New Evidence That
Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Does Not Cause Global
O. R. Adams Jr. 2011
BACK TO ARTICLES
Al Gore and the
global warming alarmists have long contended that man-made "greenhouse
gases" are causing global warming so severe that it endangers our way of
life. They claim the main culprits are the coal fired electric generating
plants, airplanes, and automobiles that use hydrocarbons for fuel. And that the
most damaging gas being emitted into the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (CO2). The
"global warmers" were making great progress at selling the American
people on the dangers of man-made global warming and that we should greatly
reduce, and in time eliminate completely, the use of our enormous reserves of
coal, oil and natural gas. However, recent exposures of fraud, manipulation, and
misrepresentation of these dangers by a number of "scientists" and
governmental agencies involved in research on the matter, has put the
"global warmers" in a state of confusion. This misinformation of the
man-made global warming claims is explained in detail, with scientific support,
in the article on this website, The
Make-Believe World of Global Warming.
The basis used by
the global warmers for the theory that CO2 causes global warming is that when
the climate is warmer there is more CO2. This assumption is a basic scientific
error. It violates a basic rule of statistics. As stated in the Wegman Report to
Congress on the matter,
"A common phrase among statisticians is correlation does not imply
causation." The assumption is also contrary to the evidence. They have it
in the reverse. Extensive scientific information showing that CO2 does not cause
global warming, and that increases in CO2 follow global warming, is included in
the article, The Make-Believe World of
Global Warming. One of the many things on the subject is the information
from Professor Don J. Easterbrook, Department of Geology, Western
Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.
[Easterbrook presents the following graph]
Figure 2. Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)
The above graph clearly shows that the present temperature is much lower than at a number of
other times during the past 7,000 years. And when it was the highest, there were
no industries, power plants, and automobiles, as we have today.
These are the global temperatures for the last 22 years, from the website of well-known scientist and climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer:
Latest Global Temps
Easterbrook presents further comprehensive information showing that CO2 does not
cause global warming, in the article, GLOBAL
2. Record high temperatures in the
20th century. Note that the greatest number of
were recorded in the 1930s.
An article, CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages, by Frank Lansner, and edited by Meteorologist Anthony Watts because of language differences, has this graph and information on the correlation of CO2 and Temperature for 400,000 years:
We see that the
correlation between CO2 and temperature is no more significant today than it was
ages back when there were no automobiles and industry. The author also goes into
the effects of the ocean and sunspots. Lansner's conclusion is that CO2 rises do
not cause the temperature rises, but follows them – "The
well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is
This information shows that the correlation between CO2 and the earth's warming does not show that CO2 is the driver of the warming, because the increase in CO2 follows the increase in warming. But the question still remains in my mind whether the correlation proves that the warming causes the increase in CO2, as concluded by Lansner. His article did not give support for that particular statement, other than the correlation.
Why would a CO2 increase be caused by a temperature increase? One answer may be that plants and animals get carbon from the earth as well as from absorbing CO2. Animals do not absorb carbon from CO2 by photosynthesis as plants do, and photosynthesis is not the only way that plants get carbon. But all give off CO2, and when they die and decay CO2 is released into the air.
There are more
plants and animals to give off CO2 when it is warm enough. An example:
"Armies of insects once crawled through lush forests in a region of
However, I have not found any science to really back up the idea that plants get any substantial amount of carbon from the earth, although there is plenty on how they get it from photosynthesis of CO2 from the air. And since animals get all of their carbon from eating plants and other animals, it would seem that altogether there would be less carbon dioxide coming from plants and animals than they take in, due to natural energy loss.
factor is that recent science supports the idea that when there are more cosmic
rays reaching our atmosphere it is cooler, yet cosmic rays help create CO2, and
would to that extent increase CO2 when it is cooler. An interesting succinct
article on Carbon-14 Dating,
 in the Science section of How Stuff Works, tells us:
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). ...
The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. [Emphasis added.]
The comprehensive scientific article, Cosmic Rays and Climate,
by Professor Nir J. Shaviv,
The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system ... . Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically ... , also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. [Emphasis added.]
Therefore, there may be other factors at work producing this extra CO2 when it is warmer, that are more important than these releases from plants and animals. I believe that the answer lies in the effect warming and cooling has on our oceans. A very revealing article on the Ocean World website of Texas A & M University, The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis, shows how little all of the carbon dioxide outputs from man and his machines and vehicles, the plants and animals, and all sources except the ocean, are in comparison to the output of CO2 from the ocean. The following are excerpts:
What happens to the CO2 released into the atmosphere? An inventory of what is produced by human activity and what is stored in the atmosphere indicates that more than one half is missing. Part of the carbon goes into the land in the form of woody growth, but almost exactly 50% goes into the ocean (Sabine et al 2004).
To understand the fate of CO2 in the atmosphere, we must understand earth's carbon cycle because atmospheric CO2 is only one part of the cycle. Several important oceanic processes influence the cycle. The figure above indicates that:
1. The ocean stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than does the atmosphere;
2. Much more carbon flows through the ocean than the amount produced by burning fossil fuels;
3. An amount of carbon equal to the total amount stored in the atmosphere cycles through the ocean in about eight years [(750 GT) / (92 GT per year) = 8.3 years]; and
4. The flux in and out of the ocean is larger than the flux in and out of the land. ...
The above picture graph from the Texas A & M website shows
some critically important and interesting information. It appears that the
period covered was the year, 1995. According to Professor Easterbrook's graph,
above, on global temperature, this would have been a year when there was no
substantial change in the temperature, although there was a general warming
trend from the 1970s through 1998. The measurements are in metric "tonnes"
(approximately 2,204 lbs.). The figures show the relative insignificance of the
CO2 output into the atmosphere due to the use of "fossil fuels"
compared to the action of the ocean. The ocean absorbed 16.7 times more CO2 from
the atmosphere than was put into it from the use of those fuels (92/5.5); and
put into the atmosphere, from the surface water, 16.4 times more than from
fossil fuels. (90/5.5) In addition, a net of 10 billion tonnes was released into
the ocean by marine organisms (50-40); and a net of 8 billion tonnes (90-92) was
released into the ocean from activity in the intermediate and deep waters
(100-92). If this additional 18 billion tonnes of CO2 does not bubble up into
the atmosphere, it will be stored in the ocean, and can be released when there
is later sufficient warming of the ocean, or ocean uprisings due to substantial
warming periods. When we add this action of the ocean to the activities of the
sun and cosmic rays, the importance of "fossil fuel" emissions
becomes negligible, under any argument. In
addition, we will see that the "fossil fuel" emissions actually have a
cooling effect – the exact opposite of what the "global warmers"
This large amount of CO2 the ocean absorbs and releases is subject to great change when its temperature increases and decreases form the heat of the sun. When it is cold it absorbs more CO2, and releases less; and when it is warm it releases more CO2, and absorbs less. We can even get good evidence of this from the websites of man-made global warming proponents, if we sift the scientific findings from the propaganda. Science Daily has the article, Could Warmer Oceans Make Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Rise Faster Than Expected? which states in part:
The team also looked for key indicators that provide some information about the chemical composition of the ice age water. They found unusually clear evidence that this water captured more CO2 from the atmosphere than the water at the present day. The latest research results show that the oceans are generally able to fix more CO2 when they are cold.
Oceans that warm up as a result of climate change release more CO2 into the atmosphere. This discovery has far-reaching consequences for the climate.
The NASA website has the article, Ocean and Climate, which states the same basic information as the above. And as to how great the change can be, The Science Daily article, Massive Carbon Dioxide Burps Came From Ocean At End Of Last Ice Age, states:
ScienceDaily (May 11, 2007) — A University of Colorado at Boulder-led research team tracing the origin of a large carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere at the end of the last ice age has detected two ancient "burps" that originated from the deepest parts of the oceans.
"This is some of the clearest evidence yet that the enormous carbon release into the atmosphere during the last deglaciation was triggered by abrupt changes in deep ocean circulation," said Marchitto.
We see from all of this that when the atmosphere warms sufficiently it causes very substantial amounts of CO2 to be released from the ocean into the atmosphere, making more available for the needs of plants and animals that also increase when it is warmer. This also supports what Lansner said about the warming being the driver of the CO2. The ocean seems to act as a great regulator, and to me it certainly appears to be another intelligent design that we find in nature.
increased use of hydrocarbons also increases CO2 in the atmosphere, the evidence
is very strong that it does not materially contribute to global warming, and it
certainly is not a substantial cause. CO2 does not have the density of the
clouds, or smoke, and does not reflect the sun's rays or protect the earth from
them like clouds. Our warmth comes from the sun.
