The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature.
The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation.
Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it.
Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said:
“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”
Thomas Huxley made a similar observation:
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics.
Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge:
“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”
The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory.
It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.
A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2.
You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.
The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature.
The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first.
Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong.
The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?
The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda.
They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius.
The problem is he didn’t say what they claim.
This 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote:
Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all.
There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.
The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero.
This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results:
a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.
This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change.
You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work.
They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said:
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase.
Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen.
These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change.
This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.
An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major ‘greenhouse gases’ by name and percentage of the total. They are:
water vapour (H20) 95 percent
carbon dioxide (CO2) four percent
and methane (CH4) 0.036 percent
The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95 percent) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour.
The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4 percent of the total CO2 (Figure 1)
To put that in perspective, approximately a two percent variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.
In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years.
It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation.
I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.
Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase:
In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation.
They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored.
At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.
Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article:
“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”
Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day.
Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern:
“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”
Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that:
The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential.
We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.
Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.
Thomas Huxley said:
“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)
The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said:
“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied:
“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”
The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).
The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius.
He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error.
This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour.
The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2.
If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.
See more here: technocracy.news
Editor’s note: this article was originally published in 2018.
Some bold emphasis added
About the author: Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. He has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball’s extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition, made him the perfect choice as the Chief Science Adviser with the International Climate Science Coalition.
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.
Michael Downey
| #
CO2 is only 0.04% – not 4% as stated
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
The article is correct since it is percent of ALL the GH gases,
It is correct to say that by the molecule it is indeed .04% of the atmosphere.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
\Correct tom, ut mr ball is correct also at 4% of all ”greenhouse” gases, what he should say is optically active gases.
Reply
Alan
| #
I don’t agree with this article. There are only two ways known to science that can increase temperatures – adding thermal energy and doing work. Carbon dioxide and water vapour cannot do either. Water vapour does not increase the surface temperature as claimed by Tim Ball. It reduces the surface temperature because the energy needed to evaporate surface water is removed from the surface – cooling it, not heating it. When clouds form the surface is further cooled because sunlight is blocked.
Reply
Lit
| #
Exactly. Heat and work are the only ways to increase temperature, and heat is defined as the energy in transfer from high to low temperature.
An air cooled engine, cooled via water to air or directly, is cooled by low temperature air that absorbs the heat from the radiator or flanges on the cylinder. The greenhouse effect says the opposite, that the same process of heat absorption in cold air that cools the engine, instead warms the surface. How can the same cold air have the opposite effect on the Earth surface compared to the effect it has on everything ON the surface? Its pathetic.
Heat absorption cools the thing that heat is absorbed from. Cold air cools. Its remarkable that there even is a discussion about this.
As you say, the same applies to water absorbing heat. It breaks the bonds of the liquid and energy is carried away internally in the molecules, this is work-displacement of mass. And then it´s dumped at altitude far away from where the heat was absorbed, at the same time blocking sunlight going in when condensating into clouds. Then cold rain falls on the surface cooling even more. So, it cools when evaporating, it cools with clouds and it cools with rain. The water cycle is all cooling.
Reply
MattH
| #
Perihelion is eleven days after Southern Hemisphere summer solstice.
The Southern hemisphere is mostly ocean so some of this higher energy of perihelion is stored by and distributed by the ocean.
If this perihelion energy occurred in the Northern hemisphere the larger NH landmasses would release that energy at night rather than store as the ocean does.
It takes approx. 56 years for perihelion to progress by one day. As perihelion becomes nearer to the equinox the present perihelion timing will loose its climate warming effect.
The current perihelion climate warming effect can be negated or reversed by volcanic eruption and/or solar cycles and solar activities.
Does the water vapor evaporating from the ocean at 20 degrees South during perihelion carry more energy than water vapor derived from cooler sea surface temperatures and cooler near surface atmospheric temperatures?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Lit,
Water as a gas at the pressure at the surface of the Earth does does not exist below 100C (Check a phase chart water.).After the temperature of water reaches 100C it takes another 540 calories/gram to convert the 100C liquid to 100C gas. When water is absorbing heat below 100C that heat is creating structures (liquid crystals) that contain the absorbed energy. After the temperature reaches 100C the energy absorbed break (melt) these structures. (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments or read his bookThe Fourth Phase of Water) The evaporated water in the atmosphere is not a gas but nano droplets of water. (When steam comes out of a tea kettle it first appears as a clear gas then, on cooling, becomes a cloud of small water droplets. With further cooling these droplets disappear. How can cooling (loss of energy) add the 540 calories/gram necessary to convert the liquid droplets into a gas?)
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Good question, Herb.
Answer: Please read about this fabled thing named ‘Dew Point’?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
Dew is the opposite of evaporate. The dew point is where the water in atmosphere loses energy to the air molecules instead of absorb energy from them. This causes the nano droplets to combine to form larger droplets. It is where the temperature has dropped so the humidity exceeds the saturation point. Are you familiar with “diamond dust” where the temperature drops so fast that water forms strange shaped ice crystals instead of liquid water?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb
You wrote: “The dew point is where the water in atmosphere loses energy to the air molecules instead of absorb energy from them. This causes the nano droplets to combine to form larger droplets.” So you imply “This causes the nano droplets to combine to form larger droplets.” Is the action (process) by which “”water in atmosphere loses energy to the air molecules” of the atmosphere. It seems you write this because you and James McGinn refuse to accept there are water molecules in air whose temperature is less than 100C.
However, I write to point our that when your “nano droplets to combine to form larger droplets” the water molecules have already condensed to form the nano droplets. Hence, there is nothing from which “the air molecules instead of absorb energy”. [There is nothing (no condensation) from which the air molecules can absorb energy]
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You do not understand water and there is no educating you on it. You write the water droplets in clouds condense around particles and yet you believe that those droplets are super cooled even though these same particles would make it impossible for the droplets to super cool.
I will explain again how water works, not because I think it will in any way change your beliefs but because others my have questions and are looking for explanations.
Water follows the pattern of other compounds. It goes from a gas, to a liquid, to a solid. It does not go from a gas, to a liquid, to a gas, to a liquid, to a solid as you believe.
The evaporation of water is a result of a liquid being converted to a liquid crystal.
When liquid water absorbs. IR energy it splits into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions (See the experiments in Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book.) and stores that energy as electric charges. Because of their charges these ions combine with other water molecules to form hydronium ions and chains of water molecules attached to the hydroxyl ion. Because of the attraction between the positive hydronium ion and the negatively charged chain structures are formed in the water. This is the reason the pH of a solution changes with changes in temperature and the size of a calorie (the energy needed to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 C) changes depending on the initial temperature. As energy is added to the water more hydroxyl ions form, the chain around the hydronium ions shrink forming smaller crystals. This process continues until the temperature reaches 100c and then the crystals begin to melt (Liquid crystals have 2 melt points). Since it takes 540 calories to convert 100C water to 100C steam, it is probable that in addition to the 100 calories used to raise the temperature from 0C to100C another 540 calories was absorbed to form these crystal structures.
As the crystal shrink their negative charge increases and it is this negative charge the cause the smaller crystals to seperate from the water as evaporation (or sublimation). When in the atmosphere the liquid crystals continue to absorb heat as their shell thickens, increasing their negative charge and causing them to rise in the atmosphere. (If condensation is due to cooler temperatures why doesn’t it occur lower in the atmosphere where the temperature is well below zero?). Because the kinetic energy of molecules is greater at higher altitudes (hence the lower density) the liquid crystals will continue to rise as IR energy is converted to electrical energy. At the top of the troposphere the liquid crystals reach their second melt point (over 100C but less than the 540 calories needed to convert them to a gas). There they release their stored electrical energy, convert back to a liquid, and fall as rain. The reason water molecules with a molecular weight of 18 (less than N2 (28)or O2 (32)) is almost exclusively found in the troposphere is because it never converts to a gas composed of individual molecules. The rain does not form because there are more condensation particle at higher altitudes and those particles in rain are a result of the rain cleaning the particles out of the air as it falls.
Why don’t rain clouds form at 1000 ft where the temperature is cold and there are many more particles? The whole contention that water condenses around particle and supercools is ridiculous.
Herb
Charles Higley
| #
Yes, and furthermore, the upper tropical troposphere, which is supposed to be warming Earth’s surface with downwelling IR energy, is ALWAYS cooler than the surface.
A cold object cannot and does not warm a hot object. The energy level at the surface (at 15 deg C) equivalent to the temperature of the tropospheric “hot spot” (at -17 deg C) are all full and thus the IR is reflected (rejected) back upward. No warming is possible.
Indeed, comparing the planet without an atmosphere to one with an atmosphere, Earth’s atmosphere keeps it warm at night and cool during the day. It works both ways, simply slowing down energy loss at night and helping dissipate and move energy away from the surface during the day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
The surface of the Earth is warmer than the air above because there are more molecules radiating heat, not because the molecules have more kinetic energy. If you burn more oil it will radiated more heat even though all the oil molecules are reproducing the same kinetic energy.
In the troposphere the transfer of energy is done primarily by convection and when molecules collide they obey the law of conservation of momentum. The molecule with the greater velocity will transfer energy to the other molecule, regardless of any difference in mass. “Colder” objects can warm “hotter” objects even when those objects have greater kinetic energy due to greater mass.
The molecules on the Earth absorb visible and IR radiation while those in the atmosphere (O2 & N2) absorb UV radiation (over 90%) and convert it to IR. Because there are fewer molecules in the atmosphere they equalize with greater energy (v^2) and do transfer energy to the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Many if not most of these statements – usually based on no supporting evidence, consistent application of the laws of thermodynamics, or logical explanation – are amusing but far from enlightening. Well-intentioned though they may be, they are to often unqualified half-truths, not by amateurs, but apparently by non-specialists venturing out of the reasonable certainties of their own disciplines. These “informants” make little sense and seem not to care about potential readers. Why, then, bother making the statement?
For example, “Colder” objects warming “Hotter” objects needs substantial explanation before tossing it out as something we all know or should know (and if so why?). At first glance it flies in the face of reality, to say nothing of physical laws. And how do you explain, “Because there fewer [than what?] molecules in the atmosphere they equalize with greater energy (v^2) and do transfer energy to the Earth.” Good taste forbids calling this gobbledy-gook, but it is tempting.
Here is a fact – a rarity in some quarters, “The 99.96% of non-radiant molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere have been observed to collide 6.92 billion times per second at sea level.” When they collide with an IR-active radiant molecule, it is observed to stop the emission of radiant energy from CO2, to only about 47 meters at sea level, and the radiant energy is converted to mechanical (vibrational) energy.” Look ‘em up; they’re facts.
Another fact, CO2’s major (99.83% by one experiment) spectral band of activity peaks at 15 microns wavelength, at a temperature, according to Wilhelm Wien’s Displacement Law, of 193K or -80°C. How much forcing of the atmosphere will a temperature like that cause?
Let the alarmists deal in doctrine and dogma. Could we have a bit more factual discussion here?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
The laws of thermodynamics should be called the laws of energy dynamics, since objects do not radiate or transfer matter, only energy. Since temperature (kinetic energy) is a function of both mass and energy it does not necessarily indicate how the energy will flow.
The energy an object contains is a function of its mass (volume) with the energy equalizing among all the molecules. The energy an object radiates is a function of its area and the energy of the molecules on that area. All object with energy radiate energy and all objects absorb radiated energy (there is no such thing as a non radiant object) but objects only absorb and radiate energy of certain wavelengths that match the bonds in the molecule.
With collisions energy is not transferred to the internal bonds of the molecule but to the molecule as a whole. This cause the velocity of a molecule to increase and the molecule will radiate energy in the infrared spectrum (as well as the energy being radiated from vibrations across its bonds) even though the molecule does not absorb energy from this spectrum. CO2 molecules can absorb and transfer energy even when the temperature is not -80, 412C just as you can heat up O2 and N2 molecules by convection in an oven even though they only absorb energy from the UV wavelength.
The density of the molecules in the atmosphere decreases with altitude. When the energy of the molecules at 80km (.000005 kg/m^3) equalize each molecule will have 60,000 times the energy of molecules at sea level (1.2 kg/m^3) equalizing with the same energy source. The density of water at sea level is about 900 times that of the air above it
Using the same energy you can bring a half full pot of water to boiling faster than a full pot because the energy is being distributed to fewer molecules and they are gaining the energy needed to boil faster.
The law of conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 +M2V4) applies to the transfer of energy by convection, which is how energy is transferred in the troposphere and between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere The masses of the objects is irrelevant and energy flows from the object with the greater velocity to the object with less velocity. If you do not want to believe the law of conservation of energy that is your prerogative but if you want a further explanation of how cold heats hot use the search function in PSI and look up my article “How Cold Heats Hot”
Herb
Reply
Lit
| #
“The laws of thermodynamics should be called the laws of energy dynamics, since objects do not radiate or transfer matter, only energy.”
Matter transfer is work, and work is a way to transfer energy. Energy in transfer can be work or heat, and only work or heat. Heat is defined as the energy in transfer from high to low temperature. So, the atmosphere being colder than the surface can´t transfer heat to the surface, and the GHE doesn´t include work. This means that the GHE violates the first law.
“heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. If two bodies at different temperatures are brought together, energy is transferred—i.e., heat flows—from the hotter body to the colder.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
“energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/energy
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Lit,
Kinetic energy (temperature) is 1/2mv^2 so both the energy of the object (v^2) and mass determine the temperature.
When objects collide the energy of both objects equalize so the energy of both objects’ molecules are the same. If an object with greater velocity (energy) but little mass collides with a larger object with less velocity (energy) the energy will flow from the molecules of the smaller object to the molecules of the larger object, even though the product of the energy and mass of the larger object (temperature/kinetic energy) is greater than the product of energy and mass (temperature) of the smaller object. This is what the law of conservation of momentum says so with the transfer of energy by convection the second law of energydynamics dictates that “cold” will heat “hot”.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editor,
You wrote: “this article was originally published in 2018.” And the related articles listed were all 2018 or later. I make this comment to ask: Why was this earlier 1916 article, https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/, based upon commonly measured air temperatures and dew point temperatures, both measured at the same time and place, not considered?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tim Ball,
I ask you: Why have you totally ignored my earlier 2016 article related to the idea concerning the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Tim, PSI Editor,
Some valid points made on scientific philosophy. The IPCC have drifted from the scientific method (falsify the null hypothesis) to “demonstrate which of two competing theories is more likely” (AGW vs not AGW; see also the dreadful Mano Singham article quoted in my recent post). Which has lead to the science method no longer being required to prove a hypothesis, but a fervent search for enough likes / supporters to agree that a theory – AGW – is more likely than the competing one: science by consensus. Which means science is now a social construct. Which is not only noticeable in the climate sciences but also in e.g. biology: see the current confusion on defining what a “woman” is. The scientific definition was quite clear until society’s recent attempts to redefine it.
On the Science: both Alan and Jerry (and TIm) make good points. Something is causing global temperatures to rise, and that something does not seem to be acting like CO2 or a GHG. Water vapor giveth and taketh away. The IPCC data show something is heating the Arctic, yet the Arctic radiates less heat than the equator, so GHG effects are lowest there. Also, temperatures in the Arctic appear to be rising in the winter, when no GHG effects should be noticable (see Andy Rowling and my posts). Jerry has had some posts on the albedo effects of cloud and ice cover over the Arctic, which might be worth examining further. Alternatively the heat flux of the Arctic sea floor might also be a (poorly examined) source of new heat.
Reply
MattH
| #
Koen ” Alternatively the heat flux of the Arctic sea floor might also be a (poorly examined) source of new heat.”
Matt If the above sentence is in relation to ‘geothermal activity, that could be stated more clearly with fewer words. It reminds me of the near impregnable language of an urban planner.
Koen’s point is, of course, absolutely valid.
The first thing is to account for the clearly known drivers of climate change. Geothermal activity, (cooling and warming effects) Milankovitch cycles, solar activity and cycles.
Then define water vapor and daytime cloud influences. Hi cloud, low cloud, partial cloud, types of cloud, all have varying effect, sometimes contradictory effects.
Then define night time cloud effect.
The present time eccentricity of earths orbit around the sun provides a 6% variation in total solar between aphelion and perihelion. The peak of this energy is dispersed by oceanic currents for long term effects and atmospheric currents for near term anomalies.
One must prioritize the most significant forcings and explain and quantify as best as possible before accusing the relatively innocent bystanders, such as CO2.
Reply
VOWG
| #
The sun creates the heat. The earths core is also hot. Man cannot create a change in the climate and CO2 never was and never will be a climate driver. All the discussion in the world will not alter that.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Good article by Tim Ball. Let us demand that the “warmists” (most of them want global warming by man to be true) explain how temp went down from 1940 to 1980 and CO2 went up 15%?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Read and reread what MattH has written. It is good accurate Information about known data (observations).
Great job Matt.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I see your recent comment is already gone from the most recent comments list. So we need to keep referring to this article so new PSI readers might more probably read your comments.
And because, for some reason, this comment needs moderation; it will probably first appear half-way down the recent list. So the burden to keep your comment before the PSI readers mainly upon your shoulders.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Matt H. Briefly mentioned the Milankovich Cycles, which means the Earth gets closer to the Sun each 40,000 years. Thus, each 20,000 years we have warming, then cooling.
Strange coincidence the last Ice Age was 18,000 years ago…
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry, Kevin and all the eccentic orbiters
.The Milankovitch cycles must be understood to understand ice age drivers and interglacial periods.
Understanding the mechanics is essential but some of wikipedia’s interpretations on some climatic effects are questionable.
Here is a scary scenario of orbital extremities . We will not be alive to see itunless pfizer do something notably useful. From wiki.
‘Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most eccentric, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion will be about 23% more than at aphelion.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Very, very good. Hold that thought and I will be back later after I find the person’s comment about Sutcliffe’s book, which is really about Sutcliffe who is somewhat like you. See things but never quite sure. That is a TRUE SCIENTIST!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
1
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Went back 10 pages and didn’t find what I was looking for. Which doesn’t mean that IT (what I was looking for) wasn’t there. As these days when I look for my cell phone, it can be right in front of me and I don’t see it. Multiple times.
Any how, this unknown (now) person had indicated an interest in R.C. Sutcliffe’s 1966 book ‘Weather & Climate’, which has been available at Abe’s Books for less than $10. In it, Sutcliffe is amazing because he does not appreciate what he is writing.
Best example of this is in this introduction he wrote (page 13). “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” Then on page 48 (‘The Microphysics of Clouds) he wrote: “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experiments, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour.”
For here, I consider that Sutcliffe just stated a meteorological physical law of the natural atmosphere. And I almost never read that the natural atmosphere is composed of these minute particles of salts, acids, or other substances which do have surfaces just like cloud droplets do and therefore can emit radiation occurring to their surface temperatures. Hence, the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere that is measured by the appropriate instrument which has been invented. I don’t mention this instrument’s name because I forget it and I am too lazy to look it up. For its name does not matter. What matters is what this invented instrument measures. .
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply