Climate Physics

Breaking Science News

Human CO2 emissions are irrelevant

Some 75% of human carbon dioxide emissions are in the northern hemisphere. Data using carbon 14 showed there is a 2 to 3 year time delay for carbon dioxide to move from one hemisphere to the other. Therefore, we should be able to measure the difference in the emission rates between the northern and southern hemispheres.

However, data of seasonal variations of CO2 show there is no time delay between the northern and southern hemispheres.

This implies that human-produced CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This also implies that major changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are caused by nature and not by humans.

Conclusion: We are not the cause of changes on CO2 concentrations and reducing our CO2 emissions is irrelevant. Don't vote for anyone who supports carbon dioxide controls.

(Quirk: Energy & Environment, 20, 1-2, Jan 2009, pp 105-121.)

The Common Logical Fallacy

Here is an easy way to illustrate the common logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent. Consider the following logic statement:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox then Bill Gates is rich.

Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

It is clear that something is wrong with the logic but what is it? Fundamentally, it is the statement that A implies B, we affirm B, the consequent, to be true then we falsely claim A is true. The truth is if A implies B does not require that B implies A. Let's try another one:

If Human CO2 causes global warming Then Human CO2 may cause glaciers to melt. (A implies B.)

Glaciers are melting. Therefore, Human CO2 causes global warming. (B implies A.)

Clearly, the second statement is false just as the second statement about Bill Gates is false.

My guess is that some 95% of the global warming hoax is based upon this logical fallacy. The media brainwashes us with these kind of messages several times each day. The repetition starts causing us to "believe" in global warming even if the logic is false.

In order to arrive at the correct conclusion about global warming, we must clear our minds of all such logical fallacies from our reasons for "believing" in global warming. Once we do this, by the way, there are few reasons left for "believing" in global warming. We will address the remaining reasons and show them all to be false.

Let's do one more example:

If Ed Berry gets big oil money Then Ed Berry will say global warming is false. (A implies B.)

Ed Berry says global warming is false. Therefore, Ed Berry gets big oil money. (B implies A.)

The truth is that I have never been close enough to big oil money to even smell it. Yet, just because I wrote letters to the editor stating reasons why global warming is false, some people have written letters to the editor accusing me of being a tool of big oil.

Not only are these people not being logical, but they are also contradicting the scientific method. The scientific method requires a hypothesis to be judged solely upon whether the hypothesis makes accurate predictions and not upon who is the author or messenger of the hypothesis.

Why are our glaciers melting?

This is the question I get most. Therefore, I will discuss it first.

This chart shows how glaciers have been melting at a constant rate since about 1820. They began melting long before human carbon dioxide emissions became significant starting in about 1950. So this raises a few questions:

1. How can we blame our carbon dioxide emissions for glacier melting when the glacier melting began about 130 years before we began emitting carbon dioxide?
2. If our carbon dioxide emissions were causing glacier melting then how come glacier melting has not increased after 1950?
3. If we go on a rampage and stop all human carbon dioxide emissions, on what basis can we expect this would stop the melting of glaciers?

The answer to the first question is that it is illogical to conclude that our carbon dioxide emissions cause glacier melting. Something else is causing glaciers to melt.

The answer to the second question is that this proves our carbon dioxide emissions are not responsible for glacier melting. If there were a cause-effect relationship then the rate of glacier melting would have increased as we emitted more carbon dioxide.

The answer to the third question is we do not have any basis to conclude that stopping our carbon dioxide emissions totally would have any effect on glaciers.

A mini-science lesson is in order here. We humans have a natural tendency to blame an effect on the wrong cause. Go back to events in history. Why did people burn poor innocent ladies at the stake for witchcraft when this was a popular illusion? This shows the power of mass hysteria in influencing our popular thought.

This illogical tendency of human nature is the reason we need to use science properly. I have just taken you through a simple science lesson. Before this mini-science lesson, many of you thought our carbon dioxide emissions were causing our glaciers to melt. Now you can see this was an illogical conclusion.

