightly warmer weather is catastrophically dangerous, and that we must therefore lavish even more money on the already bloated bureaucrats who have lied to us for so long about the alleged dangers of very slight global warming.
A senior United Nations climate change official says there is “absolutely” a link between climate change and bushfires and has warned that the Coalition government will pay a high political and financial price for its decision to scrap carbon pricing.
There is, of course, no link at all between supposed anthropogenic global warming—which is what these venal buffoons mean when they refer to “climate change”—and bushfires.  That is a self-serving lie—or, to be charitable, perhaps yet another wondrous case of the modern flexibility of language whereby “absolutely” means “not at all”.
In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Monday, the head of the UN’s climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said there was a clear link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in New South Wales.
She noted that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link between the NSW fires and climate change.
“But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency,” Ms Figueres said.
Uh huh; there’s no direct link, and no proof, but we should base all our spending on the notion that there is a proven link, anyway. This loony is allowed outside to walk among us.
Ms Figueres described the NSW fires as an “example of what we may be looking at unless we take actually vigorous action”. The UN adviser said the Abbott government would not only pay a high political price but a “very high financial price” for stepping away from a price on carbon.
A price on carbon, by the way, is code for a neo-Luddite tax (on industrial emissions of beneficent carbon dioxide, for the most part) which can do nothing to stop any global warming, or cooling, but further enriches banks, middlemen, and the misanthracist, malfeasant UN, predicated on the deluded, pseudo-scientific conjecture that man’s puny contributions to the atmosphere are warming the world dangerously.
“What we need to do is put a price on carbon so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of carbon,'' she said.
Christiana Figueres, clearly, is seriously deluded, but her “What we need to do is put a price on x so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of x” game seems like fun. I’ll have a go:
What we need to do is put a price on the silly but expensively corrupt UN so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of the silly but expensively corrupt UN!
Furthermore:
What we need to do is put a price on those deluded, misanthropist, enviro-mentalist lunatics who won’t allow burnoffs but then have the gall to blame preventable or deliberately lit bushfires on non-existent AGW so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of those deluded, misanthropist, enviro-mentalist lunatics who won’t allow burnoffs but then have the gall to blame preventable or deliberately lit bushfires on non-existent AGW!
Or, logically enough:
What we need to do is put a price on putting a price on things so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of putting a price on things.
See also Tim Blair’s “Tell It to Ixchel”. 

Originally posted at all right, all right.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The Stupid ‘Carbon’ Tax

The Tax Which Does Nought

Though many claim that
global warming’s a great threat,
there’s no proof as yet;


some politicians,
despite feigned support, are wise
to awarmists’ lies


for, if they believed
in this “man-made climate change”
they’d surely arrange


sound, wise investments
which were quite properly planned
to save threatened land;


we could, say, have built
canals and levees, dams and walls—
not costly school-halls.


That we have a tax
to solve AGW
confirms it’s not true.

 
The Tax Which Will End

Kevin Rudd lately
claimed that he will take an axe
to the “carbon” tax


but, as ever, he
deceives; he plans to finesse
with an ETS.

UPDATE I:  see Larry Pickering’s “Why Rudd’s ETS Is A Super Con”.

UPDATE II (15 October):

Saturday, June 1, 2013

The New but Dying Lysenkoism

See “The Disgraceful Episode of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory”, by Peter Ferrara, in “Forbes”:
Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming.  That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy.  Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries.  Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.
Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award.  Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory.  Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?
Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Twenty Facts

Twenty Facts about Carbon Diodide”, by Dr Darko Butina, at Principia Scientific International:
  1. We know everything about physico-chemical properties of CO2 there is to know since its discovery 200 years ago, and categorical statement can be made that the physico-chemical properties of CO2 in its pure state, including IR properties, have nothing to do with its properties as part of the mixture called air.
  2. We know that no gas molecule of the open system, as our atmosphere is, can possibly control temperature.
  3. We know that there are two very different mechanisms that drive dynamics of CO2 exchange between air-waterand air-biomass and therefore there is no such thing as global levels of CO2.  Levels of CO2 above the water mass, covering 70% of the Earth surface is controlled by solubility of CO2 in water which is solely driven by temperature; while levels of CO2 above the biomass that covers most of the land surfaces is solely driven and controlled by photosynthesis.
  4. We know that the only way to know exact numbers about CO2 concentrations above the water and biomass surfaces is to measure them at the surface levels, which we do not do, and therefore use of CO2 levels measured at a single point on the globe and at 4,000 meters altitude (Mauna Loa Observatory, MLO, at Hawaii) represents one of the most miss-used high accuracy dataset in the history of modern science.
  5. We know that the total emissions/reabsorption of CO2 by nature makes emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels totally insignificant and lost in the instrumental accuracy levels.
  6. We know that the levels of CO2 that we live amidst in our everyday lives have nothing in common with the observed CO2 levels at MLO based at an altitude of 4000 meters above sea level.
  7. We know that there is no difference between CO2 levels accurately measured 200 years ago and last year—they all go up and down depending when and where you measure them.
  8. We know that there is no possible correlation between CO2 levels dissolved in water in its liquid state and CO2 levels found in ice, i.e., water in its solid state.
  9. We know that it is CO2 that makes major contribution to the width of tree rings.  So, no CO2 means no tree rings and no life.
  10. We know that the human body ignores CO2 levels in air when breathing in and the only function of breathing out is to get rid of CO2 that is created in every cell of the human body by the complex bio-chemical process that maintains life.
  11. We know that CO2 levels would need to reach concentration in air of 60,000 ppm (from current levels of 390 ppm) to become toxic for humans.
  12. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2,500 molecules that are not CO2 and therefore any theoretical blanket built from CO2 fibers that supposedly is surrounding the Earth is practically made of nothing.
  13. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2,500 molecules that are not CO2 and therefore one has to offer some explanation as to what those 2,500 ‘other or NOT-CO2’ molecules are doing while one molecule among them is receiving and ‘back radiating’ all that heat energy.
  14. We know that every molecule of CO2, irrespective of which source it comes from, can go up-and-down (in Z-axis) due to its molecular weight, its heat capacity and its solubility in water (rain or snow) and along (X-Y space) carried by wind.  Therefore, someone has to be able to explain: how does a molecule of CO2 generated by an SUV in Los Angeles gets transported across 2,500 miles of water mass to Hawaii and then go up another 4,000 meters, while avoiding all the biomass available within few miles of land surface in California and all the water mass along its journey to the CO2 detector at MLO, Hawaii?
  15. We know for certain that at 200 ppm of CO2 plants stops growing and that the optimum levels for plants grow is between 1,300 and 1,500 ppm, and yet the advice to all governments around the globe is to commit mass suicide of all species by reducing CO2 concentrations to 200 ppm levels.
  16. We know that there is no difference whether we grow or dig fuel in terms of CO2 emissions, we know that CO2 emissions from burning fuel are irrelevant to the CO2 dynamics of emissions/absorption and yet we use our precious food-growing surfaces to grow fuel and thus create famine and kill life.
  17. We know that there is no such a thing as self-heating greenhouse and yet new theories have been invented to argue something that cannot be argued.
  18. We know that there is nothing in common in IR spectra between CO2, methane and water and yet they have been classified together as ‘greenhouse gasses’ because they absorb infrared radiation, together with millions of other molecules.
  19. We know that CO2 in the atmosphere could not be detected by a standard IR-spectrometer and yet that property of CO2 has been used to argue for the existence of a greenhouse effect.
  20. We know that all the knowledge about the physical world comes from experiments that can be validated and not from calculations that cannot be validated.  And yet, everything about man-made global warming is about calculations and nothing about measurements.

Friday, May 10, 2013

In Defence of Carbon Dioxide

See “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide”, by Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, in The Wall Street Journal:
Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide.  Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant.  That’s simply not the case.  Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.
The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history.  Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago).  For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a “pollutant” in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.  […]
We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth’s atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times.  The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.