What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions are not the “Climate Control Knob” ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions really are a non-problem ?
But what if there is a real Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing ?
It is the propaganda of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists that has illogically conflated Carbon Dioxide, the beneficial trace gas that sustains all life on earth and which may cause some minor warming, with real and dangerous pollutants to create the “Great Global Warming Scare / Climate Change Scare / Climate Emergency / etcetera”, with their “we are all going to fry in the next few years” narrative”.
The temperature progression of Greenland Ice Cores, (during the Holocene interglacial above), shows that each high point in the past of our current benign epoch:
has been colder than its previous high point.
For the last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, cooling has been progressing at a rate considerably higher than during the earlier Holocene that encompassed the highest temperature of the Holocene Climate Optimum.
As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old experience of previous interglacials shows that it should be ending very soon, in geological time. It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates suddenly like earlier interglacials.
As a result of the failure to appreciate elementary arithmetic, physics and biology, the Western world is being forced to indulge in a massive guilt trip, with endless predictions of impending global catastrophes. But instead it is likely that modern Holocene warming at the end of the 20th century global warming is:
- beneficial to the biosphere and Man-kind
- within normal limits
- sadly may be not now even be occurring at all.
The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a relatively small section of the Global population.
That prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.
If it is so:
- concern over CO2, as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
- it is not necessary to destroy the Western world’s economy to no purpose.
- if warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for the biosphere and mankind.
- any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
- if it is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for the biosphere and for human development.
- a warmer climate has frequently been well proven to be beneficial in the past.
- a warmer climate would now be especially beneficial for the third world.
The role of Atmospheric CO2
Apart from accepting and emphasising the the role of water vapour and clouds in the “Greenhouse Effect” these notes use conventional Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC wisdom to calculate the temperature effect of CO2. Any realistic climate policy should be based on the following points on recognising the role of natural atmospheric CO2 and Man-made CO2 emissions:
- The greater part of the Greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.
- The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it amounting to ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.
- The major role of water as vapour or clouds is fully acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.
- Nonetheless the IPCC only concentrate their alarmist views on Man-made CO2 emissions. This is hardly surprising, after all the adverse role of Man-made CO2 emissions and their supposed impact on climate is built into the IPCC mission statement and mandate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)
- The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of all plant life.
- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is therefore not pollutant.
- So atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
- Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS in plants, it supports all life on earth
- At about half the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, plant Photosynthesis falters and the world soon dies.
- In comparison with its Geological past the World is now in a period of CO2 starvation, because most of the CO2, once at least 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere when plants evolved, has since been sequestered by microscopic life in the oceans as limestone, Calcium Carbonate.
CO2 concentrations came close to the fatally low level, (~150 ppmv), during the last ice age, 110,000BC – 10,000BC. That dangerously low level of atmospheric CO2 could well be exceeded in any coming Ice Age. Colder oceans absorb more CO2 and ocean life sequesters it as limestone.
This is the way our world will eventually die of atmospheric CO2 starvation in a future glacial period.
Increasing CO2 concentration, mainly arising from slightly warmer oceans outgassing CO2, has been promoting plant growth throughout the planet and reduces the water needs of plants. According to NASA, ~15% extra green growth across the planet is already attributable to the relatively recent increase in CO2 concentration.
Man-kind as a whole contributes only a small amount of the CO2 in the Carbon cycle, (~3% per annum), and any extra atmospheric CO2 is rapidly absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere, (with a half-life probably as short as ~5 years).
Atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or mostly naturally occurring, cannot therefore be considered as a pollutant. If any extra CO2 were to have some minor warming effect, it would be all to the good.
However added CO2 from Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is unlikely to be sufficient to avoid the adverse cooling effects of the soon to be ending Holocene interglacial.
The diminishing warming effectiveness of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
In spite of the hysterical propaganda, there is no direct straight-line relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a direct control knob on Global temperature.
The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as its concentration increases. The consequence of this logarithmic diminution mean that all further CO2 induced temperature increases can now only be absolutely marginal and that there is no chance of any further Catastrophic Global warming, whether effected by Man-kind or not.
In other words there cannot be “a Climate Emergency” caused by further increases in the level of Man-made CO2.
This logarithmic diminution effect is caused by the overlapping energy wavelengths between greenhouse gasses and water vapour in the atmosphere. An analogous illustration of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be imagined as if one was painting over a window with successive layers of white paint. The first layer will still be fairly translucent, but subsequent layers will progressively reduce the translucency until the window is fully obscured and thereafter any further paint layers can make no further difference to the fact that the window is already fully obscured.
A concentration of atmospheric CO2 greater than 200 ppmv equivalent to ~77% of CO2’s Greenhouse effectiveness is essential to maintain plant life and thus all life on earth. Plant life will be extinguished with CO2 levels at ~150ppmv.
At the current level of ~400 ppmv, ~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is already exhausted: only 13% of warming effectiveness of CO2 remains.
There is now so little of the potential of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remaining that there is no possibility of ever reaching the “much feared” +2°C temperature rise or more predicted by alarmists.
From now increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and any dangerous temperature increase. The simple mathematics of increasing CO2 concentrations supporting this are set out below.
Logarithmic diminution operates as follows:
- 77% of the CO2 greenhouse effect of CO2, 0 – 200 ppmv, is essential to sustain plant life and thus all life on earth.
- Extra atmospheric CO2 very effectively fertilises plants, enhancing growth and reducing water demand
- Even if it is assumed that all the increase from 300ppmv – 400ppmv is Man-made, it could have only given 4.2% of the net Greenhouse effect, (aside from water and clouds), thus a temperature rise of between 0.14°C – 0.07°C
- A possible immediate future rise from 400ppmv – 500ppmv could only give a rise of between 0.11°C – 0.05°C
- A later rise of CO2 from 500ppmv – 1000ppmv, were it to occur, can only give an additional further rise of between 0.33°C – 0.17°C
- This ignores the IPCC statement that accepts that only 50% of the present CO2 increase is Man-made, which would reduce the range of Man-made temperature increase by CO2 values by half.
- This also ignores the assumption made in IPCC Climate models that there is massive positive and escalating feedback from further increasing CO2 emissions: even if such massive positive feedback were proven, any continuing warming from continuing CO2 emissions would still remain marginal as a result of the logarithmic diminution effect.
Alarmists have stated that levels of +2.0°C – +1.5°C to be catastrophic and sadly they have convinced most of the Western world’s politicians. It has since been admitted, via the Climategate release of emails, by the alarmist scientists at the University of East Anglia that the value of +2°C was simply “pulled from the air”.
Economically any increase up-to a further +2°C would be beneficial. Global temperatures would then approach the very abundant period of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch 110,000 years ago, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta.
It is now likely that the impact of any rise in CO2 concentrations on global temperature is not only marginally insignificant but also immeasurable, even at its greatest IPCC assessed effectiveness. In fact any temperature rise could well be beneficial.
To bring India and the Developing world, (some 4.1 billion people, ~44% of the world population), up to the current level of development of China, as represented by its present level of CO2 emissions/head, over the coming decades their CO2 emissions are bound to escalate by at least a further 20 billion tonnes per annum, (+~60%). This inevitable increase in CO2 emissions is being promoted and supported by the Chinese “Belt and Road programme” with at least 700 new Coal-fired power stations in construction or in now the pipeline.
So faced with this inevitable escalation, the political belief of Western Nations that they are able to limit Global temperature by the elimination of their own relatively small proportion of CO2 emissions from their own use of fossil fuels can now only ever have marginal, immeasurable and entirely self-harming effects.
Therefore, any de-carbonisation efforts by Western Nations are misguided and irrelevant.
Fossil fuels are a gift of nature. They are like a battery of energy created by sunlight several million years ago. Their use has enabled all the civilised development in the West world and will continue to support the growth in prosperity of the Developing world. Fossil fuels are not running out. Fracking developments can occur almost anywhere worldwide. For example there are 300 years’ worth of Coal in the UK alone.
Nonetheless there is a real Climate Catastrophe in the offing
That coming catastrophe is the exact opposite of the Climate alarmists “we are all going to fry in twelve years narrative”. It presages a very scary future for Man-kind and the biosphere and it may well in part arrive in the comparatively near-term:
- According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial.
- The world has already been cooling at ~0.14°C / millennium, ~20 times the earlier rate since ~1000 BC, before Roman times.
- But as can be seen in the rapid Recovery from the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, when temperature increased at a rate of ~+2.5°C / millennium, ~20 times the present rate of temperature diminution, the world’s Climate can change much more radically and suddenly.
- There is every reason to expect that the World could meet a similar falling temperature cliff at the coming end of our present Holocene epoch, this century, next century or this millennium, with a similar rate of decline as at the end of the previous Eemian interglacial.
- The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
- At 11,000 years old, our congenial, warm Holocene interglacial is coming towards its end. The warmth of the Holocene epoch has been responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors.
- The world is likely to revert very soon, (in geological time), to another period of true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York. With much lower sea levels the state of Western Europe only 16,000 years ago can be seen below and this may gives an idea of how the coming new Ice Age will look in due course.
- The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly concerned about, both for the biosphere and for the well-being of Man-kind.
- Some immediate cooling now seems likely in the near term, (this century), as a result of the state of the current Solar cycle.
- The weather gets worse in colder times, because of the greater energy differential that will arise between the poles and the tropics.
- Cold fatally reduces agricultural productivity.
- Cooling is already evident.
And so trying to limit the “warming effect” of Man-made CO2 emissions in the Western world will do nothing to ameliorate a coming Cold Climate Catastrophe.
There is no Man-made Global Warming climate emergency.
Spending any effort, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without:
- rigorous scientific debate
- true cost benefit analysis
- without full engineering due diligence for any proposed technical solutions
- let alone at UK / WORLD GDP scale costs, (measured in trillions),
trying to stop the UK’s 1% / the EU’s 10% or the capitalistic West’s ~30% of something that has not been happening for 3,000 years has to be monumentally ill-advised.
It should be understood that the real reason for “Green” thinking is to bring Energy and Economic catastrophe to the capitalist Western world.
Green thinking and its induced policies should be regarded as a continuation of the “Cold War”.
“Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.
The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. ….. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.”
Russia, China and India are mocking the way Western governments have been induced by their “Green” thinking to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great national cost and to no perceptible benefit. This is supported by Western “useful idiots”, (Lenin’s term). Lenin held them in utter contempt.
The developing and Eastern worlds are certainly not going to be meekly following the deranged example of the “virtue signalling” West.
Postcsript: An alternate view
All the above calculations have worked through the “IPCC conventional wisdom” on the Man-made Greenhouse effect for Global warming showing that any future Man-made effect can only be marginal in future at most.
However an alternative scientific view now justifiably asserts that the greenhouse effect is controlled virtually exclusively by cloudiness. Their view is that the Man-made contribution can only be about +0.01°C. This effectively negates any consideration at all of Man-made global warming.
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
Concluding as follows:
The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognise that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans , according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C.
Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.