The Four Known Scientific Ways CO2 Cools Earth’s Climate
As Glasgow, Scotland hosts the UN’s COP 26 Climate Conference we thought we’d give a timely reminder of four key ways carbon dioxide (CO2) COOLS the atmosphere. The life-giving gas is so crucial we need MORE not less of it. As with the fake pandemic, inconvenient science facts destroy a doomsayer political narrative.
Dr Pierre R Latour, a renowned American Chemical Engineer, first published in 2014 with Principia Scientific International how four known mechanisms and three laws of nature prove why CO2 cools, not warms, our atmosphere.
Pierre Latour features in Who’s Who as a world expert on the chemical properties of CO2. For lovers of empirical science, we re-post Dr Latour’s unrefuted explanation.
Key to Latour’s examination is that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the supposed world authority deferred to by governments, lacks a rigorous mathematical description for their so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ Absent such a hard and fast math basis their ‘theory’ is all smoke and mirrors and depiction by analogy. What follows below is solid, testable applied science.
CO2 Affects Several Temperatures In Different Ways
Here we develop the physics, chemistry and biology to quantify the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on Earth’s temperature. There are five mechanisms and three different temperatures involved.
Four show a small cooling effect, one warms surface and cools upper atmosphere with no net bulk effect. I am unaware of a rigorous mathematical description of the greenhouse gas theory that purports to do this and show a warming affect. After decades of research attempts, promoters cannot reduce greenhouse gas theory (GHGT) to mathematics of science and engineering.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law Of Radiation
If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, the emissivity, e, of a planet to space must increase. While emissivity of CO2 is less that global emissivity, it is greater than the O2 it replaced by “fossil fuel” combustion. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation is
I = σ e (T/100)4
If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore, CO2 causes global cooling.
This is true for all bodies of matter, no matter the composition, rotation speed or weather.
I = radiating intensity, irradiance, power of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239. It is only a transfer rate when surroundings do not radiate, at 0K. Outer space at 3.7K radiate with very low intensity.
T = temperature of radiating body, K, estimated for Earth to be 4.60C + 273.15 = 277.75
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67
e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. e varies with composition. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.70827 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.
I = 5.670.70827(277.750/100)4 = 5.670.7082759.51 = 5.6742.152 = 239.0
If doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv increases emissivity 0.001 from 0.70827 to 0.70927, T would drop -0.098C from 4.600C to 4.502C.
I = 5.670.70927(277.652/100)4 = 5.670.7092759.43 = 5.6742.152 = 239.0
Conservation Of Energy Of Atmosphere
1st Law Thermodynamics: Input Rate = Output Rate + Accumulation rate. At steady-state, Accumulation Rate = 0 and this ordinary differential equation becomes an algebraic one.
Absorption of solar + absorption of thermals and evaporation from surface + absorption from surface radiation = radiation to space
79 + 97 + 23 = 199 w/m2
Since CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps solar spectrum tail a small amount at two wavelengths, the 79 value would increase a small amount with CO2; a cooling effect on surface neglected by greenhouse gas theory. Some climatologists say CO2 affects the rate of heat transfer from surface by thermals and evaporation, 17 + 80 = 97, but I shall neglect that controversial effect here. However, once quantified, this model structure can assess the effect on global temperatures. An additional 161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface, 1 is retained by surface. 160 is transferred from surface up: 40 is transmitted through atmosphere as radiation from surface directly to space, 97 is transferred to atmosphere by convection and evaporation and 23 is absorbed from surface radiation.
Total incoming is 79 + 161 = outgoing 199 + 40 + 1 = 240. Transfer to space = 239.
These global energy flows come from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, as promoted by the UN’s discredited IPCC.
Radiant Energy Transfer Law
The rate of radiant energy transfer between radiating body 1 and radiating surroundings 0 is
I1 – I0 =σ [e1 (T1/100)4 – e0 (T0/100)4]
(I am neglecting complicated geometry effects here.) For transfer from Earth to space, I shall assume surroundings at T0 = 3.7K, neglecting starlight, so
I – Is = 5.67 [0.70827 (277.75/100)4 – 1.0 (3.7/100)4] = 5.67 [0.7082759.51 – 1.00.00000187] = 5.67[42.152 – 0.000002] = 239.00 – 0.000010626 = 239.00.
So there is no problem equating Earth’s radiation intensity to space with its radiant heat transfer rate to space. Intensity only equals radiant energy transfer rate when T0 = 0.
If this is applied to transfer from surface 1 to atmosphere 0, rate I1 – I0 is constant (I1 actually drops a little when incoming drops due to increased atmospheric CO2 absorption), and e1 is constant, then when e0 increases with CO2, either T1 must increase to overcome increased resistance to heat transfer by increased e0 (as postulated by GHGT and the only possible warming mechanism I can find), or T0 must decrease. They both change in such a way as to reduce global T from S-B Law.
In the unusual situation where surroundings do not obey Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity, a0 = e0, because surroundings has energy transfer by means other than radiation, like thermals plus evaporation = 97 from surface to atmosphere, one cannot replace e0 with a0.
Inserting appropriate values (T1 = 14.85C, T0 = -18.15C, e1 = 0.1615 and e0 = 0.167) gives:
I – Is = 5.67 [0.1615 (288/100)4 – 0.167 (255/100)4] = 5.67 [0.16168.797 – 0.16742.283] = 5.67[11.111 – 7.061] = 62.998 – 40.037 = 22.961 = 23.
Note surface emissivity = 0.1615, radiates I = 63, 40 directly to space and 23 absorbed by atmosphere. While pure water has e = 0.96, ocean phytoplankton absorb solar power, reducing its emissivity. Emissivity of atmosphere seen from surface = 0.167. Emissivity of atmosphere to space is 0.830 because it receives 97 by convection and evaporation and does not obey Kirchhoff’s Law: emissivity = absorptivity.
For atmosphere component,
199 = 5.67*0.830 (255/100)-4
Note surface radiates directly to space with effective emissivity = 0.1025.
40 = 5.67*0.1025 (288/100)4
Now we can find weighted average global emissivity from atmosphere and surface
e = (0.831199 + 0.102540)/239 = 0.708
which confirms the initial assumption precisely.
I realize these average emissivity values may not be acceptable to some, but they do fit the observed data and are hard to determine from first principles.
At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1must increase to accommodate. This could be the basic claim of GHGT and yetCO2decreases atmospheric T0and global radiating T. The amounts depend on the effect of CO2 on emissivity of the atmosphere.
Lapse Rate
This is consistent with the slope of T vs altitude in troposphere, lapse rate = -g/Cp (universal gravity constant / heat capacity) because kinetic energy of gas decreases as its gravitational potential energy increases with altitude, by energy conservation law.
Increasing CO2 increases atmosphere Cp because CO2Cp> O2Cp, making the slope less negative. It rotates counterclockwise about its radiating centroid T near 5 km and -18C (which decreases a bit by transfer rate to space). This causes lower atmosphere T to increase and upper atmosphere T to decrease.
Conservation Of Energy Of Earth
1st Law Thermodynamics: Input rate = output rate.
(1 – alb) S/4 + IO = I – Is + P
S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m2 incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m2 of incident sphere
Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7. Some say CO2 affects albedo through cloud formation; this could be a significant cooling effect.
Is = intensity of surrounding space = 0.000010626 @ 3.7K = negligible
P = energy absorbed by plant photosynthesis
IO = sum inputs (core, volcanoes, fires) minus other outputs, negligible
Rearranging and substituting gives the overall relationship:
I = (1 – alb) S/4 – P = σ e (T/100)4
Dividing by σ e gives the overall relationship for T:
I/σe =(T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4σe – P/σe
If S increases, T increases. If alb, e or P increase, T decreases. All we need to do is find the effect of CO2 on alb, e and P to quantify its effect on T. Easy to show increasing CO2 causes increases in e and P, decreasing T.
If Earth were a perfect black body emitter and P = 0,
(1 – 0.3) 1366/45.671.000 = 42.1605 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C
Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C
(1 – 0.3) 1366/45.670.612 = 68.8897 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C
The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating surface temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.
James Hansen, Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others, mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect.
With a corrected emissivity value for radiating 239 at T = 4.6C, e = 0.708, corresponding black body would radiate at T = 273.15 – 18.35 = 254.80
I = 5.671.0(254.803/100)4 = 5.67142.152 = 5.6742.152 = 239.0
This means the so called greenhouse effect is 4.60 – (-18.35) = +22.95C, not +33C.
Photosynthesis
Organic molecules are made by living flora by photosynthesis chemical reaction of xCO2 + 0.5yH2O + sunlight = CxHy + (x+0.25y)O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll, according to biology. CxHy are hydrocarbon molecules: sugars, starches & cellulose, and which decay slowly to oil, gas, peat, tar and coal along with decaying fauna residue. CxHy can be natural gas, CH4, methane.
Surface does not obey Kirchhoff’s law either,a0 = e0, because of this non-radiation chemical energy transfer mechanism.CO2 is green plant food driving the cycle of flora – fauna life. Flora make O2 for us fauna. Fauna make CO2 for flora.
Reaction rate, consumption of CO2 and incident solar energy, P is
P = kpSs [CO2][H2O]exp(-E/RT1)
p = pressure at leaf, atm
Ss = sunlight impinging on green surfaces, w/m2<160. = a(1 – alb)S/4, a = absorptivity
[CO2] = atmospheric composition, vol {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} = 0.0390
[H2O] = atmospheric composition, vol {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}
T1 = temperature of surface leaf, K
k = kinetic rate constant
So increasing [CO2] will increase P and reduce T, cooling. Increasing S or T1 will have the same effect.
So the sensitivity of T to CO2 depends on which temperature you are talking about: T, T1, T0. And what the net effect of all relevant mechanisms is. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion and controversy.
Combined System Effects
With an increase in CO2, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T1 drops to 14.85-. With increased e0 the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T0 decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO2 is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance.
Therefore increasing CO2 causes decreases in surface T1 = 14.85-, atmosphere T0 = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO2 global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.
Back-Radiation
Greenhouse gas theory to support the notion of global warming, postulates heat transfer from cold atmosphere down to warm surface, heating surface further. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram says back-radiation transfer rate is 333, which is 2.1x that impinging surface from the sun, 161. This extraordinary value defies common experience.
I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea.
Measuring Temperature
While climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer says satellites measure Earth’s global temperature, their spectrometers actually measure radiation intensity, I = 239, a pole to pole, day/night, season/season average. Roy must assume a corresponding emissivity, e, to infer or deduce an estimate of T. Since e is hard to determine from first principles physical properties of dissimilar surface + atmosphere and is likely to change, particularly with CO2, using satellite inferred T is fraught with error. He must get distance between radiator and spectrometer accurately, which is not easy for a 50 km thick atmosphere and rocky mountains.
T is a point property of matter indicating its kinetic energy. We have no way in physics to average T over different phases and compositions of matter. You can’t even calculate the average T of your moving car: engine, cylinders, a/c, radiator, exhaust, body, interior, tires. Wouldn’t mean much if you could.
By the way, how are global temperature maps constructed? If they are from closely spaced thermometers, averaged daily, that would be meaningful. But if from spectrometers, how are emissivities of ocean, desert, jungles, cities, mountains, ice and clouds assigned to each point of radiating intensity, for a corresponding S-B radiating T? And averaged over sphere?
Careful study of Spencer’s writings indicates he equates/confuses radiation intensity with radiant heat transfer rate, which have the same units, w/m2. The former is given by S-B Law for intensity, irradiance, radiance, power, exitance, emission. The latter is driven by a difference in intensities between two radiators or a radiator and its surroundings. Both are vectors with direction, not scalars. The former intensity, I, is not called radiant heat transfer rate because it isn’t.
When two facing plates are radiating at each other with equal intensities in opposite directions, there is no radiant heat transfer between them and their temperatures remain constant. (Note if emissivities differ when I1 = I0, so will radiator Ts. Chrome and wood on a beach have different steady temperatures, chrome is hotter because its emissivity is low and reflectivity is high, radiating with same I as high emissivity, colder wood.) The walls of my office radiate, but no heat transfers between them.
Chemical engineers design and operate radiant/conductive/convective furnaces with chemical reactions for a living. You can’t control something unless you can measure it or reliably infer it from measurements and known constants of nature.
Cause And Effect
Just because [CO2] and T may be correlated over significant periods does not mean one causes the other; a third input may drive them both. Solar irradiance is not constant and dominates all other influencers of T.
Solubility of CO2 in water, beer, soda, Champagne and oceans decreases with temperature. Cooling drives CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean; warming drives it back out. A simple energy balance on oceans confirms the measured 800 year lag of [CO2] following T, following S; a well-known inconvenient truth for Al Gore’s embarrassing Academy Award movie misnomer.
There is no known mechanism in the literature quantifying any effect of [CO2] change on climate change.
Thermostat
The notion of building a thermostat to adjust fossil fuel combustion rate to control the temperature of the Earth was shown to be unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable by control systems mathematical analysis in 1997, before Kyoto Protocol. In other words, it can never work.
Empirical Models
It is acceptable engineering practice to infer fundamental constants/properties like an emissivity or reaction rate constant by measuring related variables and using one of these laws of physics to deduce it. Resulting law has predictive power so long at the property does not change. This know-how is particularly useful for rigorous differential equations accounting for dynamics of mass and energy accumulation rates. Stability analysis shows no tipping points.
But to fit arbitrary algebraic polynomial, exponential, sine, log or hockey stick equations to measured transient data is unacceptable since it is well known in chemical control systems engineering that they will have no predictive power.
The UN IPCC use of such models confirms they have no greenhouse gas law built on accepted physics and engineering and should be summarily dismissed. Calling for more research funding after repeated failures is compelling evidence the science and engineering of global warming and climate change is far from settled. In fact, this brief essay should settle the matter, save money and delight those practicing the scientific method.
I used only three laws of nature here: S-B Law, 1stLaw of Thermo and Chemical Reaction Rate Law. And 10th grade algebra. World has been spending $1 billion per day for a decade on global warming/climate change research to quantify the effect of fossil fuel combustion production of CO2 on Earth’s temperature. A large government is shutting down its coal industry in 2014 on the mistaken belief CO2 causes great harm, when it is benign and net beneficial. This paper proves it is all unnecessary, worthless.
Global Cooling
Since Earth is warming half the time and cooling the other half, reputable climatologists report a consensus of imminent, significant, prolonged global cooling, and the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature is vanishingly small, be prepared. Invest in energy production from oil, gas, coal and nuclear. For goodness’ sake.
Precautionary Principles
Be careful. Look before you leap. Do no harm. Think before you speak and write. Play it on the safe side. Better safe than sorry. Know what you are saying and doing. Do not frighten people unnecessarily. Supply relevant, valid evidence for every claim; lest they be dismissed as frivolous. Perform an accurate scientific, engineering and economic analysis before devising a plan and implementing it. Provide performance measures and fulfill them. Be prudent & frugal. Be a fiduciary with other people’s money. Foresee unintended consequences. Analysis comes before synthesis, always. Avoid attempting the impossible. Avoid building perpetual motion machines, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Learn from your mistakes, admit them, apologize, accept consequences and reconcile with Nature and Nature’s God (TJ, 1776). Honesty is the best policy. Seek truth. Skepticism is a wise starting position.
Since I can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory, I call it a greenhouse gas hunch. After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance. Even for personal political or financial gain. Would they?
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
hooligan
| #
the punch line
“After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance.”
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Carbon climate forcing has been a rigged, three sided FAKE debate for over a decade, between the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmist Slayers. This report should be given to the COP26 and current congress inquisition by the world’s petroleum and coal providers.
The Laws of Thermodynamics have been unchallenged since 1870. Carbon climate forcing and back radiation warming are childish Chicken Little science. College students should confront their Pied Piper professors on this insane indoctrination.
Reply
Alan
| #
These calculations are too simplistic to mean anything. There is no single temperature that can represent the earth’s climate and the is no evidence presented for the calculation of the emissivity of the earth. The author admits this when discussing satellite temperature measurements. Then it is claimed that the earth is cooling half the time and heating half the time. This is more nonsense. Cooling does not stop when the sun in shining, and heating of the atmosphere does not stop when the sun is not shining because the oceans and land masses are heating it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
Does he claim the Earths cooling half the time and heating half the time or that half the Earth is cooling at any time and half is heating at any time?
The problem is that he believes the thermometer is recording the kinetic energy of the air molecules in the atmosphere and the barometer is measuring the mass of the air molecules in the atmosphere.
The barometer records that a warm air mass has greater weight per area (barometric pressure) than a cool air mass. Since the warm air mass contains the same molecules as the cool air mass but is less dense how can fewer molecules per area have more weight than a cool air mass with more molecules per area? The same is true of the thermometer, which has an almost identical design as the barometer. The gas molecules colliding with it obey the conservation of momentum, where energy equalizes between the two masses. The amount of energy transferred depends on the different masses. If fewer molecules (less mass) strike the thermometer less energy is transferred. Both instruments are measuring the momentum of the molecules striking them, not the energy or weight. With increasing altitude both the temperature and density (mass) decline so is the lower temperature/pressure recorded a result of a decline in the energy of the molecules or declining mass (number) of molecules?
Herb
Reply
Mervyn
| #
All people need do is watch this NASA video:
Reply
richard
| #
this was written in 1907 – same old, same old
“Is Our Climate Changing?
(By R. De Courcy Ward, assistant professor of Climatology at Harvard University.)
Belief in a change in the climate of one’s place of residence, within a few genera-
tions, and even within the memory of living men, is widespread. Whenever a sea-
son attracts attention because of weather conditions which seem to be in any way unusual, this belief is strengthened. For example, the mild and open winter which has been noted over considerable sections of the United States during 1905-6 has served to establish still more firmly the opinion that our winters are milder, and that we have much less snow than we did
some years ago.
People in the north-eastern sections of the country, in particular, are saying that something has happened to the winter; that when they were children there was al- ways deep snow at Christmas and sleighing lasted for weeks; that the mild days and warm rains of the present winter are unheard of: that the Gulf Stream must have shifted its course: and that the cli-
mate has certainly changed. The men and women who voice these opinions are often intelligent, observing members of the community, and their words carry weight. In
view of the general interest in the question, “Is our climate changing?” it is
worth while to ask ourselves what the facts in the case realty are.
In the first place, it is clear that no definite answer can be given on the basis of
tradition, or of general impression, or even of the memory of the “oldest inhabitant.”
Human memories are unreliable things, and there are many reasons for their be-
ing particularly untrustworthy in matters of this kind, as we shell see. The only
definite answer of any real value must be based on what the instrumental records of
temperature and of rain and snowfall show. Accurate instruments, set out under proper conditions and carefully observ- ed do not lie, do not forget, are not prejudiced.
RECORDS SHOW NO CHANGE.
Now, when such instrumental records are carefully examined, from the time at which
they first began to be kept, which in a few cases goes back about 150 years, there is found no evidence of any progressive change in temperature or in the amount of rain and snow. Apparent indications of a permanent increase or decrease in one or the other have in every case been fairly easy to explain as being due to the method of hanging out the thermometer or of setting up the rain-gauge. Little care was formerly taken with the location of the
meteorological instruments. The building of a fence or a wall near the thermometer, or the growing of a tree over a rain-gauge has been enough in numerous cases to ac- count for any observed change in the mean temperature or rainfall.
Progressive changes of climate during the last century and a half are therefore not proved, even by the evidence of direct meteorological observations, and certainly not by general impressions, nor by the memory of the “oldest inhabitant.” Even when the most accurate instrumental re- cords are available care must be taken to interpret them correctly. Thus, if a rain- fall or snowfall record of several years at some station shows an apparent increase in the amount of precipitation, it does not follow that this means a permanent progressive change in climate, which is to continue indefinitely. It may of course simply mean that there have been a few years of somewhat more rainfall or snow- fall, and that a period of somewhat less rain or snow is to follow.
For the United States Schott, some 30 years ago, made a careful study of all the older records of temperature and of rainfall (including snow) from Maine to California, and found nothing which could lead to the view of a progressive change in any one direction. There was, however, evidence of slight variations of temperature, occurring with the same characteristics and with considerable uniformity over large areas. These variations showed the characteristics of irregular waves, representing slightly warmer and slightly cooler
periods; but during these fluctuations the temperature differed by only a degree or two on one side or the other of the average temperature. Obviously these fluctuations are too slight to be of any general or practical interest, and in any case they do not give any evidence of a continuous change toward a warmer or toward a cooler climate. Schott found that these
waves of higher and lower temperature fol- lowed one another at intervals of about 22 years on the Atlantic coast. In the interior States the intervals between the the higher and lower temperatures are shorter, being about seven years. MAN CAN’T ALTER THE WEATHER.
The idea that the agency of man in cut- ting down forests and in cultivating new soil has resulted in a change in the cli- mate of the United States finds no sup- port in the recorded instrumental data. Further, the records of the closing of rivers, such as the Hudson, to navigation during the last hundred years or so show
that, the dates nowadays average no later than formerly.
If a list was carefully compiled of heavy snow-storms, of droughts, of floods, of severe cold, of mild winters, of heavy rains, and of other similar meteorological phenomena for one of the older sections of the country, beginning with the date of the first white settlements and extending down to the present day, we should doubtless have the following situation: If the list was divided into two parts, each di- vision containing an equal number of years, it would be found, speaking in general terms, that for every mild winter in the first division there would be a mild winter in the second; for every long-continued drought in the first group of years
there would be a long-continued drought in the second; for every “old-fashioned” win-
ter in the first series there would be an “old-fashioned” winter in the second. And
so on through the list. In other words, weather phenomena and climate do not seem to have changed from the time of the landing of the earliest Pilgrims on the in- hospitable shores of New England down to the hour when the last Italian or Jewish immigrant landed at New York from the steerage of an Atlantic liner.
MEMORIES NOT TRUSTWORTHY.
The question naturally suggests itself, Why is the popular belief in a change in our climate so wide-spread and so firmly fixed in the minds of our people when instrumental records all go to show that this popular belief is erroneous? It is not altogether easy to answer this question
satisfactorily; but several possible explanations of the attitude of the public may be given. The trouble arises chiefly from the fact that we place absolute trust in our memories and attempt to judge such subtle things as climatic changes on the basis of these memories, which are at best short, defective, and in the highest degree untrustworthy. If we trust our memories we are likely to remember a few seasons which for one reason or another made a
special impression on us, and we thus enormously exaggerate some special event. In addition to the popular impression that climate is changing, an impression which has now been seen to be without support in the results of instrumental re- cords, a good deal of other evidence has been adduced at one time or another which has been believed to prove climatic change. Yet most of the facts thus brought forward may easily be explained without the need of calling upon changes of climate.
For example it has been asserted that because grapes or corn or olives or other fruit and cereals are now no longer grown in parts of Europe where their cultivation was once an important occupation, therefore we must conclude that the climate has changed from a favorable to an unfavorable one. Such a conclusion is by no means inevitable; for it can easily be shown that the changes in the districts of cultivation of various crops often result
from the fact that the grapes or the corn or the olives are in time found to be more
profitably grown or more easily prepared for market in another locality. The climate of the districts first used has not changed.
In France Angot has made a careful compilation of the dates of the vintage from the 14th century down to the present time, and finds no support for the view so commonly held there that the climate has changed for the worse. The dates of the vintage do, however, indicate
some oscillation of the climatic elements. In the period 1775-1875 the average date of the grape harvest at Aubonne was about 10 days earlier than during the preceding century, but three days later than during the second century preceding. At the present time the average date of the grape harvest at Aubonne is exactly the same as at the close of the 16th century.
Wheat was formerly more generally cultivated farther north in the British Isles
than it is at present, because it paid. La- ter, after a readjustment ot the taxes on breadstuffs, it was no longer so profitable to grow cereals in that region, and the area thus cultivated diminished. Changes in the facility or in the cost of importation of certain articles of food from a distance are speedily followed by changes in the districts over which these same crops are grown. Again, it has been urged that there is a progressive decrease of rainfall in Greece, Syria, Northern Africa, and other parts of the Old World which were formerly more prosperous than now, or where the conditions of occupation or of population have changed within histo- ric times. From this point of view some writers have predicted an inevitable progressive decay in the civilization and in the prosperity of the inhabitants of these regions.
But there is another side to the story. Has there been a progressive desiccation, or have the inhabitants less capacity, less energy, less ability, than formerly ? Is the change from a once cultivated area to a barren expanse the result of decreasing rainfall or of the emigration of the for- mer inhabitants to other lands? The difference between a country formerly well
irrigated and fertile, and a present-day sandy, inhospitable waste may be the re- sult of a former compulsion of the people, by a strong governing power, to till the soil and to irrigate, while now, without that compulsion, no attempt is made to keep up the work. The incapacity of the present inhabitants is often responsible for effects which have been interpreted as be-
ing due to climatic change. It has been clearly shown that where irrigation is resorted to in many parts of the districts about the Mediterranean which are reported to be drying up, there the former fruitfulness returns. In most cases the reports of increasing dryness in that region really concern only the decrease in the water supply from rivers and from springs,
and it is well-known that a change in the cultivation of the soil or in the extent of
the forests may bring about marked changes in the flow of rivers or springs, with-
out any essential change in the actual amount of rainfall. Partsch has disproved the supposition that there was formerly a more abundant rainfall in Northern Africa by showing that the ancient settlements on the interior lakes clearly indicate that these lakes formerly contain no more water than they do at present.The Tunisien Schott-el-Dierid contained
just as little water in the days of the Roman Empire as it does to-day.It appears, therefore, that the fact ofpermanent progressive changing in climate during historical times has not been prov-ed. The answer to the question, “Is our climate changing?” is a negative one.
On the other hand, it is clearly established that there are slight fluctuations or oscillations of climate, there being periods of slightly higher temperature and less rainfall or snowfall and then periods of slightly lower temperature, and more rain
or snow. The whole amount of these variations is, however, small indeed. Professor Bruckner of Berne has made a careful investigation of the whole subject of
these periodic climatic changes, and finds evidence of a 35-year periodicity in temperature and rainfall.
Bruckner began with the long-period oscillations of the level of the Caspian Sea. He then investigated the level of the rivers flowing into the Caspian, and then the dates of the opening and closing of the rivers of the Russian Empire, and finally extended his study pretty much over the world. A supplementary study of the new- er rainfall observations for Russia and the
United States, an well as for certain sta- tions in Central Europe and Eastern Siberia, has given Bruckner satisfactory confirmation of his earlier conclusions, in the fact that he finds a decrease of the rainfall over these districts as a whole, beginning about the middle of the decade 1880-90.
It must, however, be remembered that these are periodic oscillations of a slight amount. They are not progressive changes of climate permanently in one direction. The pendulum swings as far to the right as to the left. Its total swing involves a change in the average of only a
couple of degrees in the mean temperature,
and of only a small percentage in the annual rainfall.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph, Alan and PSI Readers,
Joseph began: “Carbon climate forcing has been a rigged, three sided FAKE debate for over a decade, between the Darth BIG Warmists, the Luke LITTLE Warmists and the Obie NO Warmist Slayers.” Alan began: “These calculations are too simplistic to mean anything.” Einstein, a theoretic SCIENTIST, has been quoted as stating: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” And I read that Louis Elzevir wrote to the readers of Galileo’s well known, but maybe seldom read book (as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio 1914): “Intuitive [without reasoning] knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
So I ask Joseph and Alan: To each accurately define, for me, for other PSI Readers and for each other, what a Scientific Law actually is.
For we all must agree what this accurate definition is before we can effectively communicate with each other. And if we can not come to such an agreement, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Hypothesis > Theory > Law > the traditional separation of scientific thought based on traditional methods requiring Quantitative, Predictable and Repeatable outcomes. However, as knowledge expands and testing becomes more rigorous, every postulate must be questioned, therefore SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
If SCiENCE NEVER SETTLED how is it you can claim that any SCIENTIFIC IDEA (theory, explanation) could be absolutely wrong. Which I accept can be and has been done by SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Downstairs I just had a thought about some recent history to what has been occurring this morning. Which is that on several occasions my Computer gave me the message: “Not connected to the internet”.But when I got upstairs to my computer, I could not remember what I planned to write to you!!!
However, within a few minutes I remembered that it was that last night some weather people were predicting that we maybe could see green Northern Lights in the north sky during the night. And my wife and Idid go outside and immediately saw we could never see any Northern Lights because of the light pollution which is present in huge regions of the USA. This because we would have to look to the north where, we knew, there were big cities and smaller cities and many farms with yard light.
However, I suspect the problems my computer was having morning is likely connecting due the cause of the phenomenon of the Northern Lights which many accept is likely due to a huge fusion explosion occurred somewhat recently (have no idea of how recently) far in the interior of the SUN.
SEE how far one must look and reason to begin to SEE the possible causes of what one simply ObSERVES (SEES)!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The people who are claiming that man made CO2 is warming he planet refuse to answer 2 questions. What is the ideal temp of earth and what is the ideal CO2 level? Greta has not mentioned it…Mikey Mann is silent…Joey Biden?…maybe next year…at COP 27?
Reply
Andy
| #
A few years ago, one of the arch alarmists, and I can’t remember whether it was Hansen, Mann or Schmidt, said the ideal temperature is that which existed before the Industrial Revolution. In other words, the deadly cold of the Little Ice Age. How’s that for stupidity.
Reply
Robert J Bourke
| #
Excellent work Dr Pierre.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
No offense to Dr. Pierre LaTour, but refuting a gobbledy-gook ‘Theory’ with more gobbledy-gook is not helpful.
Simply pointing out, as he stated, “Heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea.” is the most important.
The false narrative of a 33 degree difference without an atmosphere also needs to be decimated. Fools like James Hansen started this nonsense by falsely comparing the average temperature of the Earth ‘surface’ with average temperature of its ‘atmosphere’.
Even Richard Branson, a pioneer balloonist, can tell you it is very cold on top of the clouds.
The Earth is exactly the correct temperature it should be.
500 watts of sunlight on the sunny side come in; and 250 watts leave both sides simultaneously, which is what we call ‘energy balance’.
Keep it simple!
Reply