Glaciers As Global Warming Drama, Part Of The Big Lie

The nonsense about man-caused global warming and climate change just keeps coming.  It is the grandest hoax of our age, and that is saying a lot.  What is the latest outrage to irk me?  Glaciers.  Plain old ice.

Everyone responds to dramatic effects.  The news media knows that.  Hollywood knows that.  We are a culture bred to respond to video or photographic images.  Man was first influenced by verbal story tellers, then accompanied by song, then came the written word, then the drawn or painted visual word, followed by photographs, then moving photographs, now video and everything digitized and available anywhere at the speed of light. 

This is why glaciers are used so often to depict "catastrophic" global warming, because they are visual, huge, dramatic, and awe-inspiring.  Imagine, people take cruises to places like Alaska, Patagonia, Argentina, and Antarctica, for what?  To see big ice cubes (glaciers) melt.  Then they attribute the melting to man's burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Apparently, many people are so awed by this melting ice they are willing to open their wallets and freely give money to those who promise stop the calamity of big melting ice cubes.  This melting and freezing of glacial ice has always been going on.  It is nothing new.  Al Gore did not invent it.  It is not a catastrophe because President Obama's teleprompter says so, or because John Kerry is instructed to say it is.  It all sounds insane, doesn't it.  Well, it is.

Why do they continue lying to us about global warming and climate change as being (or implied to be) man-caused in articles like the following? The only answer is we are being manipulated. What is the reason? If this effort is based on lies, it is wrong, and our money (taxes) are being taken unfairly and we ought to be outraged. Can it be much simpler than that? Are we so afraid to dissent and disagree that we march along like sheep to the slaughter? Have we as a people, as a nation, sunk so low, become so passive, so obedient? I hope not, even if recent election results seem to indicate otherwise.
Peter

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229752.600-ice-sheets-may-have-already-passed-point-of-no-return.html#.U6uKCjco6eQ

"THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.

The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?"

 

(Is the above statement from the linked article complete sensationalist nonsense, or what?  Of course it is, and it is typical of what our young people are being fed and considered science.  Think of what a steady diet of this poison does.  And we wonder why people vote the way they do?  Peter)

The Truth About CO2 Destroys The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Here are some key points from the following linked article:

Al Gore backlash: Why environmentalists are celebrating rising CO2 levels

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040588_carbon_dioxide_environmentalists_Al_Gore.html#ixzz2VG8CxPBt

#3 - The current level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 400ppm. By comparison, Oxygen exists in the atmosphere at 210,000ppm. When you exhale, your own breath contains 40,000ppm of CO2, and if you know anything about emergency first aid, then you know that breathing this 40,000ppm of CO2 into another person's body (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) is a lifesaving action. It's not uncommon for CO2 to reach levels of 3000ppm in homes, schools and offices. OSHA allows workers to work in environments with up to 5000ppm of CO2. (Because, again, oxygen is present at 210,000ppm, vastly out-weighing the CO2.)

So all this talk of carbon dioxide threatening the entire planet at just 400ppm -- less than one-half of 1/1000th of the air -- is pure nonsense. Total quack science fearmongering.

In fact, most of what we've all been told about CO2 over the pat few years is a complete lie. It's time to stop believing these lies and wake up to reality. Most importantly, stop defending the CO2 / global warming hoax. Yes, CO2 is rising, but it's mostly from non-human activity, and rising levels actually support forests and plants everywhere.

How did I "wake up" to this information? It's simple: I used to be a believer in the CO2 hoax until I really began to study plant physiology and aquaponics production. Only then did I discover that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth and that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were radically deficient for optimal reforestation and plant biology. My awakening to this in no way means I endorse coal or oil industries, both of which are dirty polluters of the planet. But I am no longer allowing myself to be conned by the likes of Al Gore who has successfully convinced far too many people that their own breath is a global pollutant that needs to be regulated and taxed.

The CO2 scam is nothing more than a global tax moneymaking scheme being pushed by people who hope to get rich off our collective guilt for a problem that's entirely fabricated and fictional.

The EPA: A Tool Of Tyranny.......

What the Obama Administration can not get Congress to do, they can have the EPA do, without the consent of the people they are supposed to be serving. This is not democracy. It is socialist tyranny. Obama is the puppet spokesman for the leftists determined to control every aspect of our lives. Creating fear about climate change is a cold, calculated, long-term plan to tax and control people's use of energy, and to make us (the people) believe we're doing a good thing, by "going green" and saving Mother Earth. Talk about the ultimate scam, the epitome of a grand hoax! Perhaps most insidious, they're brainwashing our children and young adults into believing nonsense like man-caused global warming. Read this, think about it, and weep as you see your freedoms being taken away at an ever-increasing rate.
Peter

EPA choking freedom (source)

FROM- OC Register

Mark Landsbaum

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined." –
James Madison

We've previously suggested what to say to a global warming zealot (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/%20-234092--.html), and even what to say to California's warmist-in-chief, Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/%20-236562--.html).

Unfortunately, the ultimate discussion on global warming may require talking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you thought zealots and celebrities-turned-politicians could be difficult to persuade, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Those who would remake the economy in their own image and conform your lifestyle to their vision of a globally cooler utopia are advancing their quasiholy mission with the heavy hand of the unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy at the EPA.

Call it government by, of and for the bureaucracy. Where's James Madison when we need him?