The global warmers claim that emissions from our coal fired generating plants, automobiles, and airplanes, make the earth warmer because of a "greenhouse" effect. They even call these emissions "greenhouse gases." To me, this is absurd on its face. Comparing the earth and substances in its atmosphere to a "greenhouse" is not science at all. A greenhouse is something that is enclosed by clear plastic or glass, and does not allow the free flow of air. It holds in accumulated heat. Also, glass can concentrate the heat in an area. You can use a magnifying glass and start a fire with the sun shining through it. It is dangerous to leave a child or an animal in a closed car in the sun, for the same reason. There is no free flow of air, and the heat buildup can be very dangerous. The sun's rays come through a glass enclosed area, but the heat is retained in it much more so than in the open atmosphere. Try standing in the sunlight, and notice how the heat lessens when a cloud comes over. Then go stand in a glass enclosed place, like a greenhouse, when the sun is shining on it, and see which is the hottest. That is the difference between what is true and what "global warmers" would have us believe about the "greenhouse effect" of emissions of gases, including CO2, from the use of hydrocarbons.
Carbon dioxide is a common substance in the universe, and has apparently existed ever since the earth and planets were formed. There is carbon dioxide on Mars, Venus, and other planets, as well as on Earth. The article referred to is a U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) article. NOAA has been one of the proponents of man-made global warming. It is interesting that the article also refers to the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 on Venus and Mars, as well as on earth. It also states that astronomers believe that the greenhouse gas effect, due to CO2 was stronger 4.5 billion years ago than it is today. It is quite obvious that any greenhouse gas effect back at that time, or on Venus and Mars today, could not be driven by our industry, cars, and airplanes. It is contradictory to the idea of man-made global warming. Moreover, since that period we have had a number of ice ages, cold periods, and warmer periods in between that could not have been caused by any man-made greenhouse gas effects, and certainly not by man-made CO2.
Professor Don J. Easterbrook states: "No tangible, physical evidence exists for a cause–and–effect relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes over the last 150 years." After extensive research, I have found no real evidence that CO2 would affect the climate substantially either way, and certainly not as much as visible cloud cover, which often contains substantial moisture, or smoke, which has substance and color. When it is cloudy, the clouds reflect the sun and keep the earth cooler, in the warmest parts of the day. At night the heat near the earth held in by the clouds would have less effect than the clouds in the daytime. Due to natural energy loss of the heat absorbed by the earth, there would be less heat reflected back and held near the earth at night by the clouds. This necessary energy loss is a law of nature – the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Clouds and smoke would have a net cooling effect, more than a warming effect. The global warmers would have us believe that all emissions from the use of hydrocarbons are gases that have the greenhouse effect, even water vapor, which helps form clouds. That is false.
An article on the
Universe Today website, indicates the confusion among agencies that have been
global warming proponents. The article, Earth’s
Upper Atmosphere is Cooling,
New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining activity of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. This finding also correlates with a fundamental prediction of climate change theory that says the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. [Emphasis added] ...
“The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”
The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then. The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.
While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. Emissions of carbon dioxide may warm the lower atmosphere, but they cool the upper atmosphere, because of the density of the atmospheric layer. [Emphasis added] ...
We suggest that the dataset of radiative cooling of the thermosphere by NO and CO2 constitutes a first climate data record for the thermosphere,” says Mlynczak. ... [Emphasis added.]
The confusion is apparent. If the CO2 causes cooling in the upper atmosphere, there is no reason that it would not have the same effect in the lower atmosphere. The CO2 in the lower atmosphere is still the same substance as in the upper atmosphere, and the heating rays coming from the sun, and the heat waves coming from the earth are still the same. At least they had the integrity to say "may" warm the lower atmosphere. And saying "because of the density of the atmospheric layer" adds to its confusion. If it has a cooling effect, density would merely add to it. But most telling is how the effect of the sun is recognized. If the primary effect is caused by the sun, where is the evidence that CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with it?
Let us look at an
explanation of why the global warmers think that CO2 will cool the upper
atmosphere, while warming the lower atmosphere. From the National Academies
Press, Board of Physics and Astronomy, Atoms,
Molecules, and Light: AMO Science Enabling the Future (2002):
Paradoxically, while CO2 contributes to global warming near Earth’s surface, it causes cooling in the stratosphere. Carbon dioxide molecules generated at ground level can eventually migrate to the upper layers of the atmosphere, where they collide with oxygen atoms. During the collision, the colliding atoms lose energy (i.e., they cool), while the CO2 is transferred to an internal excited state. The excited CO2 then radiates, causing a net cooling of the upper atmosphere. In the stratosphere this cooling contributes to the enhanced formation of polar stratospheric clouds, leading to greater ozone depletion. Models suggest that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is predicted to occur over the next century, will result in significant amounts of cooling in the upper atmosphere and, in turn, more O3 depletion. [Emphasis added.]
And why do the "warmers" still claim that the
same CO2 would warm the lower atmosphere? On the Access Science website is the
article, Effects of carbon dioxide on the upper atmosphere,
which has the statement:
This is the opposite effect to the response of the lower atmosphere. The reason for this apparent paradox is that CO2 and other multiatom molecules can emit infrared radiation as well as absorb it. In the lower atmosphere, especially in the troposphere (below 15 km), CO2 absorbs radiation coming from the Earth, which excites it to higher vibrational states. Before it can reemit the radiation, it undergoes collisions with other atmospheric gases, transferring the vibrational energy into heat. [Emphasis added.]
The two statements appear contradictory to me. The first statement:" During the collision, the colliding atoms lose energy (i.e., they cool)." The second statement says the collision causes the transferring of energy into heat. To me they don't make sense. Also, it is stated that the colliding of the CO2 molecule with an oxygen atom is what results in the cooling. There is far more oxygen in the lower atmosphere for the CO2 molecules to collide with. During the early flying during the Second World War, the airplanes did not have pressurized cabins, and the flyers had to use heated suits and oxygen masks so that they could survive the cold and lack of oxygen. By regulation, flyers were supposed to start using their oxygen masks at 10,000 feet altitude.
The facts that cannot be denied are that the global warmers, using their theories and computer models based on them predicted an extreme rise in global temperature, when in fact from 1998 on there was actually global cooling in the lower atmosphere. It is quite evident that their theories were wrong. They are in a complete state of confusion trying to explain the contradictions.
Colorless odorless CO2 does not have the substance and color of clouds or smoke, and does not form a cover than reflects and absorbs the sunlight like they do, and would not have the effect of keeping the heat near the earth after sundown like those substances.
The global warming scientists tell us that CO2 does not have sufficient substance to absorb or reflect the higher frequency rays coming from the sun; but that after the sun heats the earth up, CO2 will absorb the longer wave infrared heat rays coming from the earth, and radiate them back toward the earth. However, it appears that there are two factors that the global warmers have not sufficiently considered. One is that the CO2 molecule would radiate heat in all directions – not just back toward the earth. The other is that heat rises, and the heat from the CO2 radiation, should go up and not down toward the earth. It would therefore seem that the heat radiated from the CO2 molecules would either go on up into space, or dissipate by heat loss in running into other molecules in the air, and that very little, if any, should get back to earth. Another thing they ignore is that part of the rays coming from the sun are infrared rays, and CO2 does absorb them, as we will see below.
There are also other
things that are directly contrary to the arguments of the global warmers. A
study, Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2
Emission, by G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, and O. G.
Sorokhtin, 2008. George V. Chilingarian, a/ka/a Chilingar, is a Professor
of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California (
Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896).
The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere [lower atmosphere].
Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)– mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004). …
…Accumulation of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to the cooling, and not to warming of climate, as the proponents of traditional anthropogenic global warming theory believe (Aeschbach-Hertig, 2006). This conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when the infrared radiation is absorbed by the molecules of greenhouse gases, its energy is transformed into thermal expansion of air, which causes convective fluxes of air masses restoring the adiabatic distribution of temperature in the troposphere. Our estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several hundreds ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence the global temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.
The most recent
things contributing to the confusion of global warmers, and refuting the idea of
manmade global warming, are recent studies on the effect of clouds and
"greenhouse gases." One of the most liberal websites on the internet
is the Huffington Post website. It had the article, China's Coal Consumption Linked to Global Cooling,
"People normally just focus on the warming effect of CO2 (carbon dioxide), but during the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulfur emissions," which have a cooling effect, explained Robert K. Kaufmann of
. He's the lead author of the study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Boston University
But sulfur’s cooling effect is only temporary, while the carbon dioxide from coal burning stays in Earth’s atmosphere a long time.
Sulfur quickly drops out of the air if it is not replenished, while carbon dioxide re-mains for a long time, so its warming effects are beginning to be visible again, he noted. The plateau in temperature growth disappeared in 2009 and 2010, when temperatures lurched upward. ...
