Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
Robert, I deeply apologize for confusing you so badly………………………
“Robert, I deeply apologize for confusing you so badly”
I’m not the one confused. I’m just waiting for you to actually make an argument.
HenryP says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Henry@DesertYote
Assuming average water vapour is 0.5%, CO2 is 0.04% and the rest is 0.02, then we find that the increase of 0.01% in CO2 of the past 50 years is ca. 0.01/0.55 x 100= 1.8%
But now, oxygen also absorbs in the 14-15 region……
No it does not!
This could account for a large part of earth’s missing 14-15 radiation as the oxygen content in the atmosphere is almost 21%. It is a very weak absorption but nonetheless it is there. This makes your formula or any attempt to a formula a bit futile.
There is no AGW or CAGW literature I could find that even acknowledges that oxygen has this (weak) absorption or even that it is a GHG.
The reason for that of course is that it is not true.
Smokey says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:27 pm
We are currently 800 ±200 years after the MWP, therefore a part of the increased CO2 is due to ocean outgassing. You have no credible answer as to where global CO2 levels would otherwise be one way or another. None. You’re just outgassing baseless speculation – your hallmark.
More nonsense from the Smokey bot! Who is apparently unaware that CO2 in the ocean is going up, hardly consistent with outgassing, The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is slower than the rate of direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion into the atmosphere and that the O2 level in the atmosphere is decreasing at a rate consistent with that CO2 emission. The 800 year lag canard doesn’t explain anything because it’s inconsistent with Henry’s Law since the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere is increasing independently and therefore the oceans are absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere.
HenryP August 15, 2011 at 8:51 am
“If you want the Easter Island data, you have to give me an address? (remember you will get 12 Xcell files, one for each month of the year, going back in time)”
So, the information is only available from your own website and not available on a publicly available site? That is unacceptable.
Why can you not provide urls to the publicly available data?
Slioch:
At August 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm you say to me:
“I really can see no point in responding to you.”
Of course you can’t.
At August 15, 2011 at 1:55 am and August 15, 2011 at 11:30 am you posted nonsense (as you ofen do).
At August 15, 2011 at 1:55 am and August 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm I pointed out how and why your posts are nonsense (as I often have).
At August 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm you have run away whining (as you usually do).
It seems you never change.
Richard
Ah, the Phil.bot returns. No problema, I shall dispatch his “canard” canard with a peer reviewed paper and a few charts☺:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf [slow to load]
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/CaillonTermIII%203.jpg
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Vostok-CO2.png
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
Ice cores don’t lie. CO2 follows temperature by roughly 800 ±200 years – which is about the time lag since the MWP.
Of course, human emissions also conteribute to CO2 levels, and that’s a good thing. Because the biosphere is starved of atmospheric “carbon”. More CO2 is better. So relax, there’s no problem.
“Ice cores don’t lie. CO2 follows temperature by roughly 800 ±200 years – which is about the time lag since the MWP.”
Except that the temperature increase during the MWP was not big enough or nearly long enough to explain the current rise in CO2. The paper you linked to (which was quite good) said the following:
“This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays,
through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the
800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2
increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere
deglaciation (Fig. 3).”
The lag in the ice core data is a lag with SH temperature, not global temps (this has to due to the nature of the insolation changes from Milankovitch cycles). The NH warmed *after* the rise in CO2 started. Also, the temperature rises that caused these increases lasted about 5K years, which gave the oceans enough time to outgas about as much CO2 to cause the same increase in CO2 that we have witnessed over the last 150 years (from a little under 200 ppmv to about 300 ppmv). Even with all that time to outgas CO2, CO2 levels never went above 300 ppmv in the ice core record. It is now over 390 ppmv. It just happened to go up right when we started releasing the trapped carbon from fossil fuels that had been out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. Just a coincidence. Riiight.
There is no way the MWP could be causing the current rise in CO2. Compared to the temperature changes when going from glacial to interglacial (6-7C), the MWP was tiny. How could such a short term (a few hundred years) and weak warming (in comparison to the glacial interglacial swings) cause CO2 to rise almost 100 ppmv above the highest level attained in the ice core data that goes back at least 400,000 years? It makes no sense. Besides, we can already see the change that the MWP had on CO2 by looking at the ice cores – during the height of the MWP CO2 was about 10 ppmv higher than during the height of the LIA.
So, Robert, are you saying the ice cores are lying? You can see that CO2 increases lag temperature rises.
And the fact is that there’s no evidence of any global harm from increased CO2. But there is lots of evidence of beneficial effects. Therefore, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. QED.
“So, Robert, are you saying the ice cores are lying? You can see that CO2 increases lag temperature rises.”