There's nothing as insulated, nothing as isolated, nothing as arrogant as a federal bureaucracy. Think this thought: "I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with someone who will consider my point of view." Now think: "IRS. FBI. Homeland Security." Ouch. The EPA epitomizes the aloof, authoritarian worst of all federal bureaucracies. Don't expect a warm reception.

Several key decisions begin this spring, not the least of which is the beginning of EPA enforcement. With this in mind, here are some EPA talking points, in case you're able to get a word in edge-wise:

Presumptions

We start with the understanding that this nation's founders never intended a massive government bureaucracy to dictate how Americans must live, what they can and cannot consume or manufacture, let alone how much of the stuff they exhale may legally be emitted. The EPA begins with the assumption that we've got all of this 100 percent wrong.

Change of venue

Congress, bless its misguided hearts, at least is a representative body held accountable by voters. That's why Congress, once hell-bent on shoving down our throats an economy-killing, freedom-squashing carbon cap-and-trade law, has backed off. Politicians still can be cowed by public outrage. That's also why global warming alarmists shifted the venue from the comparatively responsive Congress to the utterly insulated EPA. Faceless bureaucrats don't stand for election.

Changing rules

Once upon a time this overbearing regulatory agency restricted its intrusions to matters that pretty much everyone agreed needed attention. Air pollution was a serious problem not long ago. It's debatable whether the might of the federal government was the only, let alone the best, solution. But at least real pollution was a real problem. The EPA has changed that game, perhaps forever, by declaring CO2 to be a harmful pollutant that must be regulated.


Quasiscience

The excuse the EPA uses to exert its regulatory version of martial law over everyday activities is that the globe allegedly is dangerously warming, and manmade greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. Nevermind, that temperatures are, at most, flat over the past 15 years. The only place a cause-and-effect relationship exists between rising greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures is in manmade computer models. Looking beyond the problem of garbage in and garbage out, history tells us a quite different story. As for blaming mankind for rising temperatures, there were far fewer people and absolutely no smokestacks or Hummers centuries ago when temperatures were higher and CO2 levels much higher.

Building on sand

The EPA, incapable of distinguishing pollutants from harmless air, based its war on global warming on findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a governmental body, not a scientific body. The IPCC drew on scientific studies, except for those it excluded. IPCC hand-picked representatives, some of them scientists, summarized the findings, selectively including and excluding from the already-screened conclusions. The IPCC came up with an unsurprisingly political document drawn from sometimes one-sided, other times flatly flawed, research, while ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence. Since last year, there's been news aplenty about the IPCC report's frauds and mistakes. Good enough for government work, apparently.

Real science

The EPA's declaration of CO2 as a pollutant ignores its amply demonstrated benefits. Even if manmade emissions did cause higher temperatures, the consequences are likely beneficial not dire. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a network of scientists not funded by governments that stand to gain control. It was established to examine the same climate data used by the U.N.'s panel. But the nongovernmental panel reached "the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely" responsible for whatever changes have occurred in global temperatures. Even so, its conclusion was: "[T]he net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife."

Arbitrariness on steroids

The 1970 Clean Air Act, which was improperly invoked to regulate CO2, is explicit in determining the level at which atmospheric pollutants trigger mandatory government regulation. As a result of extending Clean Air Act authority to CO2, 41,900 previously unregulated small entities will require preconstruction permits, and 6.1 million previously unregulated small entities will need operating permits. It's impossible for the feds to clamp down on every car, tractor, lawnmower, commercial kitchen or other mom-and-pop establishment. So here's what will happen: Bureaucrats arbitrarily will decide where to draw the line. A line drawn today doesn't mean it won't be redrawn tomorrow. Authority creep is inevitable, except, of course, in the cases of the well-connected, who game the system or grease the skids. Instead of quoting Madison, we should quote George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

'It's too late' defense

It can be argued that the EPA is acting rashly based on wrong-headed legal interpretations, and justified this with rigged research with a blind eye to contrary evidence. It might be argued that the EPA should hold off regulating until underlying scientific claims can be verified. Don't hold your breath. "It is impossible to independently test or verify (England's Climate Research Unit's) calculations because raw temperature data sets have been lost or destroyed," noted Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, who has sued to block the EPA diktats.

Fix is in

The EPA's power grab officially began at the end of March with press releases declaring the agency's "final decision" that issuing "construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin." Today, the "largest." Tomorrow "the not-so-large?" The next day, who knows? At this rate you might want to hold your breath. Exhaling soon may be an emission law violation.

Nearly last ditch

Congress will have a chance this spring to reassert authority over the bureaucracy when it considers reining in the EPA. A pending resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would veto the EPA's "endangerment finding" that declared CO2 to be a harmful pollutant. Stay tuned.

Last ditch.

The EPA's unprecedented claim to sovereignty over things that move and many that remain stationary is being challenged in court by no fewer than 15 states' attorneys general, and private plaintiffs, including 500 scientists, who dispute the IPCC's science. The nut of the challenges is that the government exceeded its authority in declaring CO2 a harmful pollutant, and that underlying science is fatally flawed.

Forecast

We're usually optimistic, but the short-term outlook is bleak, and the long-term is bleaker yet – unless someone derails the high-speed, runaway EPA. Otherwise, James Madison's homeland and yours is in for a stormy climate of arbitrary bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers, allowing you less and less to say about it as the government expands its control over American life even further.

More...

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide A Blessing

Carbon Dioxide Levels Are a Blessing, Not a Problem

Written By: Dudley J. Hughes

Published In: Environment & Climate News > May 2007

Publication date: 05/01/2007

Publisher: The Heartland Institute (source)

---

For centuries, bloodletting was an accepted medical procedure administered by physicians to treat patients for most illnesses. In today's world, we find it almost inconceivable that such a practice was condoned by entire populations.

Similarly, the claim that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is causing "global warming" has been accepted as "fact" in many countries worldwide. This belief has no more scientific foundation than the bloodletting of past generations.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide may be gradually rising, but there is no compelling evidence that such a modest rise in CO2, which still comprises significantly less than 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, will have any substantial negative effect on the Earth's environment.

Scientists Ignored

Activists have successfully pressured governments to declare CO2 a pollutant and to take drastic measures to reduce the amount entering the atmosphere. By contrast, little publicity is given to the large number of qualified scientists who strongly contest the claims of the advocacy groups. These scientists contend that if CO2 plays any part in global warming, it is so insignificant that it can barely be measured, let alone be the major cause.

One rationale given for claims that Earth's recent, moderate warming is being caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 is the high surface temperature of Venus, which stands at approximately 472° C. Venus is an Earth-size planet that has a predominantly CO2 atmosphere.

If the Earth’s Atmosphere Were a Football Stadium
Atmospheric Gas	Percent in Atmosphere	People in the Stadium
Nitrogen (N2)	78%	7,800
Oxygen (O2)	21%	2,100
Argon (A)	1%	100
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	0.038%	4

However, a comparison between Venus and the Earth's recent moderate increase in atmospheric CO2 is misleading, because there is 25,000 times as much CO2 in Venus's atmosphere as there is in the atmosphere of Earth.

CO2 Rare in Atmosphere

Earth's atmosphere is made up of several major gases. For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas. The approximate numbers of people representing the various types of gas are set out in the accompanying table.

Not included in the table is "water vapor," the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.

Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.

Moreover, those who name CO2 as a pollutant are not concerned with the 4 parts, but only with 1 part--the portion added during the past 150 years by the burning of fossil fuels. This 1/10,000 increase is the target of the Kyoto Protocol.

Oxygen More Important

After nitrogen, the second most common gas in the atmosphere is oxygen (O2), which is derived from CO2 through photosynthesis. In simple terms, photosynthesis is the process by which the leaves of trees and other plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, retaining the carbon (C) for food while releasing the O2 back into the atmosphere. Some organisms in water also release free oxygen through this same process.

There was no free oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere. Relatively late in the geologic history of the Earth, photosynthesizing organisms began to release oxygen. This has continued to the present, gradually changing the composition of the air to 21 percent free oxygen at the expense of CO2.

CO2 Now Historically Low

A thin veneer of sedimentary rocks blankets the Earth's surface and, along with ice cores from glaciers, can provide a reasonable geologic history of the Earth's past atmosphere. Scientific study of these rocks suggests the Earth's atmosphere in ancient times had considerably more CO2 than today.

Many experiments have demonstrated that the rate of plant growth is largely governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the growth rate of plants increases dramatically. Similarly, the plant growth rate decreases as atmospheric CO2 decreases.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the basic food for plants, and since plants provide the food for animal life (including humans), CO2 is the base of the food chain for all advanced life forms on Earth.

The present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely low by historical standards. If atmospheric CO2 is significantly reduced, it is more likely that slower plant growth could affect world food supplies while having little effect on global warming. The life of all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the staff of life for our planet.

---

Dudley J. Hughes (awbyrd@bellsouth.net) is a retired geologist and author of A Geologic Reinterpretation of the Earth's Atmospheric History, Inferring a Major Role by CO2, published in 1998 by the College of Geosciences at Texas A & M University.

CO2 Not A Pollutant

This comes from an excellent blog on global warming and climate change here:
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

Skeptics From Around the Globe

UNITED STATES

Dr William Happer-professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University

...Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science’

“I keep hearing about the ‘pollutant CO2,’ or about ‘poisoning the atmosphere’ with CO2, or about minimizing our ‘carbon footprint.’ This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: ‘But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’ CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.”

More...

A Cruel Despotism Has Been Unleashed On America

This really is utterly amazing, the declaration that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant" and a danger to the health and well-being of all Americans. It is one thing to hear Al Gore ranting and raving about this, but now the nonsense comes from the Environmental Protection Agency. This is supposedly a governmental agency that employs honest scientists whose tax-payer funded jobs are to protect us. We naively assume they are above "politics", like our police, firemen, and military are supposed to be.

However, this is obviously not the case with the EPA. The Obama Administration and his hand-picked appointees to agencies like the EPA and the Interior Department, the Treasury, and others, seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of American's lives. We've seen this now with the auto, banking and mortgage industries. Now they want to control the very energy we use. The EPA declaring CO2 a "pollutant" is the tool they're going to use. This is insanity and we who understand the science, and understand what a HOAX the entire man-caused global warming theory is must do all we can to stop this move now!

Search this blog, there is much supporting information here, and links to even more.
Peter

Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!

Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Friday, 17 April 2009

Jackson: Science be damned!
If the Environmental Protection Agency were some benign government unit tucked away in the corner of some massive federal government building, we could safely conclude it was doing its job to keep the nation’s air and water clean.
It is the very antithesis of that. It is a Green Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with all aspects of the nation’s industrial and agricultural communities, run roughshod over property rights, declared puddles to be navigable waters, and removed invaluable, beneficial chemicals from use to protect the lives and property of all Americans.