Indeed, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have listed 2010 as tied for the warmest year on record, while the
of the British Meteorological Office lists it as second warmest, after 1998. Hadley Center
Note how the diehard
liberals try to hang onto their man-made global warming in the face of the
evidence. As long as the emissions continue the cooling will continue, for the
simple reason that the "greenhouse gases" reflect and absorb heat from the sun,
and have a cooling effect for the same reason that clouds do. The fact that CO2
may stay in the atmosphere a long time, does not show whether or not it may have
any effect. And adding what government agencies say about how warm 2010 was has
no bearing on the matter. What was the warmth, if true, caused by? The
statements about the warmest years on record are themselves in conflict. Also,
we see from the information presented, above, that in the
I purchased the entire article referred to in the Huffington Post article, and it is a prime example of how liberals misrepresent and misconstrue things. The actual name of the article, on the website of the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), is Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. None of the last three paragraphs, quoted above from the Huffington Post article were in the Kaufmann, et al, article. Most of the Huffingtons stuff was just unsupported liberal global warming propaganda. The only sentence in the Kaufmann article about CO2 was: "Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important change in another pathway for anthropogenic climate change—a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in particular." The following are excerpts from the article:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. ...
Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008 (1). Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2°C between 2005 and 2008. Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the public is increasingly skeptical about anthropogenic climate change (4). ...
Here we use a previously published statistical model (7) to evaluate whether anthropogenic emissions of radiatively active gases, along with natural variables, can account for the 1999–2008 hiatus in warming. ... [I am always concerned when they use computer or statistical models. Computer models were what they used to get all of the erroneous data, before, as explained in The Make Believe World of Global Warming.]
Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects [0f] greenhouse gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998. These findings are not sensitive to a wide range of assumptions, including the time series used to measure temperature, the omission of black carbon and stratospheric water vapor, and uncertainty about anthropogenic sulfur emissions and its effect on radiative forcing ... . [Note: The part about "warming effects [0f] greenhouse gas concentrations" is a global warmers' assumption not supported in the article. The only research referred to in the article merely supported the fact that emissions, all considered greenhouse gas emissions, caused global cooling – not global warming.] ...
Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important change in another pathway for anthropogenic climate change—a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in particular. ...
In the above referred to study, there are a number of gratuitous unsupported statements about the "warming effect of greenhouse gases", which was not even involved in the study, and which in my opinion are erroneous. The study was also by people who were assuming that the emission of greenhouse gases had a warming effect. The one thing shown by the study was that a cooling effect was caused by the emissions from coal fired plants – not a warming effect. All of the emissions from the plants would all have been what the global warmers had called greenhouse gases, and they had claimed that they caused global warming. And the emissions from the coal fired plants would have included large amounts of CO2. Actual scientific findings showing the opposite of the global warmers' claims put them in a high state of confusion.
One of the great proponents of man-made global warming has been our current President, Barack Obama. The U. S. Energy Information Association, currently under Obama's administrative control, now even expresses doubts on the effect of greenhouse gases:
However, there is uncertainty in how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases. Making progress in reducing uncertainties in projections of future climate will require better awareness and understanding of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate system. [Emphasis added.]
Our own government has given out what is presumably scientific information about global warming that is proven false. The following is an example.
The definition of "greenhouse gases" of the U. S. Energy Information Association (EIA) and their effect is: "Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols)." The highlighted statements are false on their face, and they are the primary basis of the claims that greenhouse gases cause global warming.
The falsity of the
above statements that greenhouse gases have a one way effect, allowing "sunlight
to enter the atmosphere freely" and then trapping and holding the heat
near the earth, should be apparent to anyone with a little bit of common sense.
They even include water vapor, which is a part of clouds It is ridiculous, and
it is disgraceful.
The Encyclopedia of Earth states: "Only about 40% of the solar energy intercepted at the top of Earth's atmosphere passes through to the surface. The atmosphere reflects and scatters some of the received visible radiation. Gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet radiation less than 200 nanometers in wavelength are selectively absorbed in the atmosphere by oxygen and nitrogen and turned into heat energy. Most of the solar ultraviolet radiation with a range of wavelengths from 200 to 300 nm is absorbed by the concentration of ozone (O3) gas found in the stratosphere. Infrared solar radiation with wavelengths greater than 700 nm is partially absorbed by carbon dioxide, ozone, and water present in the atmosphere in liquid and vapour forms. Roughly 30% of the sun's visible radiation (wavelengths from 400 nm to 700 nm) is reflected back to space by the atmosphere or the Earth's surface." [Emphasis added.]