Something, indeed, is causing our glaciers to melt but it is not carbon dioxide. I have not suggested an answer to why our glaciers are melting. I have only shown that our carbon dioxide is not the cause.

I do this to illustrate to you a very important principle of science. You can negate a hypothesis even though you may not be expert enough to develop the hypothesis. Neither do you need to develop an alternative hypothesis in order to falsify a hypothesis.

For example, I am not qualified in the medical profession. However, I and you are qualified to realize a medical hypothesis is wrong if a proposed cure for a disease in fact kills the patient. Nor do we need to develop an alternative "cure" in order to negate the hypothesis.

For the second part of this mini-science lesson, note how the scientific method works. Here are the steps:

1. The hypothesis was human produced carbon dioxide causes glaciers to melt.
2. The prediction of this hypothesis is that glacier melting should be related to our emissions of carbon dioxide, increasing as we emit more carbon dioxide.
3. The test is to look at data to see if this prediction is true.
4. The data shows the prediction is false.
5. Therefore, the hypothesis has been falsified.

If our ancestors applied the scientific method before they burned "witches" they would have saved many innocent ladies.

Today, we need to save ourselves. We need to understand a little about how our atmosphere works. This will show us that our emissions of carbon dioxide have nothing to do with global warming.

The global warming hypothesis

Now let us review the basic arguments against the global warming hypothesis. For the global warming hypothesis, namely that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing significant global warming, to be valid the alarmists must demonstrate that all of the following are true:

1. That temperatures today are at high levels compared to the last 5000 years and that significant global warming is occurring. 

2. That carbon dioxide concentrations today are higher than the last 5000 years and longer, and that human-produced CO2 might cause global warming.

3. That the underlying physics of the so-called greenhouse effect is valid and doubling carbon dioxide concentrations will result in a temperature increase of at least about 4 degrees F.

4. That climate models can accurately predict future climate and the effect of doubling CO2. 

In fact, none of the above four requirements is true. All are false and only one is needed to be false in order to negate the global warming hypothesis.

Another mini-science lesson is necessary here.

Question: Why is it necessary to follow the scientific method? Why can't I just use my feelings? Can't I conclude global warming is true even though the scientific method says otherwise? Maybe the scientific method is making a mistake this time.

Answer: The scientific method was developed over 2300 years ago by some really smart guys named Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. The method has proven itself over the last 2300 years to be the best way to arrive at the truth. If we throw it out, we do so at our peril. If we follow the scientific method, we will get the right answers. If we follow our feelings when they contradict the findings of the scientific method, then we will be wrong. 

Temperatures

Let us look at temperatures. Here is a plot of the reconstructed temperatures and CO2 concentrations for the past 600 million years.

We observe that CO2 is near its lowest concentration for the past 600 million years. Historically, CO2 concentration has been much higher than it is now. We know there was no runaway heat effect or we would not be here.

About 450 million years ago the temperature dropped significantly even though the CO2 concentration was about 12 times higher than today. This disproves the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming.



Here is a temperature record for the last 400,000 years. We are now in the last part of the Holocene warm period shown at the right. This plot shows that the earth spends most of its time as an ice ball. The last 12,000 years has been a good time to live. But history shows it will not always be that way.

In this perspective, we would want to develop the best possible energy sources in order for future humans to survive the coming ice age. This is a more certain future scenario than warming. Although we cannot predict when the next ice age will occur, it will occur.



Here is a temperature reconstruction of the last 3000 years. This shows that we are not in any danger of global warming. It shows we have been warming out of the Little Ice Age of a few hundred years ago. Obviously, this warming had nothing to do with our carbon dioxide emissions which have occurred mostly in the last 50 years.



Here is the most accurate temperature reconstruction for the past 2000 years. It confirms the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age.



Here is the UN IPCC "Hockey Stick" temperature chart. It has removed the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. It was proven to be invalid in 2003, yet the IPCC and our University of Montana still show this plot to unsuspecting public in order to scare them into believing in global warming. It adds on the right side some predicted scenarios that have no valid basis in science in order to scare people even more. These projections will not happen. If they do happen it will have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

This shows how the IPCC Mann Hockey Stick chart was discredited in 2003. It proves that our present temperature is not at any unusual high.