In much the same way as the FBI maintains a “Ten Most Wanted” list of criminals, so does the EPA.

The EPA’s former director, Carol Browner, was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International, described by Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com as “a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause.” Socialist International’s principles are the communist principles set forth by Karl Marx.

Browner is presently the chief White House advisor to the President on environmental issues. The announcement that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and all so-called greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare now clears the way to regulate every single economic activity in the nation, most notably the emissions from automobiles.

The EPA is poised to further ruin the quintessentially American auto industry with regulatory power that will determine what kind of automobile Americans will be permitted to drive, limiting the use of internal combustion, and forcing the purchase of high cost hybrids and those run on massive batteries.

Naturally, the announcement was greeted with joy by the likes of the demented Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and a panoply of environment organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund. The EDF hailed the announcement saying “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change.” Vickie Patton, EDF’s deputy general counsel, went on to say “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity.”

Only there is NO global warming and there is NOTHING that the U.S. government or all the governments of all the nations of the world can do about “climate change.” This is a “threat” that does not exist!

What the EPA and other elements of government can and will do is use the international “global warming” hoax to pass new laws and more regulations to destroy the economic viability of all activities that utilize energy.

Here’s why CO2 and the so-called “greenhouse” gases do not perform a “greenhouse” function. As explained by retired analytical chemist, Hans Schreuder:
“With no atmosphere at all, our moon is very hot in sunshine (over 100°C) and very cold in the shade (less than minus 150°C).” “With earth receiving as good as the same amount of solar irradiation, our atmosphere thus acts as a cooling medium during the hours of sunshine and a blanket during the hours of darkness.”

“Global warming, global cooling and all climate change is caused by the daily revolutions of our earth around its own axis, throughout which time the varying amounts of heat gained during the day and similar variations of heat lost during the night make the weather what it is: ranging from plus 50°C to minus 50°C (even more extreme in places), unpredictable beyond a few days and at times violent or totally quiet.”

“That's quite apart from the seasonal differences caused by the annual trip around the sun and the varying distance that our planet revolves around our sun and we're not even considering even greater forces of influence.”

The entire white paper is available at http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf <http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf >

Throughout its history the EPA has deliberately distorted actual science to advance its own warped “environmental” agenda. This EPA ruling permits the government to control all aspects of CO2 emissions, short of the exhalation of CO2 by human beings. Humans emit CO2. Animals emit CO2. And energy use emits CO2. It is not a “pollutant” or a threat to health; it is a natural gas vital to all life on Earth via the process of photosynthesis by all plant life. Without CO2 all vegetation dies and with it all animal life.

Congress has a long record of restricting access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Our “dependency”; the importation of these energy sources is entirely the result of national policies. Now add thousands of regulations on all USE of energy.

Some will mark the announcement as the beginning of the decline of the American economy, but the U.S. government has long been engaged in all manner of control over everything required for a successful economy. What begins is the end to the abundant choices Americans have always had regarding the manufacture, distribution, and purchase of anything and everything common to our present lifestyle.

It is a cruel despotism that has been unleashed on all Americans.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com and a weekly commentary at http://www.anxietycenter.com , the website of The National Anxiety Center.

The Political Mess That Is Man-Caused Global Warming

The New York Times just reported the EPA is going to announce it has determined carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant" that "threatens public health and welfare". The following abstract of an article published by the American Chemical Society directly contradicts the EPA's statement. There needs to be a battle here. The implications of the use of the power the EPA has is enormous.

(Note: I always use the term "man-caused" global warming instead of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", abbreviated as AGW, because I don't want anyone to be misled or put-off by the impressive-sounding, pretentious "scientific" word, "anthropogenic". Man-caused global warming is what it is, a myth perpetuated by those with a political agenda.)
Peter

"E.P.A. to Clear the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases
The agency on Friday
is expected to formally declare carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases
to be pollutants that
threaten public health and welfare."
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

The following abstract is from "wagmc" here.

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide.
Robert H. Essenhigh, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Abstract:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ ~ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed.

However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (~100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of ~4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of ~5 years carrying C12 and ~16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years.

Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (~100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis.

With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (~100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors.

This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

The following is the link to the original source.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

Will Congress Listen To Science And Reason About Global Warming?

Will the American Congress listen to scientists about the issue of global warming being caused by carbon dioxide emissions? Or will they listen to political organizations like the United Nations (IPCC) and (failed) politicians pursuing a highly profitable personal agenda, like Al Gore?

President Obama wants to tax industries and activities that produce carbon dioxide, as does every internal combustion engine, and every animal that exhales. Obama is counting on his "carbon cap and trade" scheme to raise Billions of dollars in revenue for the Federal Government. This is nothing more than a thinly-disguised tax that will be passed on to the consumer, all based on the myth of man-caused global warming. It is truly economic and scientific insanity. Will Congress listen? This is a huge factor in the current worldwide economic crisis. Stay tuned.
Peter



Princeton Physicist Tells Congress Earth in 'CO2 Famine' -- Increase 'Will Be Good for Mankind'
Dr. Will Happer, once fired by Al Gore, challenges former vice president's much-published claim that warming debate over.

By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 2/25/2009 11:08:28 PM (source)
When former Vice President Al Gore said the science was settled on the issue of global warming before Congress in 2007, he might have meant it was settled as far as people that he would allow to work for him.

Dr. William Happer, currently a professor of Physics at Princeton University, was once fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, also disagrees with Gore’s claim that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the temperature of the earth and is a threat to mankind. Happer appeared before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb. 25 and explained CO2 is in short-supply in relative terms of the history of the planet.

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene [geologic epoch] – 280 [parts per million (ppm)] – that’s unheard of,” Happer said. “Most of the time, it’s at least 1,000 [ppm] and it’s been quite higher than that.”

Happer said that when CO2 levels were higher – much higher than they are now, the laws of nature still managed to function as we understand them today.

“The earth was just fine in those times,” Happer said. “You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that, you know, we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.”

That directly conflicts with the line Gore has been telling the media for years. In November 2007, Gore told NBC’s “Today” that there was “as strong a consensus as you'll ever see in science” that global warming was caused by mankind.

The chairwoman of the EPW committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has long supported Gore’s “global warming battle.” During Wednesday’s hearing, she was skeptical of Happer’s view, stating a lot had changed in the 80 million years. But Happer explained that the laws of science had not changed.

“Well, I don’t think that the laws of nature, physics and chemistry have changed in 80 million year,” Happer said. “Eighty million years ago, the earth was a very prosperous place and there’s no reason to think it will suddenly become bad now.”

Happer claimed that in fact, an increase in CO2 levels wouldn’t be a bad thing at all, but a good thing for humanity.

“Increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming of the earth’s surface,” Happer said. “The key question is will the net effect of the warming and any other effects of CO2 be good or bad for humanity? I believe the increase of CO2 will be good.”

Happer explained to the committee that the global warming movement mirrors the temperance movement that led to Prohibition in the 1920s. He claimed the movement has enlisted various elements of society, including the media, to promote their cause. He noted his opinion that children are being misused to spread the “climate catastrophe” movement’s message.

“Like the Temperance Movement a hundred years ago, the climate catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, leadership of scientific societies, trustees of charitable foundations, many other influential people to their cause,” Happer said. “Even elementary school teachers and writers of children’s books terrify our children with the idea of impending climate doom. Children should not be force-fed propaganda masquerading as science.”

Also accompanying Happer on the Senate panel were Dr. R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Christopher Field director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Dr. Howard Frumkin, director of the National Center for Environmental Health.

Historical Data On Global Warming

The following information was sent as a link in a comment on this blog by Mr. Dan Pangburn. The data and its presentation seem legitimate. Importantly, he provides valuable sources for his data. He has obviously done some independent research on the subject and I thank him for his efforts. I agree with his conclusion that the historical records shows little, if any, causative correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. Any comments are welcome.
Peter

source

15 Mar 2008
Historical Data on Global Warming

provided by U.S. Government Agencies
By Dan Pangburn, P.E.
I have been researching the global warming issue for months. I am a licensed Mechanical Engineer with an MSc in Mechanical Engineering. The following is a brief verbal description of some of my sources and findings with graphics that show these findings.
Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. But the observation that ice is melting, which can look dramatic on TV, does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans have or ever can have a significant influence on climate such as by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Avoid the group-think ‘consensus science’ and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows:

The temperature1 has varied substantially while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere2 exhibits a smooth progressive rise. Note on this graph that prior to about 1910, and again from 1944 to about 1976, temperature showed a decreasing trend while atmospheric carbon dioxide level was increasing. Thus, as shown on this graph, until 1998 the average global temperature trend and atmospheric carbon dioxide level went in the same direction about half the time and in opposite directions the other half. The temperature rise that received so much attention and contributed to the Global Warming mistake lasted for about 22 years from 1976 to 1998. The temperature stopped significant increase in 1998. According to NOAA data, the average global temperature trended down during 2007 to lower than it was in 1998. This down-trend continues with the average for the first two months of 2008 being substantially lower.

1. Temperature from 1880 through 2007 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html with most recent by month at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html

2. Carbon dioxide level through 2004 from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ and from 2004 to current from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
In the previous graph it appears that since 1976 the increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the average global temperature to rise. However, a close look at the graph below3,4 reveals the fact that, typically in the past, global average temperature rose or fell before the carbon dioxide level changed.

Advocates of the idea that recent human activity has caused global warming rationalize this lag of carbon dioxide change to temperature change, which existed before human activity was an issue, with the theory that something external started the temperature change, the temperature change caused carbon dioxide change and then a positive feed back effect from the added atmospheric carbon dioxide caused the temperature change to continue. However, as the temperature record shows, temperature change began and ended at many different temperature levels. This would not be possible with significant positive feedback. Thus significant positive feedback did not exist then and does not exist now. Back then the atmospheric carbon dioxide increased as the ocean temperature increased driving out dissolved carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is all a result of burning fossil fuel. Added carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. Global average temperature change must be driven by factors other than carbon dioxide level.

Although the time scale on this graph can make times look close together, the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level typically lagged average earth temperature change by hundreds of years. Note especially the period around 112,000 years ago when the decline in carbon dioxide level lagged the decline in average global temperature by thousands of years. Also on this graph, observe that temperature went up and down quickly and frequently while carbon dioxide level changed comparatively slowly. Note also that this graph is in years before 1999 so the present time is at the left side of the graph.
3. Temperature change (or anomalies per their terminology) are per the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
4. Carbon dioxide levels from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
This graph also shows that global temperature change is not significantly influenced by atmospheric carbon dioxide level change. Sargasso Sea Surface Temperatures5 were compiled from proxies and reported at Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. These temperatures are corroborated by historical records of colonizing and abandoning Greenland, vineyards in England , freezing of the Themes, etc. Anomalies determined from the Sargasso temperature data (obtained by subtracting 22.6 from all temperatures) agree only crudely with anomalies from Vostok3. Although Sargasso temperatures are corroborated by historical records of events, they may have been heavily influenced by ocean currents and thus be less representative of global average temperature. Sargasso anomalies are shown for the period that they are available.