One important thing disclosed by the above is that we have infrared
solar radiation coming from the sun that is absorbed by carbon dioxide. This
keeps it from ever reaching the earth, and protects against global warming. The
global warmers never talk about this critical aspect – they only talk about
the infrared heat waves coming back from the earth.
It would therefore appear, that due to absorption and energy loss in the earth and its water, and the reflection and absorption of the sun's rays by gases and particles in the atmosphere before it reaches the earth, the net effect of the gases and particles in the atmosphere would be a cooling effect. Objective research supports this. This is the exact opposite of what the "global warmers" would have us believe. And recent research showing this is driving the "global warmers" up the wall. We have far too many scientists today that are typical liberals. They are much more interested in feeding the public politically correct liberal dogma than they are true science.
Anyone knows that things containing color and substance absorb and reflect heat – especially white and lighter colors. We know that white clothing reflects the sunlight and protects one from heat more than black clothing. The reflection of sunlight from the clouds or from smoke can be easily seen when you are flying over clouds or smoke in an airplane. The reflection can get quite bright. As noted above, water vapor is classified as a greenhouse gas. "Water vapor is the gaseous form of water in the atmosphere. Clouds are suspensions of condensation from water vapor... ." Recent research shows two things that further contradict the theories of global warmers. One is that clouds reflect light and cause cooling on and near the earth; and the other is that an increase in "greenhouse gases" (such as in China) tends to cause global cooling instead of warming, and the aerosols in the greenhouse gas emissions help cosmic rays form clouds. It cannot be denied that new scientific evidence supports the premise that the net effect of "greenhouse gases" is cooling of the earth – not warming. It is just the opposite of the global warmer's propaganda. It also fits with common sense – greenhouse gases help protect us from the rays of the sun that heat the earth.
A good scientific
criticism of the global warmers such as the IPPC is an article on the
Cloudiness and the Climate Models
The climatic models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not very good at replicating the current cloudiness as seen from the following diagram. The black line is the observed values and the colored lines are for the various climate models used by IPCC.
IPCC, Third Asssessment Report: Climate Change, 2001
A small change in cloudiness over the rest of the Earth's surface can be far more important than major changes in the area of the ice caps. It is important to keep such things in perspective. Climate modelers have a distinct tendency to focus on a sensational minor topic while neglecting the major topics of climate. Clouds and cloudiness are the major factors in the Earth's climate. Clouds rule the Earth's climate. Everything else, including the atmospheric greenhouse gases, is marginal. [Emphasis added.] ...
Climate models focus on the effect of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor, to the neglect of cloud cover. As shown above this effect is much smaller than that of clouds. Does this mean that the projected temperature change over the next century is larger than the climate models suggest? In principle that would be the case, but the climate models have been tweaked to give plausible projections. For example, the climate models use a rate of increase of the concentration of carbon dioxide which is two and a half times the current rate. There is no justification for this other than to produce scarier projections. The climate models are probably just worthless and should be scrapped. The ones that ventured to provide validation by carrying out backcasts failed miserably. Some people think that because the climate models contain only equations based upon fluid dynamics and thermodynamics that that makes them valid. The climate models are in error from what they have left out rather from what they contain. [Emphasis added.]
Not only does the global warmers' research falsify the effect of CO2, if it did have a warming effect; but, worse, their computer models contain the false assumption that CO2 causes global warming.
There is new ongoing
research that appears to be much more objective than what was done by the global
warmers, and it is already yielding important information. One phase of the
research is an enormous project on the effect of clouds on climate change, and
what causes clouds. The research so far appears to confirm much of what was
related above from other sources on that subject. On the project, Lawrence
Solomon, Science writer, states: "
A news article in Nature,
formation may be linked to cosmic rays,
Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at
CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that. [Emphasis added.] ...
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
The CLOUD experiment consists of a state-of-the-art chamber in which atmospheric conditions can be simulated with high control and precision, including the concentrations of trace vapours that drive aerosol formation. A beam of particles from
CERN's Proton Synchrotron accelerator provides an artificial and adjustable source of cosmic radiation.
A Science Daily news article, Experiment Provides Unprecedent Insight Into Cloud
The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. ...
"These new results from CLOUD are important because we've made a number of first observations of some very important atmospheric processes," said the experiment's spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. "We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations -- even with the enhancement of cosmic rays." [Emphasis added.]
Atmospheric aerosols play an important role in the climate. ...
"It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn't due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone," said Kirkby. "Now it's vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job."
Lawrence Solomon is
a Canadian writer, who has published a number of papers and a book on energy,
the environment and global warming. He wrote an article on the CLOUD article by
Kirby, et al., Science getting settled,
published online in the Financial Post,
New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not human.
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the
U.K.Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a
CERNconference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERNscientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERNbureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the
CERNbureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because
CERNremains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERNformerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERNstudy and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.
CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.
The following information and graph referred to by Solomon was made available with his article:
Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476,
429-433, © Nature 2011
The graph above does not appear in the print edition of Nature, but it does make showing at the back of the online supplementary material. The graph shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules that can then grow and seed clouds in the real atmosphere.
At in a CLOUD experiment in
Geneva, ultraviolet light began to create molecules in the cloud chamber, which approximates the air in the atmosphere. Jn above shows the neutral phase of the experiment, during which the CLOUD experiment electrically removed ions and molecular clusters. At , the CLOUD experiment stopped the electrical removal and allowed natural glalactic cosmic rays (Jgcr) to enter the chamber through the roof of the building, leading to a faster rate of cluster buildup. Geneva
Then, at , CLOUD also beamed charged pion particles (Jch) from an accelerator (these are equivalent to cosmic rays), the rate of cluster production took off, convincingly demonstrating the effect of cosmic rays on cluster growth.
In the graph above, the different colours show the different diameters of the clusters in nanometres. The blue clusters, which are smallest, grew fastest; the black ones, which are the largest, took the most time.
At the end of the Solomon article was the statement: "First
of two parts. Next week: The end of the global warming debate." The article
for the next week in the Financial Post
was Our Cosmic Climate,
by Lawrence Solomon,
They [IPCC] came up empty-handed — they found not a scintilla of compelling evidence, absolutely nothing, that could pin more than a dollop or two of warming on human activities. All that the IPCC scientists have to show for their efforts are endless computer models that don’t work — the models have not only failed to predict the climate over the last 20 years, they can’t model the past climate when they are run backwards.
While this 20-year dead-end research was turning up failure after failure, the Danish science went from success to success. Geophysicist Eigil Friis-Christensen, a co-author of the startling Science study, continued his work with Henrik Svensmark and other Danish colleagues, making more and more progress and hypothesizing the mechanism through which the Sun heats and cools the planet. The answer could lie in the cosmic rays from beyond the solar system that continually bombard Earth, they surmised.
Their theory was quite straightforward: The cosmic rays seed clouds. When the cloud cover is great, the Earth tends to cool; when the cloud cover dissipates, the Earth tends to warm. And why does the cloud cover vary? Here the role of the Sun comes to play.
When the Sun is especially strong, its magnetic field tends to push the cosmic rays away from Earth, preventing clouds from forming and leading to a hotter planet. Likewise, when activity on the Sun weakens, so too does its magnetic field, allowing more clouds to form and leading to a cooler planet. ...
Because of these and other discoveries, “climate models will need to be substantially revised,”
CERNsays, in its study and supplementary materials that mention various avenues worth exploring but carbon dioxide not once. Much more work will need to be done — CERNis now hot on the trail for what it believes is a missing ingredient in its recipe for the lower atmosphere, for example, and the Danes and others are also looking to the heavens, rather than to our coal plants and SUVs, in their quest to unlock the mysteries of climate change. As the lead author of the CERNstudy puts it, there is “strong evidence” that the Sun affects the climate through some mechanism, and “a cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate.” CO2 is not. [Emphasis added.]
referred to by Solomon, is a physicist, and former editor of The New Scientist. He published an article on the CLOUD article and
experiment confirms cosmic ray action,
[Like Solomon, Calder presents the graph left out of the body of the
CERNarticle, and makes similar comments to those of Solomon.]
Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at
CERNin Genevaappear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August). The Director General of CERNstirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post below). The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures. [Emphasis added.] ...
My interest in CLOUD goes back nearly 14 years, to a lecture I gave at
CERNabout Svensmark’s discovery of the link between cosmic rays and cloudiness. It piqued Kirkby’s curiosity, and both Svensmark and I were among those who helped him to prepare his proposal for CLOUD.
Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this:
“Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”
It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed
CERNresult is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper. ...
Shifting from my insider’s perspective on the CLOUD experiment, to see it on the broader canvas of the politicized climate science of the early 21st Century, the chief reaction becomes a weary sigh of relief. Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS,
Penn– always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. Stateand the University of East Anglia
In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise. [Emphasis added.]
For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,” Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from
Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American needed no coaching.
Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996.
As Calder states, scientists caving in to the man-made global warming propaganda, have indeed created a "Hall of Shame." It has been a terrible and tremendously expensive fraud on the United States, and the world.
the Danish research may be found online in English at the National Space
Clouds both reflect incoming and trap outgoing radiation, and they thus play an important role in the Earth’s radiation budget. ...
Cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere, and an experiment performed at the National Space Institute has found that the production of aerosols in a sample atmosphere with condensable gases (such as sulphuric acid and water vapor) depends on the amount of ionization. Since aerosols work as precursors for the formation of cloud droplets, this is an indication that cosmic rays influence cloud formation. ...
... These cosmic rays help to make ordinary clouds. High levels of cosmic rays and cloudiness cool the world, while milder intervals like the warming in the 20th Century occur when cosmic rays and cloud cover diminish.
On carbon dioxide,
real research does not back up the claims of the global warmers. In my research
relating to my interest in the
Sometime in the late 1970ies some scientist became concerned that increasing levels of CO2 could lead to dangerous global warming. They did marketing and lobbying of this hypothesis to politicians and to influential think tank groups close to the UN. This led to more funding for climate research. The IPCC is an UN organization that was formed in 1988 and its mandate is exclusively to look for human influence on the climate.
At this time several things happened. A large number of researchers often with an interest in the environmentalism entered this field and started to do research on humans' influence on climate. Meanwhile temperature started to increase by about 0.1 centigrade by decade. Measurement of the incoming heat radiating from the Sun hitting the Earth measured from space showed very little variation over time. These researchers therefore assumed in their computer simulations that most of the warming was caused by man. Computer models simulating the Earth's atmosphere were therefore built using strong positive feedback from CO2 on water vapor in order to simulate that temperature increase. Ice cores taken from
Antarcticaalso showed that changes in temperature and CO2 followed each other, which strengthened their arguments.
It was during this time that things started to go terribly wrong! These scientists saw this theory as a ticket for scientific careers, as a way to increased funding, to get fame and above all, as a means to do important work by saving the world. After all, what can be more fulfilling than to help save the world by informing the world of dangerous human cased global warming.
In this quest, they lost their sense of scientific objectivity. Because of this and because they were convinced of the validity of this theory they saw the need to emphasize this threat and to make the validity of this theory more believable. Next step was to stop other scientists with different viewpoints from the scientific discussion by blocking them out from peer review journals and to lock them out from scientific discussions. Then, they massaged temperature data, to further their case. They also adopted assumptions of fudged relationships and turned them into scientific proven facts. ...
In fact now instead there exists credible research which shows ... any influence on the climate from CO2 increase to be benign. ... [Emphasis added.]
Strandberg further states:
Not only is the climate sensitivity to human released greenhouse gases low, but human contribution to the registered increase of CO2 is probably also low.
According to Dr. Murry Salby, the indication of the recent increase in CO2 is that it’s mostly natural. He is about to release a paper which shows just that. In this lecture he describes how.
The amazing conclusion from his talk is that not only do humans not affect the climate, humans don’t even have any important influence on the CO2 level.  ... [Emphasis added.]
What all of this recent information adds up to is that the "global warmers" have argued the exact opposite of the truth. Any effect of greenhouse gases would be a net cooling effect instead of a warming effect. This is for the simple reason that more heat is reflected away or absorbed and kept from coming to the earth, than the amount of heat that is kept in the vicinity of the earth by these elements, after some heat reaches the earth. This science agrees with common sense.
I hope that in the research of the Danes, and in the CLOUD project, they simulate the CO2 in our atmosphere, and once and for all come up with some good science on its exact effect – whether it is cooling or warming. I predict that if there is any effect, it would be a net cooling effect, which is the proven effect of all of the other "greenhouses gases." But I also predict that the effect would be relatively negligible to climate change. This is born out by common sense and known science on the question.
The 'man-made global warming' propaganda has been the biggest and most expensive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on mankind, and the primary culprits were men who paraded as "scientists." It was also assisted in by the Nobel Committee, who awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC, jointly, in 2007, for their work on man-made global warming.
The Make-Believe World of Global
Warming, Footnote 1, above.
 The Make-Believe World of Global Warming, Footnote 1, above.