Did you even read my post? I *said* they did; at least CO2 lags SH temperature rises in the ice core record. CO2 rise *precedes* NH deglaciation in the ice core record, as your link affirms. The point is the temperature increases they are talking about lasted about 5K years and are far stronger than the MWP was, which is why they are capable of releasing as much CO2 as they did (close to 100 ppmv) while the MWP only added about 5 ppmv of CO2. It was short lived ( a few hundred years) and about .4C or so in magnitude. Every small, short term increase (or decrease) in temperature does not have an 800 year lag in CO2 outgassing from the oceans.
You have yet to explain how such a small temperature change (the MWP) can have had such a large delayed effect on CO2 levels when far larger, sustained temperature changes (going from glacial to interglacial), changes that are an order of magnitude bigger than the MWP, never sent CO2 levels about 300 ppmv. Remember, the ice cores don’t lie – the MWP cannot possibly be the cause of the current rise in CO2.
Robert Murphy says:
“…the MWP… was short lived ( a few hundred years) and about .4C or so in magnitude.”
Your “.4C in magnitude” has no reference point. Did that number come from Skeptical Pseudo-Science? I’m always a little suspicious when someone tries to pretend the MWP was just a tiny blip. Michael Mann tried that, and was totally debunked.
Actually, the MWP was about 3°C warmer than the LIA. And since the current global T is only about 0.7° – 0.8° warmer than the LIA, it’s clear that the MWP was a couple of degrees warmer than today.
But it really doesn’t matter, sinc CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
“Your “.4C in magnitude” has no reference point.”
Look at any temperature reconstruction for the last 2,000 years. The increase from the MWP was not even close to the increase that occurred when we left the last glacial period and entered the current interglacial. About an order of magnitude smaller.
“Actually, the MWP was about 3°C warmer than the LIA.”
Absolute nonsense! But lets go with that number anyway. The change from glacial to interglacial was about 6-7C, and this warming was sustained for about 5K years. Yet it never pushed CO2 up over 300 ppmv. Yet you want us to believe that the MWP, lasting a few hundred years and half the magnitude (again, that 3C number is absolute nonsense; I’m going with it to show that even using your own number your argument makes no sense) of the rise from glacial to interglacial somehow was capable of pushing CO2 levels over 90 ppmv above what it was at any time in the ice core record going back hundreds of thousands of years. (In order for your claim to make any sense, the MWP would have to have been warmer than any time in the last 400,000 years, and have lasted longer) And that this increase in CO2 was somehow delayed by about 800 years and just happened to coincide with our burning of fossil fuels and the release of carbon that had been locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. All while the oceans are now a carbon sink (they are gaining CO2), not a carbon source (where did all the carbon we released go if not in the atmosphere and the oceans? Plant biomass has not changed much). That’s magical thinking. Remember, the ice cores don’t lie. The MWP could not possibly be the source of the CO2 rise of the last 150 years.
BTW, your link to the Jonova graph is wrong. The last year that the GISP2 ice core data records is 1855. The “present” in the “before present” is 1950 (by convention), and the first usable layer dates back 95 years “before present”. This was affirmed by Richard Alley, who is the one who actually worked with the data (his name is even on Jonova’s graph). Or you can just look at the raw data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Note the first usable layer was from 0.0951409K years before present (1950). All the graph shows is that temps in Greenland were warmer than they were in 1855 for most of the last 10,000 years.
And remember Greenland, lovely place that it is, is not the world. In order to show the globe was warmer then than now, you have to show the different warming periods to be mostly synchronous. This you cannot do, as they weren’t.
Oh, and if the MWP was responsible for over 100 ppmv of CO2 increase over the last 150 years, why did the RWP or the Minoan warm period, both of which were of greater magnitude than the MWP (as your graph shows, however off it is in its end year) not cause anything more than a little ripple in the CO2 ice core data? What was so special about the MWP?
Robert Murphy says:
“Look at any temperature reconstruction for the last 2,000 years. The increase from the MWP was not even close to the increase that occurred when we left the last glacial period and entered the current interglacial.”
Robert, you’re conflating the Holocene with the last great stadial, which ended more than 10 millennia ago, not 2,000 years ago. Your comment above mixes them both together. And you still have not explained where your “.4C” number came from.
I linked to a chart in my post above showing that, in fact, there was a ≈3°C ΔT between the LIA and the MWP. Your response: “Absolute nonsense!” So, how can I debate with someone who has not got his facts remotely correct, and who preposterously claims, against solid empirical evidence, that the MWP T rise was only 0.4°C?? There is ample evidence from both hemispheres showing the magnitude of the MWP. Mann tried to claim it was only a minor warming, and he was so badly debunked that Nature was forced to issue a rare formal Correction to MBH98.
This slide show puts today’s extremely minor natural climate variability in perspective: click
The time period in question is the Holocene. As you can see, we are currently well within its historical parameters. CO2 is not causing the predicted global harm. In fact, there is no evidence of any global damage from CO2. If you think there is, produce testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method. No models, please; models are not evidence.