The Vostok ice core data provide carbon dioxide level4 only until about 340 BC. More recent data on atmospheric carbon dioxide level is provided by ice cores from Law Dome6, Antarctica and atmospheric sampling at Mauna Loa . Vostok and Law Dome carbon dioxide data are both plotted on the following graph along with the Vostok3, Sargasso and recent1 temperature data. This shows that, during the current interglacial period, temperature changes occur while carbon dioxide level undergoes little change until about 1750AD. This demonstrates that global temperature change does not depend on atmospheric carbon dioxide level change. As shown on the previous graph, if temperature change was maintained long enough the atmospheric carbon dioxide level followed.

5. Sargasso SST ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/keigwin1996/
6. Law Dome carbon dioxide data http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat
This graph is a higher-resolution time scale of the previous graph showing detail of the last 1000 years with several other sources of carbon dioxide data added. The added data corroborate the Law Dome data and continue measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide level to the present time from Mauna Loa7. This graph shows that the average global temperature 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and the recent rate of temperature change is not unusual. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were slightly lower than in 1998 and the average temperature for the first two months of 2008 is substantially lower.

For most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present8,9. The planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago10 when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times higher than now.
The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. Actions to control the amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity. These actions put freedom and prosperity at risk.

7. Data through 2006 is at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/ other sources through 2007 at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ Mauna Loa recent months at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

8. Raw science report http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

9. Includes easier-to-read graph which uses the appropriate curve from 8 plus a temperature curve. http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html or http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml which appears to come from 8. and only shows carbon dioxide level.

10. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Good For The Environment? YES

Here is another article by Dr. Roy Spencer. He reiterates his doubt about the myth of man-caused global warming. In addition he speculates on the reason why man's addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may really be beneficial, instead of harmful, as so many people mistakenly believe. If he is is correct, then all of our efforts to limit CO2 emissions are a terrible, tragic waste of effort and resources.

Of course Dr. Spencer is not the first person to come to this conclusion, but he is one of a growing number of scientists who have come to the same conclusion. Search the blog here for Roy Spencer and you will find much more of what he has to say on the weather, climate, and global warming. Also, please note he has a new book out titled "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads To Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, And Misguided Policies That Hurt The Poor".
Peter



More Carbon Dioxide, Please: If not, why not?
By Roy Spencer
(Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and is currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville)

There seems to be an unwritten assumption among environmentalists - and among the media - that any influence humans have on nature is, by definition, bad. I even see it in scientific papers written by climate researchers. For instance, if we can measure some minute amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere at the South Pole, well removed from its human source, we are astonished at the far-reaching effects of mankind's "pollution."

But if nature was left undisturbed, would it be any happier and more peaceful? Would the carnivores stop eating those poor, defenseless herbivores, as well as each other? Would fish and other kinds of sea life stop infringing on the rights of others by feasting on them? Would there be no more droughts, hurricanes, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, or glaciers flowing toward the sea?

In the case of global warming, the alleged culprit - carbon dioxide - just happens to be necessary for life on Earth. How can Al Gore say with a straight face that we are treating the atmosphere like an "open sewer" by dumping carbon dioxide into it? Would he say the same thing if we were dumping more oxygen into the atmosphere? Or more nitrogen?

As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade. If true, this would mean that global temperatures can be expected to peak in the coming years (if they haven't already), and global cooling will eventually ensue.

Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that manmade global warming really is a false alarm. In that case, we would still need to ask: What are the other negative effects of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere? Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?

The bigger concern has been the possible effect of the extra CO2 on the world's oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).

Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.

Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount. I think it is time for scientists to consider the possibility that more CO2 in the atmosphere might, on the whole, be good for life on Earth. Oh, I'm sure there will be some species which are hurt more than helped, but this is true of any change in nature. There are always winners and losers.

For instance, during a strong El Nino event, trillions of animals in the ocean die as the usual patterns of ocean temperature are disrupted. When Mother Nature does something like this it is considered natural. Yet, if humans were to do such a thing, it would be considered an environmental catastrophe. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

The view that nature was in some sort of preferred, yet fragile, state of balance before humans came along is arbitrary and philosophical - even religious. It is entirely possible that there are other, more preferable states of balance in nature which are more robust and less fragile than whatever the state of nature was before we came along.You would think that science is the last place you would find such religious opinions, yet they dominate the worldview of scientists.

Natural scientists tend to worship nature, and they then teach others to worship nature, too. all under the guise of "science." And to the extent that this view is religious, then making environmental laws based upon that view could be considered a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The automatic assumption that mankind's production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment needs to be critically examined. Unfortunately, scientists who question that point of view are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil. But since I am already accused of this (falsely, I might add), I really don't mind being one of the first scientists to raise the issue.

Source

Global Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

We are led to believe that global warming is caused by the "greenhouse" effect of carbon dioxide, CO2. We are led to believe this is exacerbated by man's addition of more CO2 by burning "fossil fuels". Supposedly, this is caused by the "radiative forcing" of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. For information on "radiative forcing" see here.