Carbon dioxide

Now, let's look at carbon dioxide. Below is a chart of the carbon dioxide record used by the IPCC.



It shows an increasing CO2 concentration since 1740. The data after 1957 are real data. The data before 1957 are taken from ice cores. The problem with ice cores is that the CO2 in them diffuses through the core. This changes the data.



The above chart uses direct chemical measurements of CO2 ignored by the IPCC. It proves the CO2 concentration was much higher in 1820 and in 1940 than today, shown by the red line.

In summary so far, the real data show that two of the four necessary legs of the global warming hypothesis have been sawed off. According to the rules of science, this alone is sufficient to invalidate the global warming hypothesis.

The other two pillars fail also, as we will demonstrate in the future.

 

My Letter to the Editor of September 29, 2008:

On Thursday evening, I attended the Flathead Valley Climate Lecture Series featuring Dr. Steve Running giving his talk, “Climate Change in the Northern Rockies.”

 

As an atmospheric physicist, I was appalled at the invalid physics used in the attempt to support the fundamental assumption of the Lecture Series, namely, that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing significant global warming.

 

The Lecture Series is about politics, not science, and is aimed at controlling America's energy via restricting carbon emissions.

 

The issue of global warming has such immense political impact on our use of energy, our economy, and our lives that we should not go down the path of government regulations in an attempt to control human global warming unless we know (a) it is a problem, (b) how to solve it and (c) we can afford to solve it.

 

I and many other atmospheric scientists have concluded that human greenhouse gases cannot cause significant global warming and there is no basis for alarmism or government regulations on our carbon emissions.

 

The hypothesis that human greenhouse gases cause global warming is invalid for many reasons but here are a few physics reasons: 

 

1.    Physics calculations show the global temperature increase from doubling carbon dioxide concentration is about 1 degree C maximum, and most likely about 0.5 degrees C.

 

2.    This increase is insignificant and it does not justify political action or restricting carbon dioxide emissions.

 

3.    Climate models have incorrectly predicted 4 degrees C or more and contain errors that make them invalid. That many climate models produce similar results does not mean they are correct. Rather, it shows they are all wrong.

 

4.    All models fail in replicating cloud cover, which is much more important than all human greenhouse gases.

 

5.    Climate models do not properly calculate water vapor which is responsible for 95% of the total greenhouse gas effect.

 

6.    The maximum greenhouse effect from human emissions is 0.28%. Even a 10% error in the calculating water vapor is 300 times greater than the whole human greenhouse effect. The models are not close to 10% accuracy in water vapor. In order to evaluate the human component, the models must be 1000 times better.

 

7.    Climate models give similar results because they use the same “fudge factor” given them by the UN IPCC. This fudge factor (climate sensitivity) determines how the models compute global warming. The IPCC has not published its derivation of its fudge factor for scientific peer review.

 

8.    The fudge factor is needed to calculate the effects of water vapor and clouds which the models cannot calculate directly.

 

9.    In 2007, scientists reversed engineered the secret UN IPCC fudge factor, found it to be incorrect, corrected it, and showed the correct factor would make the models predict 0.5 to 1.0 C change for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

 

10.   Dr. Running used the standard faulty argument to justify his conclusion that humans cause global warming. The argument is circular. It first assumes the models are correct. Then the models adjust many fudge factors until they fit the temperature data from 1860 to 1980. Then they change the fudge factors to assume simulated human and natural caused changes. Simulations make wild guesses at the effects of volcanoes, solar input and aerosols. The fudge factors allow the models to fit the last 20 years of data. Then Dr. Running and others promoting global warming conclude this magician stunt “proves” humans are causing global warming. This reasoning is so bad it has been highly criticized in Science magazine. 

 

Let’s not let our governments commit and spend billions of dollars on a non problem.