Frank White said;
“However the statements presented as premises here do not seem to me to be founded in physical science. First, scientists are not saying that CO2 adds energy to the environment.”
Well in fact so of them do describe the “GHE” as being the cause of “net energy gains” and/or “extra energy”. Perhaps some usage of these terms is from bloggers, but I have indeed seen the “net energy gain” explanation quoted by someone who claimed to be a scientist in the field of climate studies. This does indeed violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Frank also said;
“What they are saying is that some energy that would be reflected back into space cannot be reflected back because the wavelength changes upon contact. Consequently, while the window is more or less clear for incoming energy, CO2 acts like a curtain for reflected energy and the thicker the curtain the more energy is retained and not reflected back into space.”
Yes I do understand this concept, but I do not agree with it. A few specific points;
“some energy that would be reflected back into space cannot be reflected back because the wavelength changes upon contact”
Yes the wavelength changes, but this change in wavelength does not prevent the energy from being “reflected back” (I prefer the term “emitted towards space”. It only changes the speed at which the energy leaves. If in fact no radiation in CO2 absorption band could ever leave (a totally opaque band in the atmosphere) the surface would just warm by a slight amount and the spectrum would shift to lower wavelengths were the opaque condition does not exist. Thus the energy would still depart for the cold vacuum of space after a slight delay.
“and the thicker the curtain the more energy is retained”
Again, it is impossible to “retain”, ”trap”, ”hold”, “store”, “ensnare”, “shut in”, “confine” or “block” the flow of heat through any system. It is only possible to change the speed at which the heat flows through the system.
Engineers do this by selecting materials with a speed of heat that accomplishes the desired goal within the cost allowed. For example most PC computers use an aluminum heat sink; aluminum is an affordable material with a relatively high speed of heat. For higher performance systems copper is used with an additional cost increase. For even higher performance systems synthetic diamond (an evil carbon based pollutant, wink) is used. Also in some systems heat pipes are employed even though they are costly and require very careful handling.
On the other side of the coin when it is desired to slow the flow of heat (to reduce the consumption of “fossil” fuels) insulators are employed. Everybody is probably quite aware of the fiberglass (aka pink batts) or asbestos (no longer used), but there are also “super” insulators like Aerogel. If anything could be accused of “trapping heat” Aerogel would be the likely culprit, however even though it has remarkable insulating properties it is not capable of “trapping” heat.
So the effect of the “GHE” is to change the response time of the gases in the atmosphere to changes in the incoming energy (i.e. sunrise and sunset). I posit that this change is so small they we probably never afford to measure it. The existing temperature databases (even after being water boarded until they confessed (under duress) to AGW) do not contain the necessary data.
Cheers, Kevin.
@Robert Murphy, Siloch, and anyone else carrying on about “ice core evidence” or “ice cores don’t lie” and so on, while trying to claim that CO2 has never been higher or never risen as fast, etc…
We don’t have any ice core evidence. We have ice core data and ice core proxy estimations. Until you have reasonably reliable and robust instrumental data for CO2 levels, all taken fairly close to the actual ice core site, and going back far enough such that the instrumental data can be directly compared to the ice core results at a significant number of corresponding depths, there is no way to accurately calibrate the proxy. Obviously we’ve nowhere near the required instrumental data history to accomplish that.
So we have a fair amount of what is probably good science investigating ice cores and the associated quite complex chemistry and physical processes, etc., and a lot of continuing work along those lines. However, there is quite simply no way to be able to tell how accurate or inaccurate estimates of CO2 levels in the ice were compared to actual levels in the atmosphere at various historical time periods. We can say with far more confidence that typically temperatures rose first and CO2 lagged by roughly 800 years plus/minus varying amounts, because here the comparision is between values from roughly the same depth ice, incorporated during roughly the same time periods, which are then compared to each other (e.g., not nearly the need for calibration that comparison to present day values requires).
So the simple fact is that ice core data cannot provide any scientific proof or evidence that CO2 levels never got higher than xyz during previous historical warm periods such as the MWP, Holocene Optimum, etc., let alone going back to previous interglacials. Sure, the ice core proxy estimates are worth noting and keeping in mind – and even using as indicators in your arguments provided you portray them accurately – but they simply don’t prove your point, not even close.
Here’s a link to a comment on the story in Scientific American:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/2011/08/11/fox-commentator-distorts-physics/
Slioch says:
So, the information is only available from your own website and not available on a publicly available site? That is unacceptable.
Why can you not provide urls to the publicly available data?