One of the major problems with this idea of carbon dioxide emissions being responsible for the "catastrophic" increase in global warming and subsequent "climate change", is that atmospheric CO2 has never acted this way in the entire past history of the Earth. Have the basic laws of chemistry and physics changed suddenly? Well, it seems they have in the minds of our computer climate modelers and IPCC propagandists.
Peter




Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
June 21, 2005

source:



One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.



Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?



Adjacent graphic 'Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time' from Climate and the Carboniferous Period (Monte Hieb, with paleomaps by Christopher R. Scotese). Why not drop by and have a look around?
************************************************************
Similarities with our Present World
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 22° C (72° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!



Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.



The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
*******************************************************************
Our Future Written in Stone
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.



Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.



It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.
What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical power plants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.



Understanding Earth's geologic and climate past is important for understanding why our present Earth is the way it is, and what Earth may look like in the future. The geologic information locked up in the rocks and coal seams of the Carboniferous Period are like a history book waiting to be opened. What we know so far, is merely an introduction. It falls on the next generation of geologists, climatologists, biologists, and curious others to continue the exploration and discovery of Earth's dynamic history-- a fascinating and surprising tale, written in stone.

CO2 Acquittal.....Innocent Of Accusations Of Being The Cause Of Global Warming

I think this is worth reading and studying......go to the source to read Dr. Glassman's complete article.
Peter


CO2 ACQUITTAL
source
Rocket Scientist’s Journal
… UNDER CONSTRUCTION …

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
ABSTRACT
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.
Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

I. INTRODUCTION
Carbon dioxide, a benign gas, is now the hyper–volatile fuel of public policy, media hype, and world politics. Climatologists, undeterred by their inability to predict even the dominant features of the earth’s climate record – the ice ages and the glacial periods – have nonetheless scored a political coup by cobbling together three selected bits of science into a cataclysmic prediction: man is on the verge of destroying life on the planet.
The three cobblestones are (1) a smattering of greenhouse gas physics, (2) half a million years worth of data from Vostok ice cores and (3) half a century of data from Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 monitoring. Presented here are new results from analysis of the second, the Vostok data, reductions which have a profound effect on the other two legs of the global warming stool, on the role of carbon dioxide, and ultimately on public policy.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
I. INTRODUCTION
II. VOSTOK DATA
A. CLIMATOLOGISTS’ VIEW OF VOSTOK DATA
B. VOSTOK REMAPPED
III. MODELING VOSTOK CO2 CONCENTRATION
A. CLIMATOLOGISTS CAN’T ACCOUNT FOR ATMOSPHERIC CO2
B. SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION: SOLUBILITY PHYSICS APPEARS TO ACCOUNT FOR ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION
C. FITTING SOLUBILITY PHYSICS TO VOSTOK MEASUREMENTS
D. THE OTHER STRAIGHT LINE FIT AND CORRELATION
E. MEASURING AND MODELING THE LAG IN THE CO2 DATA
F. LAG-COMPENSATED CO2 RECORD
G. FINDING THE OPERATING POINT FOR THE VOSTOK CO2 RECORD ON THE SOLUBILITY CURVE
H. THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE VOSTOK ICE CORE DATA IS IMPRINTED BY THE PHYSICS OF THE SOLUBILITY OF CO2 IN WATER
I. ERROR ANALYSIS SHOWS THE PHYSICS OF CO2 SOLUBILITY IN WATER REPRESENTS VOSTOK DATA BETTER THAN ANY POLYNOMIAL
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. A NEW MODEL FOR ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
B. CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD NO LONGER DRIVE PUBLIC POLICY
C. GREENHOUSE CATASTROPHE MODELS (GCMs)
D. WHAT CLIMATOLOGISTS NEED TO DO
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dr. Glassman has a BS, MS, and PhD from the UCLA Engineering Department of Systems Science, specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, applied physics, communication and information theory. For more than half of three decades at Hughes Aircraft Company he was Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions, responsible for engineering, product line planning, and IR&D. Since retiring from Hughes, he has consulted in various high tech fields, including expert witness on communication satellite anomalies for the defense in Astrium v. TRW, et al, and CDMA instructor at Qualcomm. Lecturer, Math and Science Institutes, UCI. Member, Science Education Advisory Board. Author of Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, New Hampshire, 1992, ISDN 0-89341-707-6. He is an expert modeler of diverse physical phenomena, including microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere and in solids, ballistic reentry trajectories, missile guidance, solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics and in microcircuit devices, infrared communication, analog and digital signals, large scale fire control systems, diffusion, and electroencephalography. Inventor of a radar on-target detection device, and a stereo digital signal processor. Published A Generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1972. Previously taught detection and estimation theory, probability theory, digital signal processing.
© 2006 JAGlassman. All rights reserved.

Old News: Al Gore Is Wrong, There Is No "Consensus"

Dr. William Gray is a respected, renowned hurricane forecaster and college professor. His opinion about the cause of global warming, or climate change, computer models, water vapor and the leading proponent of the myth of man-caused global warming is well-worth considering. Search this blog and you'll find other statements by Dr. Gray. At the very least, this shows there is no "consensus" on global warming......and the "debate" is certainly not over.
Peter

Famed Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years
Expert states ocean cycles will have a more profound effect on climate than CO2; criticizes James Hansen's climate models.

By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 3/4/2008 11:47:32 AM
It turns out Al Gore was wrong. The scientists aren’t all in agreement on global warming; thus there is no “consensus.”

Prominent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray, a professor at Colorado State University, told the audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 4 in New York that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures related to the salinity (the amount of salt) in ocean water was responsible for some global warming that has taken place. However, he said that same cycle means a period of cooling would begin within 10 years.

“We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.”

Gray, 79, wasn’t sure if he’d be around to see his prediction come true.

“I may not be around by that time,” Gray said. “But, I’ve asked some of my students to put dandelions on my grave if that happens.”

Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere.

“[S]o he puts that much vapor in his model and of course he gets this,” Gray said. “He must get upper troposphere where the temperature is seven degrees warmer for a doubl[ing of] CO2. Well, the reason he got that was – why this upper-level warming was there – was he put too much water vapor in the model.”

At the same conference March 3, the founder of The Weather Channel advocated suing carbon traders, including former Vice President Al Gore, to expose what he called “the fraud of global warming.”

Climate Change: Is CO2 the Cause? A Video Presentation

Professor Bob Carter presents..........this is excellent viewing..
Peter


Climate Change: Is CO2 the Cause:

Part 1 of 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

2/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related

3/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=related

4/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related

FACTS That Irrefutably Prove Climate Change Is Driven By Solar Activity

This is hard, measurable, factual data and observations showing variations of solar energy received by the Earth to be the over-ridingly dominant factor controlling changes in global warming and climate change. Computer climate models used to generate the myth of man-caused global warming are merely guesses based on (faulty) assumptions. Facts must outweigh guesses, always.
Peter


By: Dr. Gerhard Lobert, Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics
As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades. The following facts prove that the recent global warming is not man-made but is a natural phenomenon.

1. In the temperature trace of the past 10 000 years based on glaciological evidence, the recent decades have not displayed any anomalous behavior. In two-thirds of these 10,000 years, the mean temperature was even higher than today. Shortly before the last ice age the temperature in Greenland even increased by 15 degrees C in only 20 years. All of this without any man-made CO2 emission!

2. There is no direct connection between CO2 emission and climate warming. This is shown by the fact that these two physical quantities have displayed an entirely different temporal behavior in the past 150 years. Whereas the mean global temperature varied in a quasi-periodic manner, with a mean period of 70 years, the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially since the 1950’s. The sea level has been rising and the glaciers have been shortening practically linearly from 1850 onwards. Neither time trace showed any reaction to the sudden increase of hydrocarbon burning from the 1950’s onwards.

3. The hypothesis that the global warming of the past decades is man-made is based on the results of calculations with climate models in which the main influence on climate is not included. The most important climate driver (besides solar luminosity) comes from the interplay of solar activity, interplanetary magnetic field strength, cosmic radiation intensity, and cloud cover of the Earth atmosphere.
Read more here.
-->

Geologist Dr. Lee C. Gerhard Speaks Against Man-Caused Global Warming

Here is a respected geologist's opinion, rather aggravated I must say, about the "myth" being put forth about man-caused global warming. Of course I agree with him and have other articles by Mr. Gerhard on this blog.
Peter

From Lee C. Gerhard [leeg@sunflower.com], Senior Scientist Emeritus, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

"Can anyone out there provide me with any empirical data in support of the theory that humans control climate warming? No, don't tell me that climate is changing - we geologists absolutely know that climate changes all the time, in both directions, and at many scales of time and intensity.

Don't give me results of computer modeling - those are not empirical data, they are the results of very serious attempts to place numbers on natural phenomena, but they are still based on assumptions and estimates, and have not been able to replicate past climate changes, particularly over the last 1500 years. Computer models are currently nothing more than scientific theories set to mathematical music.

Bring us some data, some values that support the concept. Right now the data show correlative changes in temperature and solar activity, modified by ocean current movement and orbital variations, many of which are predictable and which have operated to change climate for billions of years.Yes, there is an increase in carbon dioxide, but its effects drop logarithmically with its increase. Thus, it doesn't pose a threat. All told the full greenhouse effect, mostly water vapor, does make Earth a habitable planet.

Please don't argue that climate is changing at rates and intensities not ever seen before. That is just not true. Read the data already out there from the geologists and those who study past climate change.Tell me why otherwise competent scientists argue for their theory but fail to provide any support for their theory other than constant repetition of untrue statements and alarmist exaggerations.

Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Is that what is happening?"


Profile on Dr. Lee C. Gerhard:
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard is Principal Geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, having retired from the Directorship and as State Geologist in 1999. He received his B.S. in geology at Syracuse University and the M. S. and Ph.D. degrees at the University of Kansas. He has combined academic, government, and industry leadership and technical appointments, including petroleum exploration, management of exploration programs, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology, and management of research. His research interests are in carbonate sedimentology, petroleum geology, and environmental public policy. He has been the State Geologist of North Dakota, and led a marine ecology and geology research and teaching laboratory in the U. S. Virgin Islands. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was the Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company. He is licensed as geologist in Kansas and Wyoming.

Dr. Gerhard is an Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, past president and Honorary Member of that society`s Division of Environmental Geosciences, an Honorary Member of the Association of American State Geologists, and an Honorary Member of the Kansas Geological Society.

He has published more than 150 papers and books on geology, petroleum exploration, natural resources, and environmental policy. He co-chaired the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Climate Change Issues Committee. He is active in wildlife and fisheries conservation issues in the U. S. and Canada, and has organized three recent major conferences on resource and environmental issues. He lectures widely in the U. S. and in Europe about environment and resources and global climate issues.