The IPCC CO2 Climate Narrative: A “Behemoth On Clay Feet” …Ready To Collapse

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 6. February 2022

The earth’s history provides the solid proof that acquits CO2. The IPCC’s claim of CO2 being the dominant climate factor is a behemoth on clay feet. 

By Fred F. Mueller

Have you ever had an uneasy feeling when watching the aggressive, intolerant stance of the apologists of “man-made climate catastrophe” against all critics?

The overwhelming majority of our elites blame CO2 emitted by mankind to be responsible for “a runaway overheating” of our atmosphere. “The science” spearheaded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for us to us to renounce fossil fuels and return to the frugal lifestyle of the 18th or 19th century.

You might well find you’re not alone with that unease, which is proliferating rapidly since social media giants have started to censor people daring to question the IPCC’s “science is settled” attitude.

Figure 1. Enshrined in this fossil from the carbonate rocks on the Swedish island Gotland is CO2 taken from the system atmosphere/ocean about 400-430 million years ago (Photo: private)

First of all, when assessing climate change related topics, don’t feel cowed if you are neither a rocket scientist nor an atmospheric physicist with a doctor’s degree. Even such high-level scientists are just normal human beings getting paid for doing a job. Like most other citizens, they will do their best to fulfil the expectations of their superiors. And they will avoid putting their career at risk by criticizing the institutions that pay them a good salary. Quite naturally, they will cut corners and exaggerate the importance of their work and the contribution of their institutions to solving pressing problems of mankind.

Don’t try to beat them by arguing on the field where they have superior knowledge. The 4000-page IPCC reports and sophisticated but often dubious computer simulations are meant to impress the public and to obfuscate the basic facts of the papers that are presented.

Astonishingly easy to prove climate experts wrong

For ordinary people, the best advice is to focus on the groundwork instead. Why? Because even a layman can prove a civil engineer wrong if his building does not stand upright. In the case of climate change topics, look at known historical facts or dare to do some back-of-the-envelope assessments of what is presented. You’d be astonished how simple it often is to prove quite some high-flying scientific findings flatly wrong because their basic assumptions are inadequate.

Such weak foundations invalidate the whole superstructure no matter how impressive it looks and how much work has been invested into it. Count on your common sense and keep in mind the biblical parable of the behemoth on clay feet.

Our earth’s history tells us “inconvenient truths”

One of the most popular tricks used when we are presented with climate predictions is that their proponents simply blank out the facts in parts of earth’s history that would not be in line with their claims. Our planet started as a white-hot molten lava sphere some 4.5 billion years ago. Over a timespan of just a few hundred million years, it cooled from several thousand °C to below 100 °C, the precondition for the first oceans to appear. And since that event, at least some 3.8 billion years ago, the earth’s cooling virtually stopped. Up to now, temperatures have stayed within a narrow range between 0 °C and maybe 60-80 °C. The undeniable proof for this is that organic life has been present on our planet since at least 3,45 million years 1), with geneticists even pushing this limit to more than 4 billion years ago. Furthermore, these genetic records suggest that since there has been no interruption in this heritage chain, temperature levels can never have strayed too far from this temperature window.

Planet earth thus has a fantastic thermostat that kicked in when oceans appeared and has kept temperatures in an astonishingly narrow range ever since. It functioned well throughout incredible catastrophes like giant asteroid impacts, changing chemistry of atmosphere and oceans, seismic catastrophes, formidable volcanic eruptions and a steadily increasing level of solar radiation.

To get an idea of what earth must have gone through, just look at the scars on the moon’s surface in a clear night. We received at least the same bombardment, but oceans, tectonic movements and erosion have graciously glossed over most of the marks.

Figure 2. After earth had formed, temperatures dropped very quickly to below 100°C and remained within the narrow window that supports life ever since (Graphic: Author)

No engineer would could ever been able to imagine and install a planetary thermostat with such a fail-safe design and the ability to readjust after brutal challenges and changing operating conditions throughout such an immense period of time. It was simply unique. Until, that is, computers gave some clever people the ability to program climate simulations that stipulate that we are just a few years short of reaching a no-return tipping point that will ultimately extinguish mankind, if not all life on earth as well.

Why climatologists use terms like “unprecedented” or “never seen before”?

The incredibly turbulent and notwithstanding astonishingly stable climate history of earth holds many examples of conditions and extremes that are unknown to most contemporaries, with the exception of a small number of paleo-specialists.

Even worse, the scientific base of modern meteorology is very recent and barely spans more than about 150 years. And the worldwide network of weather stations had many blind spots and blank areas sometimes well into the 20th century.

Real global monitoring could only start when weather satellites started orbiting the globe since the early 1960s. The scientific basis for long-term analyses of weather and climate is thus quite short. For events further back in time, we have to rely on patchy historic records and proxies such as tree rings, dripstones or air bubbles trapped in glaciers.

Figure 3. Atmospheric CO2 levels since ca. 570 million years ago established by Berner. The parameter RCO2 characterizes the ratio of CO2 in the historic atmosphere compared to the pre-industrial level of ca. 300 ppm (Graphic: Berner 2))

Flatly ignoring these shortcomings, many climatologists tend to extend the time span of their hypotheses as far back as possible by using terms such as “unprecedented”, “record high temperature” or “worst ever event”. Whenever you stumble across such claims, you should become very careful and make sure your wallet is well secured. Saving the climate is the costliest endeavor humanity has ever tried to tackle. The climatologist’s narratives simply phase out the major parts of our earth’s history when atmospheric CO2 and temperature levels were strikingly different.

Figure 4. Estimate of Phanerozoic global surface temperatures of planet earth based on research by C. Scotese (Graphic: User:DeWikiMan, Wikimedia Commons3))

Fortunately, there are paleontological findings that enable us to get a reasonably realistic notion of the ups and downs of CO2 and temperature levels during the past some 590 million years. We thus know that over very long time periods, CO2 levels well exceeded the mark of 1,000 ppm, in fact reaching levels between 6,000 and 8,000 ppm early in the Cambrian period, Figures 3, 4.

Today earth is on the cold side

Figure 5 combines both pictures with CO2 levels and temperatures arranged over the same time axis. It can be clearly seen that there is a striking disconnect between CO2 pressure and temperatures. Global temperatures have ranged between more than 25 °C and down to 10 °C. Our current climate is one of the coldest our planet has gone through during the last ca. 600 million years.

These findings contradict the current warnings of a catastrophic global warming allegedly caused by the current “excessive” CO2 levels of about 420 ppm.

Life on earth thrived with more than 6,000-8,000 ppm CO2 as well as down to current levels of a few hundred ppm and with temperatures mostly largely exceeding while at other times falling well below our current normal of 15°C.

Figure 5. Prehistoric CO2 levels and temperatures since the Cambrian period (500-590 million years B.P.) Graphic: www.geocraft.com 4.

Of course, these facts haven’t pleased everybody in the well-funded and tightly-knit community of climatologists. A related chapter in the German version of Wikipedia for example cautions that “comparisons and conclusions with the present are problematic since the historic conditions (e.g. the reduced level of solar radiation and the absence of vegetation on land) completely prohibit the applicability with respect to the current Holocene period.”

This is a weak argument that simply tries to obfuscate that completely irrespective of the atmospheric models advanced to explain the evolution of the climate in these times, the following facts remain undisputed:

  1. A) temperatures on earth have exceeded the current level by as much as 20 °C for longer periods of time than not, and
  2. B) CO2 levels have reached up to 6,000-8,000 ppm.

Why would 17°C be catastrophic?

So why should we believe that a temperature rise of just 1.5 to 2 °C from the current approx. 15 °C would be catastrophic for life on earth?

Figure 6. The enormous limestone masses of the Swiss Jura mountain chain have been built by corals and other shell-secreting marine creatures (Photo: private)

And these facts directly imply two other major points against the current climate narratives. We are constantly subjected to a stream of alarming news about coral reefs allegedly dying from high temperatures and “ocean acidification by CO2”. Both claims are invalidated by the fact that during hundreds of millions of years of much more adverse conditions, corals were so successful that they even defined their own geological era: the Jurassic. This name is derived from that of a Swiss mountain chain completely consisting of massive calcium carbonate rocks built from the shells of dead corals and other shell-secreting organisms.

Comparably massive limestone formations can be found on all continents, and we will later see that they played a key role in a specific biogeochemical mechanism that filtered absolutely tremendous amounts of CO2 from our atmosphere and oceans. This CO2 was sequestered away from the biological cycle by binding it in rocks where it will remain nearly eternally. Hadn’t that happened, we would nowadays have atmospheric conditions comparable to those on the planet Venus, with a pressure of 90 bars while temperatures reach up to 470 °C.

Corals have done well at much higher temperatures, CO2 levels

Contemporary corals are direct descendants of creatures that supported water temperatures and CO2 levels far above what they currently experience in our tropic oceans. Likewise, articles claiming that atmospheric CO2 levels of more than 400 ppm cause a life-threatening “acidification” of our oceans should be read with contempt. The same applies to publications claiming corals would succumb to ocean overheating and/ or acidification.

Fred F. Mueller

Sources:

1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms 20ago.

2.) earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html

3.) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki.svg

4.) https://medium.com/last-600-million-years-f83169a68046

4.9 37 votes
Article Rating
105 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
February 6, 2022 6:12 pm

Crying “wolf”, when it is at most a Chihuahua. It may be real, but harmless.

Sara
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 7, 2022 5:49 am

If it’s all about WARM vs COLD, my (very rough) bar chart shows that there were repeated prolonged cold periods over the last 18,000 years, and that this entire bit of nonsense is, as people posting articles on WUWT indicate, mostly baloney. All those warm periods prior to our current environmental state were laced with cold episodes, and all those cold periods were dotted with warm episodes.

So the entire thing that the Greenbeaners have cooked up is essentially a scam meant to line the pockets of the know-it-alls, and not much else. There’s no “switch” that turns on the warmth or shuts it off. It’s entirely dependent on the Earth minding its own business.

Mr.
February 6, 2022 6:36 pm

“global warming” and “climate change” are only topics of concern / discussion for 7% of all the people who currently live on planet Earth.

The other 93% ( ~  6,510,000,000 people) have much more pressing matters to worry about.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Mr.
February 6, 2022 10:37 pm

I don’t know where you get your percentages. Saying 7% of the global population have any concern about global warming seems high. I would guess it’s closer to 1% and only due to the elitists pushing the narrative via legacy media outlets and western school indoctrination.

Mr.
Reply to  Brad-DXT
February 6, 2022 11:08 pm

Assumption.
Just like yours and every other number mentioned in any aspect of global warming.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Mr.
February 6, 2022 11:25 pm

That’s right, global warming discussions always include assumptions and made up numbers. Silly me 😉

Mark
Reply to  Brad-DXT
February 7, 2022 12:49 am

As they say….88% of statistics are made up.

in our case, we should probably say 97% I guess….

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Brad-DXT
February 7, 2022 1:49 am

I guess the concerned are the people who directly or indirectly benefit from the 2 Trillion + Dollars the green blob is making at the moment.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Brad-DXT
February 7, 2022 2:51 am

I try discussing the climate issue with many people- few show any interest other than a few who are climatistas and live only to save the planet from the evil fossil fuel companies. Maybe 1% at the most of the entire population of the planet ponder this concern. And that would mean 70,000,000- probably way too high. More like 7,000.

Mike Dubrasich
February 6, 2022 6:40 pm

Yep. Here on Planet Earth it has almost always been warmer than today. The geo-historical normative global temperature is 10°C-20°C warmer than at present.

Warmer was better then, and warmer would be better now and in the future.

The paranoia about possible future warmth displayed by the Elites and their minions is entirely without rational foundation. The CAGW Movement is based on sheer madness in denial of history, fact, and common sense.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
February 7, 2022 12:15 am

CO2 around 1000ppm would be better, too. Sadly there are not enough fossil fuels available to produce this ideal world.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
February 7, 2022 12:54 am

But there’s plenty limestone – all we need are sufficient nukes to cook the stuff

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 7, 2022 8:28 am

Just build more with concrete

Dean
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
February 7, 2022 4:25 am

While I agree that warmer is better, the period over the last 30m odd years is not that much warmer. Most of life evolved in the last 30m years in temps of around 17 degrees.

Last edited 6 months ago by Dean
Rocketscientist
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
February 7, 2022 8:57 am

No engineer would could ever been able to imagine and install a planetary thermostat with such a fail-safe design and the ability to readjust after brutal challenges and changing operating conditions throughout such an immense period of time.”

Heck yes, we do the planetary scale imagining part. It’s the installation that is the tough part.

Bob
February 6, 2022 6:44 pm

Another good big picture article. The big picture is what matters.

February 6, 2022 6:53 pm

Great article. Makes me want to sing about CO2 … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKwm0IkNTR8

Scissor
Reply to  John Shewchuk
February 6, 2022 7:22 pm

Yes, very nice article and nice song.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Shewchuk
February 7, 2022 6:24 am

I like your videos, John: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpNje5Hgfp0VGL0u2uQmRQg/videos

especially “China accepts climate change” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Obi1612pE&t=38s which shows a massive train system China built to transport coal

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 6:38 am

Thanks again for your comments and support. I don’t care for China’s politics, but at least they understand climate alarmism is a hoax — as we should.

February 6, 2022 6:56 pm

There are no recent temp records because the temps in the past have certainly been hotter and colder everywhere. The current disagreements over climate are mostly political – not only scientific. Al Gore is the poster boy for the whole thing….he is not a scientist ….he has made over a $100 million from books…movies…etc. Pols like Joey Biden proclaim “listen to me kiddo…we are gonna get rid of fossil fuels”. Climate has been cycling from warmer to cooler for the last 8000 years with cycles taking several centuries each. It is about time for another downturn…not really something to look forward to….another Little Ice Age. At least CO2 is up from a dangerously low level.

commieBob
February 6, 2022 7:01 pm

Both claims are invalidated by the fact that during hundreds of millions of years of much more adverse conditions, corals were so successful that they even defined their own geological era: the Jurassic.

Thing 1 – We look at Figure 5 and see that temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher during the Jurassic than today, and the corals obviously thrived.

Thing 2 – The oceans contain around 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. How much would the ocean’s pH change if you could get all the atmosphere’s CO2 into the ocean? Hmmm. It would change the amount of CO2 in the ocean by around 2%.

Last edited 6 months ago by commieBob
commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
February 6, 2022 7:36 pm

Thing 3 – If CO2 causes the Earth’s surface to be warmer, how come the Sahara isn’t hotter than the surface of the Moon?

mcswell
Reply to  commieBob
February 6, 2022 7:45 pm

It is, at night. The surface of the moon (that is, the top layer of the regolith) experiences temperature swings of hundreds of degrees between day and night.

commieBob
Reply to  mcswell
February 6, 2022 8:11 pm

So, if it causes the nights to be warmer, why doesn’t it cause the days to be warmer also?

Reply to  commieBob
February 6, 2022 10:19 pm

The ONLY reason the surface of the moon appears to be cooler at night than that of a desert it is because of the earth’s atmosphere from which of course the measurements of Earth’s mean temperature are taken as being the “surface temperature”. The mean temperature of 288 K (15 .C) is because the atmosphere is effectively inert except for radiation from greenhouse gases. During the day the earth warms to a mean temperature (from all areas in daylight) to a temperature of a little above 288 K. At night it retains most of this energy slowly, just as does the air in a heat wave which transfers heat from Mongolia to the edge of the arctic circle where summer temperatures in say the Russian city of Novosibirsk suffer summer temperatures for weeks of over 40 C, while in the winter they are down to -40 C. Over night the air cools slowly till morning through contact with the cooling soil and from radiation from GHGs. However, the cooling to the soil is much less efficient than the warming by the same contact, because during the day the lowest layer is the hottest causing micro-turbulence, turbulence and convection while at night the lowes layer is coolest and heat transfer depends only on very slow conduction through the thin layer of air at the bottom. Cooling carries on until a little after sunrise. The actual earth’s surface skin radiates and cools much further although the soil retains heat also as would the surface of the moon. Frost forms on the ground before it forms on trees and fences because the ground surface is cooler than the air above – being in most cases about 30 C to 5 C colder depending on the latitude at only a metre higher in the air, as is shown by many careful measurements. At midday only, is the ground actually as warm as the air above with a temperature inversion persisting at other times during the day.The fact is that greenhouse gases have absolutely nothing to do with the mean temperature being 288 K and NOT the IPCC’s “Effective Emission Temperature” of 255 K + 33 K from GHGs. Other principles of physics also confirm this to be the case. No effective back radiation from CO2 actually occurs for example. John Nicol PhD (Physics)

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  John Nicol
February 7, 2022 2:49 am

Earth isn’t 288K unless you have 2 suns. One heating the northern hemisphere (19C) and another heating the southern hemisphere (11C) at the same time((11+19/2=15C). Earth is 278.5K((2+9/2=5.5C) as the 23 degree movement of the sun makes the northern hemisphere freezing line at 47° degrees(latitude) while the other hemisphere freezing line is 63° degrees. No external heat source above 67 degrees latitude for either hemisphere (winter) means, that part cools below the effective emission temperature 255K. In fact Antarctic average doesn’t get above the effective emission temperature till February before cooling starts. What’s does earth have that the moon doesn’t have. Fluid motion. Fast moving molecules effects temperature(stops earth’s atmosphere cooling at moons rate). Once cooled by 240+(40 absorbed heat), cooling stops to pressure temperature(-66C). Ocean heat content matching the average solar input (278.5K 5.5°C or 5.5 x 1024).48% of sunlight heats the tropics of which 24% is lost at the north pole and 24% is lost at the south pole. Making earth’s energy imbalance to zero. 52% of sunlight escapes to space through the atmospheric window. 240(earth’s emission) + 527 (outgoing radiation). Trace gases (known as greenhouse gases) motion is slower than the main gases nitrogen and oxygen. This is because of conduction of more heat and under much greater force of pressure. Atmosphere is more compressed near the poles making solar penetration (weaker sun) even less than near the tropics(stronger sun) especially over dry land. Moisture cools the air as motion (through evaporation ) increases. Land surface (dry air) has no movement so heats faster. Up to 67C at 5cm height(desert).Fluid motion removes an amount of heat from one area and heats another area if colder (known as heatwaves). Opposite for cold waves. Arctic mass of polar air doesn’t stay over the arctic the whole winter. It moves around (known as a polar vortex when over lower latitudes).Long lying snow over large land areas will get as low as -60C (under dry air conditions) due to increasing heat loss. Trace gases combined heat is below 100 watts in the middle atmosphere(not per square meter of the surface). Compressed earth’s heated air 340 watts is per square meter of the earth. Earth’s surface emission band is within the atmospheric window 9-14 and not within 1-16 micrometers infrared band. This represents whole atmosphere earth system.

commieBob
Reply to  John Nicol
February 7, 2022 5:30 am

Indeed.

If you do the physics for an Earth with no atmosphere but where the heat is perfectly distributed, you get a surface temperature of 279K.

I took the area of the Earth’s disk multiplied by the solar constant for the incoming power. I then used SB to calculate the surface temperature of the sphere.

This Guy used a different method but got the same result.

As far as I can tell, the 33K that is attributed to the greenhouse effect is greatly over stated.

Last edited 6 months ago by commieBob
Jim Gorman
Reply to  John Nicol
February 7, 2022 5:42 am

At night it retains most of this energy slowly,”

The earth’s surface “radiates” based upon its temperature. If the sun is not there to furnish energy, the earth’s surface cools due to continued radiation. The earth does not “store” energy. It is either cooling or warming, entropy rules.

My first sceptic thought was why do deserts cool so much at night compared to other areas if CO2 causes warming and is well mixed. There can be only one answer – water vapor is the control knob, and not CO2. The lack of H2O also explains the warmness of the desert since little sunlight is reflected, absorbed, or refracted by H2O.

commieBob
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 7, 2022 6:07 am

James Hansen’s runaway global warming is caused by a little heating due to enhanced CO2 which then evaporates more water which then causes more warming. So, CAGW depends on water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas.

What amuses the heck out of me is that the alarmists then try to ignore water vapor and try to limit the discussion to non-condensing greenhouse gases.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2022 7:08 am

The problem is that H2O is a condensing vapor releasing heat at altitude and not at the surface. Secondly, by condensing, H2O becomes clouds thereby reducing the sunlight reaching reaching the Earth’s surface – selflimiting.

mal
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 7, 2022 10:06 am

It takes a lot more energy to heat a moist air. This summer in Arizona we had a number of 90F days when the average temperature of s summer day is 104 to 106. In fact we had more 90 F day this year than all the other years from 2007. I moved down here in 2007. There had been on one or two July Augest day that had a high only in the nineties since then. The reason was we had a wet summer for Arizona and when our dew points are in the 60s or above we don’t see extreme heat.

Radical Rodent
Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2022 2:41 am

Because the Sahara is cooled by the atmosphere above it. The air is heated by conduction with the surfaces; now, warmer air is less dense, therefore rises, known as convection, and cooler air moves in below it. This is how the energy is dispersed throughout the atmosphere, not just over deserts, but everywhere. At night, as the surfaces cool by radiation to space (assuming that there is little or no cloud cover), the opposite occurs; however, air cooled by contact with the surface increases in density, thus, on a horizontal surface, will not go anywhere, if there is no outside force, such as a breeze, to move it. Thus, it is possible for surfaces in a tropical desert (such as the Sahara), over which there is rarely any cloud to interfere with the radiation process, to get below freezing.

mal
Reply to  Radical Rodent
February 7, 2022 10:08 am

I have seen frost on the dog park grass here in Mesa when the ambient temperature never got below 40.

Radical Rodent
Reply to  mal
February 7, 2022 3:55 pm

Same reason; the surfaces radiated energy out on a clear night (despite the presence of CO2), and, with no air movement, only the air in contact with the surface lost energy by conduction. I have seen similar in Yorkshire, a ground frost, with the thermometer about 1 m above the ground showing 5°C. I have also slipped on ice while in the Persian Gulf area, while being dressed comfortably in warm-weather clothing.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2022 1:55 am

Look at is the massive CO2 peak during the Cambrian (if this is real: very high error bars). The temperature on the other hand during this period was a flatliner! This alone would be an excellent argument that CO2 has no direct effect on temperature.

JCM
February 6, 2022 7:13 pm

Net changes to IR radiation by greenhouse gas concentration is not relevant to temperature in the lower troposphere. OLR will always be maximized.

If Earth cannot adequately dissipate heat by radiation from low altitude the adiabat is surpassed and the heat dissipation by latent and/or sensible heat to altitude is enhanced. This is always the case to some degree. A change in CO2 results in a change to the efficiency of heat delivery aloft, to radiate from where the IR window is wider. 

Additionally, greater cloud condensation dries the upper atmosphere opening the IR window wider still, and increases outgoing SW. Furthermore, greater water vapor content at low altitude increases the overall efficiency of non radiation heat dissipation.

The flux density by non radiation K is dynamic in magnitude, space, and altitude and responds immediately to radiation perturbations.

This part of atmospheric dynamics can not be tested in laboratory gas radiation experiments and has been omitted in error. These processes appear to work in concert keeping the greenhouse effect stable. OLR remains invariably 2/3 of surface flux. Radiation models alone will never describe the full picture of the greenhouse effect.

JCM
Reply to  JCM
February 6, 2022 7:34 pm

The 2/3 ratio constraint is more accurately described by adiabatic process, atmospheric mass and density profile. It seems reasonable this could be free to vary over geologic timescales.

Chris Hanley
February 6, 2022 7:23 pm

So why should we believe that a temperature rise of just 1.5 to 2 °C from the current approx. 15 °C would be catastrophic for life on earth?

The 1.5C and 2C supposed dangerous thresholds are above the presumed ‘pre-industrial’ global av. temperature and as currently the planet is claimed to already be ~1C above that it will take only a 0.5C rise before the the end of the world.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 6, 2022 8:13 pm

“For ordinary people, the best advice is to focus on the groundwork instead. Why? Because even a layman can prove a civil engineer wrong if his building does not stand upright. In the case of climate change topics, look at known historical facts or dare to do some back-of-the-envelope assessments of what is presented. You’d be astonished how simple it often is to prove quite some high-flying scientific findings flatly wrong because their basic assumptions are inadequate.
Such weak foundations invalidate the whole superstructure no matter how impressive it looks and how much work has been invested into it. Count on your common sense …”

According to the IPCC we have already warmed about 1.1C. This is with an increase in CO2 from about 280 to 420 ppm. Add the same amount of CO2 again, to get to 560 ppm, and if the alarmists are right, we get another 1.1C. Given that in the tropics, the average temperature is already about 31C – think the temperatures for Singapore that you see on the daily global weather forecasts, and that in the temperate regions the daily temp. fluctuates 10C or more, there should be NO WORRY about this extra 1.1C.

A back of the envelope calculation that shoots down all the guff from the Alarmists. QED.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
February 7, 2022 1:15 am

Any BoE calculation will tell you that the lowered Albedo from the simple business of Tillage will cause temperatures to rise.
You don’t even need to do that, just go ask a farmer using a plough why he is ‘using a plough

The farmer you ask will be working land beyond/above 40 degrees of latitude. (There is no decent farmland below 40 degrees – except under existing Rainforest)

The farmer will tell you it is to prepare a seedbed for his intended crop and what he wants are 2 main things

  1. Friable soil = soil that is not in big clumps = soil that will ‘wrap’ around his seeds ensuring better faster stronger germination
  2. Warmth. The plough is exposing dark coloured soil to the sun, which has 2 main effects. Its low albedo compared to the greenery that the plough is burying warms it up but also dries it out and dry soil warms faster than wet soil

And that second thing is all you need to know about Climate Change
That’s before we get into Urban Heat islands and de-forestation

We got away lightly with the crappy little fractions of a degree warming – The Thermostat sorted it….

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 7, 2022 12:42 pm

There is no decent farmland below 40 degrees – except under existing Rainforest.

Might be you oughta look at a map, city girl from Newark. All of Missouri and down to the southern tip of Texas, specifically.

Farmers do till to get an even seedbed, but they don’t do it for solar powered warmth. They do it to kill the bugs and wipe out the weeds.

HotScot
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
February 7, 2022 1:19 am

Bearing in mind that mankind contributes some 3%-4% of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Include that in a calculation and it turns out it would take around 25,000 years for man to warm the planet by 2ºC.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
February 7, 2022 5:07 am

“According to the IPCC we have already warmed about 1.1C.”

That claim was about the year 2016, which is statistically tied with 1998 as the warmest year in the Satellite era.

Currently, the temperature is 0.7C cooler than the highpoint of 2016, so that has to be subtracted from the 1.1C figure. The IPCC is living in the past.

The UAH satellite chart:

comment image

Last edited 6 months ago by Tom Abbott
Frank
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 9:36 am

Regardless of much warmer it actually is, it’s clearly NOT FROM INCREASED CO2.
 
https://rclutz.com/2022/01/12/uah-confirms-global-warming-gone-end-of-2021/

global_warming_Schoeneveld.png
H.R.
February 6, 2022 7:25 pm

Figure 5 said it all for me. I ran across that graph years ago when I was first investigating the claims that CO2-based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was going to cause the oceans to boil away.

Even with the large error margins, it was clear that the Earth had CO2 levels in the thousands of ppm, and the oceans didn’t boil away. It was also pretty clear that CO2 was not the control knob for the Earth’s temperature.

Since then, I’ve been more interested in following the money and who benefits. And then there is the political aspect: CO2 alarmism is the one global problem that would need a global solution, and a global solution would require eliminating fossil fuel use and a One World Government. Ummmm… no thanks.

I’m also old enough to remember the Global Cooling alarmism. Wonder of Wonders, the solution was the same. We’d need to stop using fossil fuels and form a One World Government.

Why can’t the GEB (Globalist Evil Bastard) elites just be honest with everyone and come right out with it? Just tell all the serfs that they want to rule the World and the rest of us can just shut up and do as we’re told. We’ll own nothing and be happy… or else.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  H.R.
February 7, 2022 12:19 am

Stuff that. I want to lynch the psychopaths.

Leo Smith
Reply to  H.R.
February 7, 2022 1:15 am

Since then, I’ve been more interested in following the money and who benefits. And then there is the political aspect: CO2 alarmism is the one global problem that would need a global solution, and a global solution would require eliminating fossil fuel use and a One World Government. Ummmm… no thanks.

In a nutshell…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  H.R.
February 7, 2022 5:52 am

It’s the new “space race”. People including “climate scientists” saw an opportunity to derive financial gain like the space race tech companies did in the 60’s thru the 80’s. They are not going to let go willingly.

February 6, 2022 7:25 pm

The war against fossil fuel producers is a peg leg made of clay. Claiming that all natural emissions of CO2 are balanced out by natural sinks but only about half of fossil fuel emissions by the same sinks. Natural emissions are at least 20 times greater than emissions from burning fossil fuel. A five percent increase in natural emissions is the same magnitude as all fossil fuel emissions.So just a small year to year increase in natural emissions can account for the observed increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Reply to  Fred Haynie
February 6, 2022 9:25 pm
Vincent
February 6, 2022 11:03 pm

“First of all, when assessing climate change related topics, don’t feel cowed if you are neither a rocket scientist nor an atmospheric physicist with a doctor’s degree. Even such high-level scientists are just normal human beings getting paid for doing a job. Like most other citizens, they will do their best to fulfil the expectations of their superiors. And they will avoid putting their career at risk by criticizing the institutions that pay them a good salary. Quite naturally, they will cut corners and exaggerate the importance of their work and the contribution of their institutions to solving pressing problems of mankind.”

This is a good point, that I’ve in bold. I think it applies to most employees in most businesses or organizations. If one wants to keep one’s job and get promotion, as most people so, then one should avoid providing information or opinions which undermine the over-all purpose of the organization.

For example, if one were a Bank employee, it would not be sensible to express disagreement with the Bank’s purpose of making a good profit and assert that the Chief Executive’s salary is much too high.

When the alarm about global warming due to CO2 emissions first became an issue, I accepted the claims by certain scientists who were interviewed on the media, that ocean acidification was occurring and extreme weather events were getting worse, and a catastrophic tipping point could occur if we didn’t reduce our emissions.

I initially accepted this ‘alarmism’ because I had very little background knowledge of the Earth’s history of climate change and extreme weather events. However, because I have a general interest in scientific matters, and the history and philosophy of science, this new subject of climate change grabbed my attention and I began searching the internet for answers to questions which were never answered by the scientists who were interviewed on the media.

The first issue I remember quite well, was the assertion of ‘ocean acidification’ that was taking place. I understood the explanation from the interviewed scientists, that CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid, but I was rather puzzled that in none of these interviews was it ever mentioned whether the oceans were currently acidic, neutral, or alkaline.

Most gardeners understand that the pH of the soil can significantly affect plant growth. Some plants thrive in slightly acidic soils, and others in slightly alkaline soils. So what is the average pH of the oceans, I wondered. Are the oceans supposed to be neutral, or slightly acidic, or slightly alkaline? Why do these famous scientists being interviewed never mention what the average pH of the oceans is, and how much it has changed during the past century or more?

After doing my own research on the internet, I discovered, from numerous reliable sites, that the average pH of the oceans surfaces was 8.1, which is very alkaline, and that before the industrial revolution around 150 years ago, it is estimated to have been around 8.2. A fall of 0.1 pH didn’t seem at all alarming to me.

After doing further research, which included reading peer-reviewed articles on the internet, I learned that the pH of the oceans varies considerably according to the depth of the ocean, the location, and the season of the year. There is constant upwelling and downwelling and changes in pH values which are much greater that this ‘average ocean-surface’ change of 0.1pH over a 150 year period.

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the logarithmic pH scale, a pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic, and above 7 is alkaline.
A change from 8.2 to 8.1 doesn’t appear alarming, but climate alarmists, such as those on Skepticalscience.com, will point out that such a change represents a 30% increase in acidity. Now, that does sound alarming!

However, doing further research, I came across the following NOAA article which addressed this issue of converting pH changes of acidity into percentage changes. A change from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 is a percentage change of 26%. Not quite as great as 30%, but still alarming if one assumes that a 100% change reaches neutral. But a 100% change is not nearly neutral. According to the NOAA site it’s only 7.9, a long way from neutral. A pH change from 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, represents a 900% reduction in acidity.

https://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Percent+change+in+acidity

pH in percentage change.jpg
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Vincent
February 7, 2022 5:56 am

It is a problem all throughout climate science. Just trumpet the mean of a phenomena and forget the standard deviation. You really can’t have one without the other and obtain any information from a quote of only one.

Vincent
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 7, 2022 6:15 am

I made a mistake in the last sentence of my post. ‘A pH change from 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, represents a 900% increase in acidity’, not a decrease, as I wrote. Why did no-one correct me? (wink)

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
February 6, 2022 11:16 pm

Up to now, temperatures have stayed within a narrow range between 0 °C and maybe 60-80 °C. This is another planet not earth. That fits the planet with a greenhouse effect. And assumes earth is 15C (0-30C). Earth’s narrow range is actually -66 to 57°C. Earth is like a central heating system. Boiler (sun) at 90 degrees in the sky, bringing sea temperature (water) to 480 watts which flows through the pipes(ocean currents) to the radiators (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian) heating the earth. The longer the pipe the less heat that reaches other parts of the earth(arctic ocean, Antarctic). Where temperatures get as low as -66C(both at surface and average tropopause). Average temperature of this planet has a low of 4C and a high of 9C (northern hemisphere 2-19C, southern hemisphere 2-9C).

OfficialGlobalTemperature.png
pulsar
February 6, 2022 11:25 pm

To me it is silly to use Temperature as a metric for climate. We name biomes basically by either their: water content, water phases, humidity, precipitation, water cycle; or by the plants that thrive there. So climate should also be measured by changes in water and plants and not by temperature.

Examples: desert, arctic, tundra, swamp, river, ocean, sea, lake, lagoon, rain forest, forest, grassland, savanna, glacier, tropics, temperate, etc.

Graemethecat
Reply to  pulsar
February 6, 2022 11:57 pm

This is the old Koppen climate classification. (There should be an umlaut over the “O”).

Leo Smith
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 7, 2022 1:20 am

…as in Köppen…? My keyboard has ways…thanks to the Power of Linux…

Graemethecat
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2022 2:21 am

Indeed. I haven’t yet learned a way of rendering accents on my crappy QWERTY keyboard without going into WORD and using cut-and-paste.

Climate believer
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 7, 2022 3:10 am

It’s very easy, turn on Num Lock, press and hold the Alt key on your keyboard whilst you type the character’s alt code on the numeric keypad.

The alt code for Umlaut o is 0246.

Quick search for alt codes will change your life.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 7, 2022 3:48 am

Hold down left alt key, type 0246 on number pad, release alt key for lowercase “ö”, alt+0214 for uppercase “Ö”. Also useful here is alt+0186 for superscript “º” as in “15.3ºC”

More in windows character map program.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
February 8, 2022 12:23 am

Thanks, guys. I never knew that!

Joao Martins
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 7, 2022 3:58 am

I had that very same problem because in Portuguese all vowels can carry several accents…

If you have the accents showing in your keyboard (to the left of the big “Enter” key), an easy way is to go to “Control Panel”, then chose “Keyboard” or “Local” or “Language”, depending on the version of Windows (they are always changing) and configure your keyboard as “English-International” or “American- International” (can’t remember: divorced Windows a dozen years ago): the point is the type of keeyboard being “International”.

When it is configured “International”, when you press an “accent” touch the system will wait until you press the next touch; then, if that letter can carry that accent, you will get it; if not, the accent will be printed and the next pressed letter will follow it.

This applies to the four “main accents: ” ´ ` ^ ~ “; the tilde can go on top of most (can’t remember if all of them) vowels and also on the Spanish “n”. Everything is the same if after the accent you press “Shift” and a letter: will insert the uppercase accented.

The umlaut is introduced with the double quote: ” ” “. You will see that this touch also waits for the next letter; usually, that will not create a mistake, unless you are writing inside quotes something starting with some vowel that can carry an umlaut; in this case, just touch twice the double-quote.

You can also input a ” ç “: the comma will also wait for next character; if it is a ” c”, you will get a cedilla. Again, in case of mistake (can’t remember if Windows also put a cedilla under ” s “), just hit the comma twice.

This method using “International” keyboard is a rough but nice and easy approach to the Power of Linux… It mimics the old typewriting machines: input accent first, then the letter. And you only have to change once the keyboard configuration in the “Control Panel”. Except for those very few cases where a mistaken letter can be input (as I described), everything will work just the same.

If you don’t have touches with the accents (your keyboard is rather old), then using NumLock and the “Alt” combination is the way to go (but more dificult: you have to memorize the several numeric codes of accents).

Last edited 6 months ago by Joao Martins
pulsar
Reply to  pulsar
February 7, 2022 8:24 am

How did my comment degenerated into a keyboard topic? Hahahahahaha. Like you are saying this is insignificant.
Yet, climate is not about temperature. The mountain range that divides Peru shows the stark contrast between a rain forest and a desert side by side sitting in the same latitude. Climate is more than just temperature yet climate scientists dumb it down to just one variable.

Lil-Mike
February 6, 2022 11:32 pm

To me, there’s only one plot you need. I start off with stating the obvious. Global warming is melting polar ice and glaciers raising sea level at an accelerating rate. Sea water is warming and expanding causing global sea level rise at an accelerating rate. If these things are true, we see this reflected in the NOAA sea level data.

I pull NOAA sea level data from: San Francisco, CA; or Battery Park, NY. These data sets go back before the Civil war, 1854 for SF data. According to the IPCC AR5, CO2 wasn’t of high enough concentration to affect the temperature until about 1950. The NOAA sea level data however shows a steady sea level rise of about 2mm/yr from 1854 to 1950, and similar rise from 1950 to today. So we have 170 years of fairly steady sea level rise despite—now is a good time to throw in the word—catastrophic CO2 rise. We see catastrophic CO2 rise, and steady pre-CO2 sea level rise data. Where is the catastrophe?

To find the NOAA sea level data, google up “NOAA sea level tides and currents.”

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Lil-Mike
February 7, 2022 12:23 am

Catastrophic CO2 levels would be below 200ppm. The whole planet would die.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Lil-Mike
February 7, 2022 1:23 am

According to the IPCC AR5, CO2 wasn’t of high enough concentration to affect the temperature until about 1950.

Curiously enough, another event occurred around that time. Routine exhausting of large quantities of water vapour by chemical engines, into the stratosphere.

That stopped increasing around 911, and has not increased much since, and has decreased during the pandemic…

…I wonder….

Last edited 6 months ago by Leo Smith
Vincent
Reply to  Lil-Mike
February 7, 2022 6:36 am

It seems fairly certain from Paleontology studies that sea levels were approximately 120 metres lower than today, around 20,000 years ago. That means that the average rate of sea level rise during the past 20,000 years has been around 6 mm per year.

20,000 years ago, this large Australian continent was about 1/3rd larger than it is today, and the low sea levels made it much easier for the Aboriginals to reach Australia and perhaps walk across the straits from Papua New Guinea during low tides.

DD More
Reply to  Lil-Mike
February 7, 2022 4:54 pm

L-M, except from the Presidio gauge, which has measured the bay’s rise and fall for 150 years. Over the years, the gauges also showed a gradual rise in the sea level — eight inches in 150 years. However, there was also a period of 38 years, ending in 1913, when the sea level declined.

Also, the highest tide ever recorded was on Jan. 27, 1983, when the surface of the water at the Golden Gate reached 8.78 feet above mean sea level. 1983 high tide accompanied a downpour associated with the El Niño condition.

GregK
February 6, 2022 11:57 pm

Very old carbonate rich sedimentary rocks occur in the East Pilbara of Western Australia [the Carawine Dolomite].
How old ? 2.7 billion years old.
So?

At that time CO2 may have comprised 25 – 50% of the atmosphere [not 400ppm].
https://earthsky.org/earth/earth-ancient-atmosphere-carbon-dioxide-nitrogen-meteorites/

The C02 level didn’t seem to have inhibited the beasties that were around at the time from laying down thick sequences of carbonate rich rock…they weren’t concerned about “acidification” at all.

tygrus
February 7, 2022 1:06 am

Given the contents of air, land & ocean, volcanic activity, astrophysics(sun) & assumed geography etc how well can the current models predict the temperatures of the distant past?
How much of the estimated historical temperature rely on climate models untested with empirical data to verify accuracy?
The millions of years temperature history of a location is less useful when the location has changed relative to a GPS coordinate & local geography. Moved away from the equator, moved from sea level to be a mountain, moved from active volcano to no activity, moved from being near water to be distant from water, change of vegetation, change of land use. These factors change local weather independent of a climate equilibrium.
If pre1900 were mostly natural variations, why the sudden change to assuming 100% AGW? Natural should still occur & see a transition period as the added CO2 slowly increases (assuming CO2 changes something). Which year did CO2 have <1% effect, then a slow ramp, year when CO2 was affecting 50% of change with natural still having 50% of change…? Take multiple points before industrialisation to show how much temps can change over multiple lengths of time, now apply to current measurements as potential error range.

tygrus
Reply to  tygrus
February 7, 2022 1:38 am

The effect of a 43C day is not 100% AGW. It’s not even 100% of the effect of 43C vs a 33C mean of max (just an example). What is the difference in affects of a 43C day vs 41C? Or 17C vs 15C, or 27C vs 25C?
If the AGW anomally of a location is not a function of latitude & distance to ocean, then the rest of the effect is natural weather. Blaming all weather changes on AGW is a shell game of moving the effect when it’s by definition a long term & diffused effects. If it occurs, it’s actually one of many other factors.

Any anomaly figure should indicate % is probably AGW & what % is probably natural (or the range for each). All too often the science is oversimplified (ignoring complexities & uncertainties) to reduce the confusion of politicians & ignorant masses. Also to avoid disproving fellow CC believers work.

michel
February 7, 2022 1:12 am

Doesn’t really help. The argument that carries weight with the less well informed is not to the effect that things now are unprecedented on a scale of millions of years.

The argument that is doing the heavy lifting is directed at policy, and it goes something like this:

1) Warming which will become catastrophic in 50 or so years is happening.

2) Therefore all countries should move to Net Zero and phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, and in any case by 2040.

3) These are the measures which must be done to achieve this: move electricity generation to wind and solar, move cars to EVs, home heating to heat pumps, food to vegan.

The weakest part of this argument, and the thing to focus on, is the policy piece. Given any sort of critical examination it becomes clear that its impossible to do the things proposed in #3, and even if you can make a start on a couple of them, you cannot do them all at once. You cannot, for instance, convert to wind and solar partly because of intermittency, the need for storage and partly the sheer scale of it. The number of turbines that have to be erected offshore in the next 20 years is way beyond anything that is remotely possible.

The usual error of skeptics is to try to rebut #1, which leads them to be accused of being anti-science, and which concedes the most important and least credible part of the argument.

That is, it concedes that if there really is dangerous warming coming, the measures in #3 are a reasonable and effective response to it.

The main area of debate now is not about the science. It was 10 years ago, but now its about the policies that are being advocated and in some cases implemented. Its the Green New Deal in the US, the Energiewende in Germany and Net Zero in the UK. The idiocy of these programs, even if you accept the alarmist view of global warming, is the thing to focus on.

These programs are impossible to achieve on the scale the alarmists claim to be required. And even were they to be achieved, even were the UK to build the huge number of windfarms required and install the huge amount of battery storage to go with it, the effects on global CO2 emissions would be so small as to be unmeasurable.

The most effective argument against climate hysteria at this point is not to dispute the scientific allegations, fallacious though they are. Its to focus on policy. To point out that there is no point trying to do the impossible at huge expense when even if you bring it off, it can have no effect on the earth’s climate.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  michel
February 7, 2022 4:04 am

Tried that.. I emailed my MP highlighting exactly these points, but all I got out of him was that he “supports the PM’s position on net zero”.. He also firmly believes that “CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere”, even though I showed him that there is no empirical evidence of that. Not finished yet though, I am going to keep trying in the vain hope that one day he’ll see sense.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
February 7, 2022 9:25 am

I agree. Take EVs for example.

There are currently over 1.4 Billion ICEVs in the world.

According to the International Energy Agency at the end of 2020 there were 10.2 million EV and PHEVs in the world almost half of them in China (4.5m). The IEA expects EVs to grow to 40m by 2030 and perhaps 72m by 2040. Even if they are 100% incorrect in their expectations that would still only be around 140m EVs by 2040 compared to 1.4 billion plus 18 years growth of ICEVs.

In that same year, 2020, sales of ICEVs in China, Europe and the US alone were 59.9m

A typical EV can require six times more mineral input than an ICEV which means far more mining for copper, lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, graphite and Rare Earths. Already the price of lithium is sky rocketing and the IEA says it typically takes around 16 years to get a new mine up to full production.

It is clearly impossible for EVs to be the only means of transport around the world by 2050

michel
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 7, 2022 4:08 pm

Yes. And even if you could somehow make and sell all those EVs, the next thing you’d have to deal with is their use: the occasional fires in underground parking or enclosed residential garages. Which would be rare, but when they happened, as they would, they would be catastrophic. The lack of range. The expense of buying them.

Its not a technology which is ready for the mass market. It may become that, with different battery technology, but its not there yet, either in terms of cost, range or safety.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 7, 2022 1:20 am

An absolutely great article – Send a hard copy to your local MP is my thought.

michel
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 7, 2022 4:16 pm

No, don’t. Its not going to help at all. It will just convince him or her you’re a nutter.

The thing to send to your MP is something to show that the policies that the present government is engaged on are impossible and futile. What you need to send is something like the Manhattan Contrarian piece about wind/solar electricity generation and the requirement and cost of storage.

You will not get MPs even interested in the science of climate change, let alone persuade them of anything to do with it. What they are about is policy. What you need to persuade them of, and you have a chance of doing this, if enough of you join in, is that the policy, which is pretty much supported by every political party in the UK at present, is impossible to achieve and disastrous if attempted.

The argument that will move your MP is something like this: This is not going to work, here is why, and if you guys keep on with it, I and lots of other people are going to vote for anyone, and we mean anyone, who will put a stop to it.

You should add, and if this means Farage, that’s fine with us.

That will send shivers down his spine. After all, this is what was said about Brexit, and they didn’t listen, and didn’t listen, and then all of a sudden the first chance people got, Farage was romping home in the Euro elections. Your MP knows it could happen again.

The science of global warming, who cares? Getting kicked out a second time by Farage or a Farage look-alike, that’s got his attention.

Peta of Newark
February 7, 2022 1:31 am

Put ’em up for Boris:
A. Slow. Hand. Clap. Please. Everyone.

Quote:”It says typical new ‘greenfield’ homes are designed around the car – with often three parking spaces per home.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60245980

!!!!!!!Three Parking Spaces!!!!!

ROFLMAO

Radical Rodent
February 7, 2022 1:48 am

“This CO2 was sequestered away from the biological cycle by binding it in rocks where it will remain nearly eternally. Hadn’t that happened, we would nowadays have atmospheric conditions comparable to those on the planet Venus, with a pressure of 90 bars while temperatures reach up to 470 °C.”

Hang on, hang on…. You earlier said that the evidence shows that CO2 has nothing to do with climate; now you are saying that it would make Earth like Venus, had it not been “sequestered” away. Which is it? Also, the atmosphere on Venus is a lot denser than that of Earth; other than its closer proximity to the Sun, might that also be a factor in its present temperature? Or, are you now saying that CO2 concentrations were going to continue to rise, were it not for the brave intervention of corals?

Simon Derricutt
Reply to  Radical Rodent
February 7, 2022 5:28 am

RR – see Nikolov and Zeller’s idea that Global Average Temperature (at ground level) depends only on the mass of the atmosphere. Initially I rejected the idea that this was compression heating of the atmosphere, since such compression happens only once. However, the atmosphere is always cycling between ground-level and the top of the stratosphere (thus each packet of air goes through compression/expansion cycles), and above that point can only cool by radiation to space, so it’s not such a daft idea even though it’s obviously going to be a bit more complex than that because you also need to take into account the absorption bands of the gases in the atmosphere and the effects of clouds (which can both cool and warm depending on height and density).

The pressure difference between ground-level and the height at which convection stops working because the density is too low and thus radiation remains the only way that energy can be lost to space is thus going to have an effect on the ground-level temperature. In any case, the only way that energy can ultimately go to space is radiation, and so the effective radiation height (which is basically a sort of average, and treats the system as if there is a radiating surface just there rather than being a fuzzy ball with the proportion of upward radiation reaching space rising with height) is also a useful parameter. Like all things climate, it’s a bit of an over-simplification since strong thunderstorms can convect air above the current top of the stratosphere. Also, the effective radiation height will likely depend on the actual composition of the atmosphere with height.

Thus with Venus, the much denser atmosphere will give a higher amount of adiabatic compression as the gases fall from the top of the stratosphere (where they have cooled by radiation) to ground level. Providing you have that air movement from the top of the stratosphere to ground level (and of course back up from ground level in a cycle) the atmosphere at ground level is compression-heated. If there’s a level at which the atmosphere is effectively opaque, then that is where the solar heating would stop and you wouldn’t get cycling below that point, thus the lapse rate below that level would be zero.

The pressure at ground level will thus affect the temperature at ground level in a real world where the atmosphere is cycling between ground level and the top of atmosphere.

Fred F. Mueller
Reply to  Radical Rodent
February 7, 2022 6:23 am

I will explain this in detail in a follow-up-article

Rich Davis
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
February 7, 2022 2:21 pm

Fred,
Overall great article, but I would find one point of disagreement.

Hadn’t that happened, we would nowadays have atmospheric conditions comparable to those on the planet Venus, with a pressure of 90 bars while temperatures reach up to 470 °C.

On what basis do you make that claim? Venus has much more mass in its non-condensing atmosphere than early or present-day earth.

At most, earth had 25% more atmospheric mass before carbonate rocks were being formed. Thus maybe 1.3 bar. By your own account, temperatures were below 100C.

If conditions were not 90 bar and 470C 3.8bya, how would such conditions have developed eventually but for the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Radical Rodent
February 7, 2022 2:26 pm

Yes exactly my thought as well rad rodent. Sorry I was scanning for Fred’s responses to find a logical place to post my objection and didn’t realize that he was responding to you rather than Simon D.

geoffrey pohanka
February 7, 2022 4:20 am

the CO2 coalition has an excellent climate quiz that shatters the alarmist rhetoric. https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/

February 7, 2022 4:24 am

This valuable article by Fred Mueller shows that the CO2 catastrophe narrative doesn’t survive testing by the palaeo climate record.

Genetic research of archaean microbes and prokaryotic bacteria indicates a deep sea hydrothermal vent origin of life. Or at least – a first common ancestor. Biochemical research indicates that the first appearance of cellular life might have required ultraviolet light for certain critical reactions. This is not available at the ocean floor and would need to happen at the surface.

Therefore a possible scenario is that life started more than 4 billion years ago as the Hadean ended, at the surface in shallow water. After life spread through the early ocean, the late heavy bombardment period devastated the earth’s surface by bolide impacts. So the deep sea hydrothermal vents might have been the only place where that first life survived. Then the bombardment ended and life which survived at deep sea vents then spread again worldwide.

I think the late bombardment also brought more water to earth from distant asteroids containing unevaporated volatile substances like water. (Due to Neptune’s disrupted orbit.)

Last edited 6 months ago by Phil Salmon
Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 4:38 am

From the article:

Astonishingly easy to prove climate experts wrong

For ordinary people, the best advice is to focus on the groundwork instead. Why? Because even a layman can prove a civil engineer wrong if his building does not stand upright. In the case of climate change topics, look at known historical facts or dare to do some back-of-the-envelope assessments of what is presented. You’d be astonished how simple it often is to prove quite some high-flying scientific findings flatly wrong because their basic assumptions are inadequate.

Such weak foundations invalidate the whole superstructure no matter how impressive it looks and how much work has been invested into it. Count on your common sense”

Excellent advice!

The best way to prove alarmist climate scientists wrong is to ask them to provide evidence to prove their claims. They don’t have any evidence. That ought to be pretty plain for anyone to see. If they can’t answer the question, then they don’t have the answer, and they can’t answer the question.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 8, 2022 8:22 am

The best way to prove alarmist climate scientists wrong is to ask them to provide evidence to prove their claims. They don’t have any evidence. That ought to be pretty plain for anyone to see. If they can’t answer the question, then they don’t have the answer, and they can’t answer the question.

I beg to differ. In my experience, the best riposte to Alarmist idiots is to ask them why such a catastrophe has never occurred in the past, despite CO2 levels and temperatures being significantly higher. Point out to them that the Arctic was ice-free in Summer during the Holocene Thermal Optimum 5-7Kyears ago. That always makes them uncomfortable.

Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 4:51 am

From the article: “Likewise, articles claiming that atmospheric CO2 levels of more than 400 ppm cause a life-threatening “acidification” of our oceans should be read with contempt.”

Exactly.

Duane
February 7, 2022 5:22 am

In terms of convincing the masses, going back to ancient geohistory and discussion of CO2, life forms, and sequestering of carbon is somewhat of a long haul, pardon the pun. People naturally think in short terms, as in days, weeks, months, and years not geologic timeframes of hundreds of millions of years … and people think in terms of what they can see with their own eyes, or experience in terms of weather – warm vs. cold.

For instance, a visit to the Grand Canyon, which is actually but 5-6 million years old, yet reveals rock layers going back to more than a billion years. People can see that, and touch it, and realize that our time here on earth, measured in mere hundreds of thousands of years, has obviously gone through great changes on this planet.

Similarly, a trip to the Rocky Mountains of North America, or the Alps in Europe, where one can see with their own eyes the great U-shaped valleys gouged out by glaciers that no longer exist but dominated the northern land masses but 16 thousand years ago – long after our human predecessors populated the planet. When someone in the northern latitudes is told that where their house now sits used to have a 2 km thick layer of ice on top, people can quickly come to the conclusion that warming is definitely better than cooling.

Michael in Dublin
February 7, 2022 5:42 am

a behemoth on clay feet

brilliant

+10

Tom.1
February 7, 2022 5:43 am

I have no quarrel with any of what the author said, but the alarmists and their climate models are in full control of the policy levers. The only things holding them back from immediately implementing their agenda are technology and economics. The only thing that will derail this is a protracted and undisputable period of no warming. In the meantime, besides much planning for net zero, it facilitates dirigisme, which is in concert with the rest of alarmists’ agenda and why they like climate change so much.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Tom.1
February 7, 2022 7:35 am

Tom, I wonder if practical schemes that show not only how we can adapt to whatever climate conditions we may face but actually benefit economically will show people we have a choice?

whatlanguageisthis
February 7, 2022 5:56 am

This CO2 was sequestered away from the biological cycle by binding it in rocks where it will remain nearly eternally. Hadn’t that happened, we would nowadays have atmospheric conditions comparable to those on the planet Venus, with a pressure of 90 bars while temperatures reach up to 470 °C.

In the Figure 5 it shows the Jurassic was around 25 deg C. Why would the temperature now be 470 when at the time the CO2 was free it was only 25 deg C? What other factor would take the temperature out of the otherwise limited range of 10 to 30 deg C?

Fred F. Mueller
Reply to  whatlanguageisthis
February 7, 2022 10:20 am

I will explain this in detail in a follow-up-article

whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Fred F. Mueller
February 7, 2022 10:35 am

Thanks! I look forward to it.

Michael in Dublin
February 7, 2022 6:44 am

We need to listen to engineers that know what they are talking about before worrying about the alarmist voices from academia.

It is worth reading a brief overview of dams in South Africa by a retired civil engineer, Dr Paul Roberts. This carefully written piece should show us where we need to focus – wisely using resources and adapting to climate changes rather than squandering money and resources to try and engineer the climate.

during dry years . . . at most only 10% of the mean annual streamflow (runoff) can be relied upon to be available during any year.

At the other extreme, annual flows of 600% to 300% of the average have occurred during wet years, which spill to the ocean if not regulated. With storage having been created . . . the water which can reliably be abstracted from the Vaal River throughout the year, is increased to nearly 50% of the long term average flow. 

Currently there are almost 300 irrigation schemes in the country in varying states of disrepair. The main reasons for the situation being institutional, social and political rather than insufficient water. (my emphasis)

https://sancold.org.za/dams-in-south-africa/

Last edited 6 months ago by Michael in Dublin
CD in Wisconsin
February 7, 2022 9:42 am

“So why should we believe that a temperature rise of just 1.5 to 2 °C from the current approx. 15 °C would be catastrophic for life on earth?”

*****

I am still waiting for somebody– anybody–to show me the science behind the 1.5 deg. C and the 2.0 deg. C catastrophic warming threshold claim. Picking numbers out of thin air is easy when you can get enough people in govt, the media and elsewhere to accept that the numbers you’ve chosen are to be believed.

I hate saying this, but I fear that the art of critical analysis as shown in this post is dying out. All that matters now is blind unquestioning faith in the people that get sold to us as “experts”, especially when their claims serve to provide confirmation bias for our pre-existing beliefs.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 7, 2022 10:19 am

Sentence rewrite: Picking numbers out of thin air is easy when you can get enough people in govt, the media and elsewhere to accept that the number you’ve chosen are somehow valid.

That’s what happens when I make changes without proof-reading.

joe
February 7, 2022 11:23 am

i know i am late to the conversation. my attempts to debate climate alarmisim with others always ends with them yelling at me and calling me names. names like science denier. they scream hurricanes, tornado’s, floods, drought and on and on. it is at this point that i withdraw with the realization that most cannot or will not retreat form the hoax. that said, what really scares me is that there are plans to build machines that will suck co2 from the atmosphere and store it some where. i do believe that at 150ppm co2, our earths life systems would be in decline. we are now at 420ppm. who will control these machines? 270ppm is not a very large window to fine tune the atmosphere. i don’t know what to label people that would consider this.

I think that if we are ever going to make head way toward changing minds, we must expose plans of human co2 sequestration to the masses. a question for any one here. how many conversations have you had with someone that actually knows of this plan? i can confidently say i have had zero.

anyway, great artical and posts as usual.

Charles Guptill
February 7, 2022 2:22 pm

Check out the article in today’s Wall Street Journal, essentially says they can’t get their
super computer to figure out how certain weather characteristics like clouds affect the temperature, but no matter, we know that the effect of CO2 is more pronounced than we thought.

Rich Lambert
February 7, 2022 5:02 pm

A bit off topic. I’ve been over that I-40 bridge in the photograph near Webbers Falls, Oklahoma quite a few times. I never worried about the bridge being collapsed by a barge. I worry nothing at all about climate change.

Captain Dave
February 7, 2022 5:08 pm

Late to the show, but minor “typo” – second topic (“inconvenient truth”), first paragraph, seventh sentence, “pushing this limit to more than 4 billion years ago” should probably be 4 million. Don’t give the opposition ANY ammunition.

Donald Whiteley
February 9, 2022 3:58 pm

Your charts showing the levels of CO2 and Temperature over the last 600 million years is the clincher. We are in one of the coldest, lowest CO2 environments over the last 300 million years. Life thrived on earth during all of those much warmer periods. This is why most engineers haven’t fallen for the Global Warming nonsense.

Retired Rocket Science Engineer

%d bloggers like this: