Let’s begin with the following graph which many would have seen before.
There are two things we can get from this graph put together using proxies. Proxies are physical characteristics like tree rings that indicate either temperature at the time or amount of CO2.
I’ve circled two places in red. (The blue line is the earth’s temperature and the black line is the CO2 concentration). In the encircled part on the left the temperature of the earth has dropped to 12 deg C but the CO2 has risen, then as the temperature of the earth rises the CO2 falls. On the right, the earth is steady at a temperature of 22 deg C, but the CO2 level steadily falls off to the present. So this suggests strongly that there is no connection between the earth’s temperature and the amount of CO2.
The second thing we obtain from this graph is that the amount of CO2 from natural sources changes. No humans about for almost all of this graph time, so we cannot say humans were contributing to CO2. All the CO2 came from natural sources. There was wide variation from about 400ppm to 7000ppm.
The IPCC keep saying that since the Industrial revolution the amount of CO2 from natural sources has remained the same. Can we believe this, since it has constantly changed throughout time.
Now let’s look at this sketch provided by the IPCC.
We don’t need to worry about any units as it is only the ratios we need. Humans contribute 29 units, and nature contributes 439 + 332 = 771 units.
Total units is 29 + 771 = 800
So fraction of human contribution is 29/800 = 0.036 or approximately 0.04. This is 4 parts in 100 or 4%. So 96% of all CO2 comes from natural sources. So it is this nasty 4% that causes global warming! Now the natural CO2 and the human caused CO2 go up into the atmosphere. The Human CO2 keeps separate from the natural and that’s how we know it is the human CO2 that causes the warming. Well that’s a lot of rubbish isn’t it. So how do we know it is the human CO2 that causes warming as they will all be mixed up together. What the alarmists are saying is that 4% of Carbon Dioxide (a tiny amount), has much more effect than 96% of Carbon Dioxide.
The concentration of CO2 at present is about 420ppm (parts per million). So the percentage of CO2 from all sources is 0.042%. But the human contribution is just 4%. So 4% of 0.042 is 0.00168%. So in the atmosphere, in every 1 million gas molecules, 16 of them are human caused CO2. What a powerful army those 16 molecules are.
We should mention the forgotten greenhouse gas-water vapour. Water vapour has on average 20,000 ppm. Those 16 human produced Carbon Dioxide molecules are simply 16ppm. So there is 1,250 more water molecules than human caused Carbon Dioxide. But the climate alarmists just ignore water vapour. It’s still those 16 nasty Carbon Dioxide molecules that cause everything.
The Sources of Natural CO2
The natural sources of Carbon Dioxide are: The oceans, decomposing vegetation and other biomass, wildfires, respiration from animals and plants, and, volcanoes. The IPCC diagram above tells us that natural sources account for the majority of Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere. The oceans provide the greatest amount of Carbon Dioxide of any natural or anthropogenic source. The ocean stores 50 times more Carbon Dioxide than the atmosphere, and 20 times more than land plants and soil. Right, so most of the Carbon Dioxide is in the oceans.
Some reports (Woods Hale Oceanographic Institution), for one, state that the oceans are warming, though not uniformly. One report states that the most warming is taking place around the tropics
All the oceans appear to be warming. The Indian Ocean which has warmed by 1Deg C since 1950, and the Nth Atlantic Ocean, exhibit strong warming trends. The Western Tropical Indian Ocean has been warming for more than a hundred years, i.e. since 1920. If this is the case then humans have played no part in this warming as it began at least as early as 1920. There is obviously some other reason for the warming. In fact, it appears the real reason for the warming has not been established yet. The accelerated warming in recent decades can be put down to increased frequency of El Nino events. The warming of the oceans, plus the slowing of the Gulf Stream, is enough to put large quantities of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. Remember, most of the Carbon Dioxide is in the oceans. The warm pool in the Indian Ocean is expanding.
There seems to be agreement that the Gulf Stream is slowing. The Gulf Stream is responsible for transferring heat from the tropics to the northern parts of the world. So the fact that most warming of the oceans is happening around the tropics, fits in well with a slowing of the Gulf Stream because the water is not flowing out of the tropics with any speed so it will just keep warming.
This is a large scale ocean current in the top 1000m of the Atlantic. The current transports warm salty water northwards throughout the Atlantic and then in the sub-polar North Atlantic the water gets cold , becomes more dense and sinks to below 1000m and flows back southwards. This is what happens under normal conditions. Now the climate alarmists claim that because of global warming, the Greenland ice sheet is melting and putting fresh water into the ocean in the northern latitudes. This fresh water is diluting the salt water and making it less dense. So the top 1000m is not sinking like it should do, and so the circulating current is affected. This is slowing down the Gulf Stream. The Greenland ice sheet is indeed melting, but not from global warming, but from underneath. Japanese researchers under Dr. Genti Toyokini of Tohuku University recently discovered a flow of molten rocks known as a mantle plume rising up beneath the island. It melts Greenland’s ice from below. The plume has two branches and the second one arises under Iceland and is responsible for the active volcano in recent times there.
So now we know why the Gulf Stream is slowing. This means increasingly warmer water is piling up in mid latitudes. More warm water will build up near the tropical areas. This increased heat energy in the water could cause stronger and more frequent hurricanes. There are already patterns of more severe heat waves and storms resulting from weaker ocean currents.
An article by Woods Hale Oceanographic Institution from 2021 states: Hotter oceans hold more Carbon Dioxide, which causes sea water to become more acidic. They then say the pH of the ocean is now around 8.1 representing a 25% increase in acidity. This is misinformation of the first order (or is it disinformation?). Let’s deal with the first part. You have a can of Sprite in the fridge. You take it out and pull the tab. There is a small fizz due to a small amount of pressure which you release. You pour it into a glass. You can see the bubbles of Carbon Dioxide coming off. By the end of the day all the Carbon Dioxide has gone, because the liquid has warmed up. We say the Sprite has gone flat. So hotter oceans hold LESS carbon dioxide. The colder the ocean the more Carbon Dioxide it contains.
Second part: The IPCC say that the pH of the oceans has increased by 0.1 since the beginning of the Industrial era. So if the pH is 8.1 now it was 8.2 then. The percentage drop in pH is then (8.2-8.1)/ 8.2 X 100 = 1.2%
So the pH has dropped by just 1.2%. The scary 25% quoted is the drop in Hydrogen ion concentration, not the pH. The sea water is not becoming more acidic. It is becoming less alkaline. The sea water has been alkaline most of geological time. The pH has to drop below 7 for the sea water to become acidic.
Now the Gulf Stream has been slowing for at least 40 years, probably longer. So those areas of ocean around the equator and mid latitudes have been warming for that time. This means the oceans have been putting out large quantities of Carbon Dioxide for that time also. Here’s the increase in Carbon Dioxide since 1958 when Mauna Loa the recording station began.
The graph on the right gives the period 2019 to 2024. No particular anomalies can be seen. The graph on the left gives a steady increase in CO2 from 1958. No dip in the graph can be detected while Covid lockdowns were in force.
Now in the period 2019 to 2021 the world was dealing with Covid.
The Journal of Environmental and Public Health in June 2023 stated : “The global crisis caused by the Covid 19 epidemic has led to an unprecedented reduction in daily Carbon Dioxide emissions.” They cited the following reasons: Energy consuming sectors were severely affected and also caused a reduction in foreign investment. Millions of people stayed at home. Industrial sectors were shut down. Coal mining was halted. Domestic travel and air travel decreased and so imports and exports decreased.
Several articles say that the flow of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere was reduced. In April 2020 daily emissions of Carbon Dioxide fell by about 17%.
This graph shows a reduction in CO2 emissions for April 2020 of about 20 million tonnes.
Mauna Loa can detect Carbon Dioxide with an accuracy of 0.2ppm. There does not appear to be any change in the Mauna Loa graphs. In fact many articles say although the emission of Carbon Dioxide was reduced the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at the same rate. ( Local Carbon Project, 2020, Caltech March 2020, Journal of Environment al and Public Health, 2023, Fiona Harvey, Environmental Correspondent, June 2020.)
So reducing the anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide had NO effect. Doesn’t this suggest that if the anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide was INCREASED by 17 % there would be NO change to the rising CO2!! It would keep rising at the same rate. So if CO2 keeps rising at the same rate even though humans reduced CO2 emissions by 17%, then it will keep rising at the same rate if human emissions are increased by 17%.
To sum up:
1. Natural Carbon Dioxide emissions have changed continuously over geologic time
2. Natural sources of Carbon Dioxide FAR outweigh human contributions. Human contributions are only 4%. So apparently, the other 96% of CO2 from natural sources does nothing.
3. The oceans are warming.
4. The Gulf Stream is slowing due to undersea volcanoes melting the Greenland ice sheet from underneath. This puts fresh water into the ocean, which hinders the circulation of the Gulf Stream, and slows it.
5. The slowing of the Gulf Stream means the water around the tropics and in mid regions gets warmer than usual, as it is not taking the heat away effectively.
6. The gradual slowing of the Gulf Stream coincides with the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
7. Warmer water holds less Carbon Dioxide than cold water, so as the ocean warms more Carbon Dioxide is pushed out into the atmosphere. Bear in mind that most of the natural CO2 exists in the oceans.
8. Graphs from Mauna Loa showing Carbon Dioxide levels, show no change during the pandemic when Carbon Dioxide levels fell considerably at some stage. If a 17% decrease in CO2 levels doesn’t show up, then an increase of 17% of CO2 will not show up either. The rate of CO2 increase did not change during the pandemic. All this suggests the increase in CO2 comes from natural sources NOT human sources.
The climate alarmists would not want the increase in CO2 to be coming from natural sources.All those taxes and other restrictions on humans would have to go. Nothing humans could do would stop CO2 entering the atmosphere from natural sources. As long as the Gulf Stream keeps slowing, and the oceans keep warming, the Carbon Dioxide will come out of the oceans and keep increasing in the atmosphere.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
20 comments:
Maybe the 16 superhuman CO2 molecules per million were created for the UNIPCC in the Wuhan Lab, and we all know what their security's like, and it's been leaking out for decades, just like the Covid virus got out.
These mighty molecules have been atomically modified to absorb a shitload more heat and that's the real reason for global warming.
Thanks Ian for bringing these 16 serial heat offenders to our attention. Now we have to take them out of circulation and incarcerate them in a maximum security carbon capture and storage facility.... which we haven't built yet.
The worldwide consensus among climate scientists is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have significantly contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn contributes to global warming. Although natural sources of CO2 exist, the rapid increase observed since the Industrial Revolution (1750 onwards) cannot be solely attributed to natural cycles. A distinctive isotopic fingerprint of atmospheric CO2 confirms that the increase since the IR is caused by human activities not by natural sources.
The U.S. government science agency NOAA has a great Climate website aimed at a general audience with accurate explanations of global warming and its causes.
It’s crucial for us to work to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Downplaying or denying human contributions to CO2 levels and its effects on the planet undermines these efforts.
LFC
The billions New Zealand is wasting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist is criminal. Our nuclear moment my arse. Thick politicians allowing foreign investors to plant pine trees on arable farm land. Solving an imaginary problem through taxation. Wake up people, you are being conned. Thanks for another great essay Ian.
God we have a live one amongst us, next anonymous will be dragging out the other great lie that 97% of all scientists have reached a consensus. Climate Alarmism is a religious crusade that has the potential to bankrupt countries. It’s a religion where debate is forbidden. I strongly suggest that you start following world leading atmospheric physicists instead of the MSM.
RB: Actually, I too am sceptical about a lot of what is reported as ‘truth’ in the MSM.
The good news in this area: it’s the peer-reviewed, scientific literature that has established the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that you allude to = human activities are mainly responsible for causing global warming. The consensus hasn’t been reached without rigorous debate and research within the scientific community – and it is very telling that the consensus has increased over recent decades rather than decreased.
I also agree that there are serious concerns about the economic implications of addressing climate change. If policies are based on fallacious, unscientific grounds, however, the results are likely to be ineffective or worse.
LJC
Responding to anonymous
What about putting your name Anonymous?
Actually the consensus that you talk about has decreased, NOT increased.
A cult expert was asked to examine the climate alarmist movement. He had ten criteria which he went through one by one. He ticked off all ten. So the climate alarmist movement of which you are probably one, is a CULT.
Now what about "consensus"? If I have a hall full of climate alarmists and I say "put up your hand if you think humans are causing climate change", they will all put up their hand. In other words that is a consensus.
I have read a hundred times: Consensus isn't science and science is NOT consensus.
Finally, the UN began this fraud. Here is what the UN climate spokesperson said at the UN Climate Change Conference in Brussels in 2015. " Communism is best to fight global warming," and "The UN's real agenda is a new world order under its control."
And Dr Endenhoffer a member of the IPCC said in an interview in 2010: "We the UN/IPCC redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
there was an interesting discussion on the BBC
...should CERN be spending $17 billion on a new atom smasher whilst we face, climate change, the most pressing crisis of our time?
Metallurgist Mark Miodownik and CERN physicist Kate Shaw debate the issue.
Miodownik stated that Steel & concrete rank alongside the third largest country for carbon emissions - and yet we currently don't know how to decarbonise these materials.
The CERN atomic physists dont seem to see AGW as an existential threat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct4sdm
IB: Here’s one of the more recent peer-reviewed articles that researched the level of consensus among climate scientists at the time: Krista F Myers et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 104030, https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1748-9326%2Fac2774 – it is open access. The article’s Conclusion cites earlier academic literature indicating that the consensus is increasing.
As for posting anonymously: As I noted recently on a comment to another post (on an entirely different topic), some of us work at institutions pushing political correctness and identity politics. These institutions are increasingly requiring ideological compliance, and so I don’t feel it is a good idea to be upfront with my name. I’ve started adding a handle at the bottom of my comments, however, to clarify which comments are mine. (Sorry about the finger slip in my previous comment, though).
LFC
IB: Regarding the implications of scientific consensus: In science nothing can ever be proved absolutely, only disproved. In light of that, scientific consensus on a topic is a pragmatic way to make rational policy decisions. There does appear to be a widespread scientific consensus on AGW that should be informing government policies IMO.
Ignoring your fallacious ad hominem, your comments did encourage me to look a bit more for later peer-reviewed articles. I came across this open-access article criticising the methodology of earlier climate-consensus articles: Dentelski et al. Climate 2023, 11(11), 215; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215
From what I can see, the main criticism the authors make is that in the data set ‘neutral’ articles were coded as ‘positive’ (not so much that lots of ‘negative’ articles were coded ‘positive’). A few things make me a bit cautious about this 2023 article, though: The journal is published by MDPI, which is well-known to have a mixed reputation for trustworthiness among its journals. (Web of Science delisted 50 MDPI journals from its rankings database in 2023 and was undertaking investigation of many other of MDPI journals as well). The article hasn’t been cited in the scientific literature yet (early days, though); it will be interesting to see how others critique it and whether its criticism of previous methodologies hold up.
There’s also this interesting recent article looking at author networks (or lack of networks) in climate-change research https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.11.007 (behind a paywall, though much is viewable to anyone).
LFC
You seem to have adopted a very simplistic view that ignores the amount of fossil CO2 buried underground. At the beginning of your graph there is no fossil CO2 underground, but when the industrial revolution began, huge deposits of CO2 had been deposited in the form of coal and oil. These changes arent included on your graph.
The pH scale is logarithmic, Mr Bradford.
From 8.2 to 8.1 is indeed a 25% change in acidity (or alkalinity, whatever you wish to call it).
You have a science qualification?
Replying to Mark H.
It is correct that large amounts of Carbon Dioxide would be held in the ground. Humans have existed for about 2 million years. When they discovered fire, then of very small amount of CO2 would have been released. More released from fossil fuels from the industrial revolution onwards. However the point is the IPCC the mouthpiece for climate for the UN and the organisation which advises all governments say that only 4% of Carbon Dioxide comes from humans. Numerous other organisations and scientists put out figures between 3% and 5%, so 4% is a good average. Its then a question of whether you think that 4% of CO2 from humans causes global warming while the other 96% from natural sources does nothing.
I know there are other sources of CO2 than just coal and oil. What are the biggest alternative contributors of CO2? and are you pretty sure of 96% vs 4% is correct ? I havent actually studied those details, but I am sure somebody else will have done the measuring.
Yet another anonymous! Its important to read what is actually written.
A change from 8.2 to 8.1 on the pH scale does not change the pH by 26% or whatever you say. The percentage change in pH is given by (8.2-8.1)/8.2 x100 = 1.2%. Are you disputing that? Because the pH scale is essentially logarithmic it is the Hydrogen ion concentration that changes in a log manner.
I was going to do the full calculation for you but for some reason this site will not allow me to do superscripts and subscripts. However:
For a pH of 8.2 the Hydrogen ion conc. is 6.3 x 10 to the power of neg 9
For a pH of 8.1 the Hydrogen ion conc. is 8.0 x 10 to the power of negative 9
So the increase in Hydrogen ion conc. is (8.0-6.3)/8 x 100
this equals 21% Not 26%
So the pH has only fallen by 1.2%. The Hydrogen ion concentration has risen by 21 %. Hydrogen ion conc. is a measure of acidity. However, oceans have been alkaline for most of geological time. They are NOT becoming more acidic. They are becoming less alkaline.
Note: I did say a decrease in H ion conc. before, probably still thinking about pH. Of course it is an increase in H ion conc.
Hi Mark,
Yes I'm sure 4% humans is correct. Most CO2 is held in the oceans as I have said in the article. There are so many undersea volcanoes which seem to be ignored by climate alarmists. It is difficult to know just how much CO2 comes from volcanoes.
MH: IB’s percentages look about right.
CO2 has natural sources and natural sinks (where CO2 is absorbed). For a long time prior to the Industrial Revolution, the sources and sinks were in natural balance, keeping global temperatures fairly steady. But only about half of CO2 emitted by human activities is absorbed by natural sinks these days. And so like a weighing balance on which you gradually add grains to one side, the CO2 balance has gradually shifted over time, leading to AGW.
There’s a great explanation written by climate scientists on the Climate Feedback website – just do a web search "CO2 emissions from human activities have imbalanced the atmospheric carbon budget, significantly contributing to climate change, contrary to online claim".
LFC
I respect the author, but the issue is not about CO2 as such, it is about the reason for climate change in the broadest sense.
The effect which CO2 might have on the climate is unknown, but what is known is that there is that the climate is volatile and the green house gasses are really only bit players.
Amongst the real reason for climate change is the movement of heat form the tropics to the poles, it is a natural phenomena and is unrelated to any specific gas in the atmosphere.
It is a product of the sun's energy and is part of the earths ongoing work to maintain a liveable environment.
There is little mixing of atmosphere between the northern and southern hemispheres.Concurrent CO2 levels recorded in Hawaii and New Zealand are very similar.The anthropogenic output of CO2 is much higher in the northern hemisphere, so if it was significant, the northern hemisphere level would be higher. There is much more water (oceans) in the southern hemisphere,and as all oceans are warming, they express more CO2, resulting in the CO2 levels in each hemisphere being virtually the same.
It looks like the current contributors to atmospheric CO2 are vulcanism, and fossil fuels. Volcanic activity seems to have been relatively stable over the last 3,000 years, but in the last 300 years fossil fuel use has increased exponentially, so it seems most likely that the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are coming from fossil fuel. Current figures suggest at least 10 times as much CO2 comes from fossil fuels. Wood fires dont count because that doesnt change the amount of CO2 above ground, and the CO2 below ground in coal and oil would have stayed there if humans didnt dig it up. You are right that CO2 is continually being absorbed by rainforests and oceans and redeposited below ground, but that process must be slowing due to deforestation, and to diminished ocean life. I think these are the biggest factors in climate change activity, but there are plenty of other variables involved.
Thank you Ian for clarity and cohesive argument.
What about Solar Flares, on an 11 year cycle?
Forest fires (many deliberately lit)?
The recent volcanic eruption along a 4 km fissure in Iceland showed the awesome power of volcanic emissions to drastically change atmospheric norms. Pales our "cow-farts" into...well...cow-farts.
Seems like the more gullible Governments of the world are willing to pauperize and dispossess the farmers in the name of climate change, while the main offenders for environmental pollution continue to churn out toxic by-products into the atmosphere, and thrive economically.
Don't get me started on electric cars and their batteries.
Or buying in "dirty coal" from Indonesia while our coalmines remain dormant.
As for being anonymous, cut us some slack.
I prefer to remain Anonymous as a close relation works for the government. Get it?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.