Henry@Slioch
The data is available to the public
I just wanted to help you as I have them already sorted out in Excell, to determine the trend over time. But seeing as you don’t trust me,
you can collect the data for Easter Island yourself
here is the url:
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Isla_De_Pascua/854690.htm
(isla de pascua translates to Easter Island)
and if you can do a bit of stats you should get the same results as I did.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Let me know.
Phil. says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-720235
Hi Phil.? How are you? I remember last time we argued you could not get out of your home because it was snowed under. I hope it is going better now?
You say: “No it does not”
Don’t trust everything that you read in Wikipedia about the oxygen and nitrogen.
Have you studied the combined atmospheric absorption graphs? there is a bump over a wide wavelength area on the right hand side which is caused by the oxygen. It (the depth) is small, but like I said, it is there and the % of oxygen in the air is a lot. The back radiation from that is probably many times larger than that caused by the combined CO2 and H2O at the 14-15 um.
Anyway, I think last time we still disagreed on the principle of the green house effect and how re-radiation works. I have written it up now, seeing that this argument always comes back. Let us first see now if we are agreed on the mechanism of the greenhouse effect and the principle of re-radiation (as I see it happening)? I would appreciate to hear your opinion on it.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Robert Murphy has done a good job, with extraordinary patience, explaining, inter alia, why the MWP cannot possibly be the cause of the present rapid rise in in atmospheric CO2 and I have added a few posts giving evidence that overwhelmingly supports the inevitable rational conclusion that humans are solely responsible for that present rise. The only resort for those who refuse to believe this conclusion, has been obfuscation and denial (embellished with the occasional personal insult from Richard Courtney).
PS to Rational Debate: the CO2 measurements from ice-cores are not derived from proxies, they are from measurements of the CO2 itself. In contrast, temperature measurements from ice cores are, of course. from proxies.
@ur momisugly HenryP :
August 14, 2011 at 9:01 am
The formula is
λmax T = 2.898 x10-3 m K
so at -80C=193.15K the the peak wavelength is 15003nm, or else 15 microns
and -39C would be 12.37 microns, though this isn’t part of the c02 abbsorbtion bands for radiation. It would need to be much cooler, starting at 14 microns
“Robert, you’re conflating the Holocene with the last great stadial, which ended more than 10 millennia ago, not 2,000 years ago.”
No I’m not. I’m talking about the entire ice core, and the evidence it shows about CO2 levels over the last 400,00 years. If the ice cores show changes in temp that far exceed anything we have seen during the Holocene, and yet CO2 levels never went over 300 ppmv in the whole ice core record, the claim that a minor warming like the MWP somehow pushed CO2 levels to 390 ppmv is shown to be nonsense. Why do you want to ignore the entire record? As you said, the ice core doesn’t lie.
” And you still have not explained where your “.4C” number came from.”
From reconstruction’s of temperature for the last 2,000 years (more than just one ice sore in Greenland). The entire range of temps globally during that time is less than 1C (up to the 20th century).
“I linked to a chart in my post above showing that, in fact, there was a ≈3°C ΔT between the LIA and the MWP. ”
Actually, if you read your own chart, it said that Greenland was 1.5C warmer in the MWP height than the LIA depth, not 3C. The range was -32C to -30.5C. But that’s just one core, in one place. That’s not a proxy for the whole globe. Globally the warming was smaller.
“This slide show puts today’s extremely minor natural climate variability in perspective:”
That’s the same thing as the Jo Nova link above; the end point is “not” our present. It is 1855. Look at your Jo Nova link; even though the graph incorrectly says (Years Before Present 2000 AD), if you look at the numbers on the x-axis it ends at 95. As in 95 years before present. And present, by geological convention, is 1950. The graphs you posted are intentionally misleading. Again, here’s the data for the GISP2 ice core:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
“The time period in question is the Holocene.”
No, the period in question is the entire ice core. But I’ll play along. Let’s confine it to the Holocene. During the Holocene, the MWP is just a minor warming compared to other earlier events like the Minoan Warming or the RWP, or the earlier Holocene optimum. None of those shows up as more than a blip in the CO2 data. You want us to believe a smaller warming like the MWP caused a greater change in CO2 than them? Than the change in temps going from glacial to interglacial? How? Why? Why would the MWP produce such an increase in CO2 when the other bigger warmings didn’t?
“We don’t have any ice core evidence. We have ice core data and ice core proxy estimations.”
“Rational” debate is always easier when you get to hand wave away all the inconvenient evidence. Must come in handy.
Henry@Slioch
More carbondioxide is better for the environment. It is added to greenhouses not for keeping heat in but to stimulate growth. You get more greenery and better crops and bigger forests. It is like fertilizer born by air. A recent study by an Helsinki university found that of 70 countries checked, 45 reported more forests and greenery. Why is that you think?
And, as I have proven to you, it does not cause any global warming. Did you check my values for Easter Island??
So who cares why it gets more or who dunnit?
let us just be happy about it .
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok