Ian Bradford: Further Evidence Human Are Not Causing Global Warming

Further evidence that human emitted carbon dioxide is not causing global warming and no country will ever reach net zero emissions…

At today’s CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 420 parts per million, CO2 has little ability to absorb heat and is therefore a weak “greenhouse gas.” Its ability to warm the planet and at higher levels of CO2 is very small. As CO2 concentrations increase, its ability to warm the planet decreases rapidly. This means the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change is no longer true and is scientifically false. More carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Neither can methane or nitrous oxide, the levels of which are so small that they are irrelevant to climate.

Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn dispels the myth that carbon dioxide is the control knob for global temperatures. “The problem is with current climate change narrative is that it is false.” “It claims that carbon dioxide controls world temperatures, whereas actual data shows it is world temperature that controls carbon dioxide concentration.”

Green: Annual CO2 concentration measured at Maua Loa.

Blue: Global sea surface temperatures (Had SST4)
Red: Global surface air temperature,( HADCRUT 4)

Moving to the left on the graph moves you closer to the present. You can see that the green peaks (CO2), are to the right of the blue, meaning carbon dioxide lags behind the sea and land temperatures. Data from Vostock ice cores reinforces the fact that carbon dioxide lags behind air temperatures. More carbon dioxide is emitted as air temperature rises. Something else causes the rise in air temperature.

Ice core data is available for the past 800,000 years, and over this period the earth had a series of long glacial periods separated by relatively brief interglacial warm periods. These cycles have repeated once every 100 thousand years. The temperatures for the last half of this period are shown in the following chart. (i.e. the past 400,000 years).

The dotted line is the division between warm (above) and cold (below). You can see we have a bit more warming to go before the temperature drops of dramatically. (The present is the right of the graph). The point to note is that the warm and cold periods happen at regular intervals. As it says at the bottom we will not be able to stop the drop-off to cold. Over this period there is a correlation between temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide. but the ice cores show in all cases that THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE OCCURRED BEFORE THE CHANGE IN CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS.

The temperature changes going in and out of these glacial periods occurred 200 to 800 years before the change in the levels of carbon dioxide. It is the temperature that is causing the changes in carbon dioxide levels. I have suggested before that warmer temperatures are causing the carbon dioxide to come out of the oceans - the biggest reservoir of carbon dioxide. That is what is happening at present.

A newly released science paper says CO2 is too minute to have a physical effect on the atmosphere. The paper title is: “Human CO2 emissions have little effect on atmospheric CO2.” [International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences : Vol3 issue 1 June 2019, pages 13-26.]

The paper highlights the following major conclusions.:

· The UN/IPCC agrees that the human-made portion of the atmospheric CO2 increase is only 5% and nature produced CO2 is 95%.

· But the IPCC claims that only the human–made CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280ppm.

· The IPCC model treats human-made and nature-made CO2differently, which is impossible because the molecules are all identical.

· IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human-made CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets nature-made CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere.

· By contrast, a simple physics model treats all CO2 molecules the same as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balanced level where outflow equals inflow.

· The conclusion is that human–made CO2 is insignificant to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Water vapour is another “greenhouse gas” and plays a key role in climate feedbacks, because of its heat trapping ability. Warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air. Therefore as global temperatures rise, the total amount of water vapour in the atmosphere also increases. Could this then explain the increase in rainfall around the globe at the present time. We mustn’t forget the large amount of water put into the atmosphere by the Tongan volcano eruption.

Physics Nobel Prize winner John Clauser has the following theory: He says it is the clouds that stop the oceans boiling. But as the planet warms our main defence against the sun’s fierce heat is weakening. Clouds act as a global heat shield. Without them, the sun would obliterate life. Much depends on what happens to this heat shield as the planet warms. It might grow a little stronger slowing the warming somewhat, or it could weaken, meaning the world would warm even faster.

Ned Nikolov, a physical scientist and researcher affiliated with Colorado State University says the IPCC is incorrect regarding CO2:

“They are arguing that tiny increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause global warming and that we must stop burning fossil fuels to avoid dangerous climate change. That is completely wrong.”

Recently, Nikolov and Karl Zeller, retired Forest Service meteorologist published their study that found that recent warming is NOT the result of increasing CO2. Instead, after analyzing satellite data, the two researchers concluded that the earth has warmed because it has been absorbing more sunlight due to reduced global cloud cover.

After the sun’s shortwave radiation – sunshine - reaches the earth the energy flows back into space as thermal radiation (heat). If this balance is disrupted and more sunlight is absorbed by the earth, or not enough heat escapes into space, then Earth’s temperature will rise. So climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infra-red (heat) emitted to space.

Nikolov and Zeller said that although water vapour is a greenhouse gas it only becomes visible when it condenses and becomes clouds. Because clouds reflect solar radiation back into space their impact on the climate is measurable and significant.

Cloud formation is largely controlled by cosmic forces. Cosmic forces include solar activity which itself includes variations in the sun’s magnetic field and galactic cosmic rays. Solar activity can modulate the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth. These cosmic rays can in turn, affect the formation of clouds potentially altering the amount of cloud cover and impacting the earth’s temperature. When clouds decrease planetary albedo drops, and more radiation from the sun reaches the surface.

Nikolov and Zeller state: “In our paper, we show using the best available observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System platform that the warming over the past 24 years was entirely caused by the observed decrease in the Earth’s albedo due to a decrease in cloud cover, and NOT by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations as claimed by the IPCC.

Note: The “Earth’s albedo” means the fraction of the sun’s radiation reflected back into space. It is currently about 30%. Fluffy white clouds have a high albedo. Snow and ice also. The Earth’s albedo is decreasing due to less cloud cover, so that is why the earth is warming.

NET ZERO IS NEITHER AFFORDABLE NOR ATTAINABLE

What does net zero mean? It means that carbon dioxide emissions by humans are balanced out by natural sequestration (for example forest growth). Canada has estimated that both sequestration and capture are minimal, so net-zero under this estimate really means there has to be no more carbon dioxide emissions. We immediately come up with a problem. China for one, keeps pouring out carbon dioxide in huge quantities. Since we have several countries emitting largish quantities of carbon dioxide, the idea of no carbon dioxide emissions is merely a pipe dream.

China emits somewhere around 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year compared to Australia with less than a quarter of a billion tonnes.

Two eminent Professors of Physics Richard Lindzen, and William Happer suggest the following:

· Net zero efforts will have a trivial effect on temperature. Physics has a mathematical formula which computes Carbon Dioxide’s ability to absorb heat. This gives: Worldwide net zero by 2050 only avoids a temperature increase of 0.13 Deg F. Since water boils at 100 Deg C and 212 Deg F, it means a Deg C is roughly half a Deg F. So 0.13 Deg F is about 0.07 Deg C. That’s not going to do anything. The number is trivial but the cost is disastrous to people worldwide.

· What about the disastrous effects on people? These effects will include eliminating fossil fuels because they are a source of approximately 90% human carbon dioxide emissions: fossil fuel electric plants that provide the majority of electricity worldwide, gas furnaces, gas stoves, and gas heaters; fossil fuels are critical to producing nitrogen fertiliser that feeds nearly half the world; the related jobs and the revenue they create; and we must not forget the increased food that more carbon dioxide produces. In addition, various countries will require that EVs, heat pumps and electric appliances be purchased, and they will require companies to report information on carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gas emissions. However since carbon dioxide and other gases have weak greenhouse effects this data is immaterial, misleading, and very expensive, and should not be required.

· More carbon dioxide means more food. Doubling carbon dioxide to 800 ppm will increase the amount of food available worldwide by 60%. We should be increasing carbon dioxide not trying to reduce it. Reducing it will not be of any benefit to the climate.

· Net zero requires fossil fuels to be eliminated, because they amount to about 90% of human CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels must not be eliminated but should be expanded because they provide more carbon dioxide which makes food, make nitrogen fertiliser for food for about half the world’s population, and provide reliable and inexpensive energy for people everywhere especially for 2/3 of the world’s population without adequate access to electricity.

· All Net Zero Action should be stopped immediately to avoid the disastrous effects on people worldwide, especially in developing countries.

A review just recently shows that Net Zero is further away than ever in the world as a whole:

· Emissions of CO2 are up 1.2 % in 2024 from the year before.

· Total energy consumption rose by 2.1%.

· Fossil fuel use rose by 1.5 % with its share of total energy sitting at about 87%.

· Wind and solar power barely rose at all – about 0.3 %.

Despite the TRILLIONS invested in renewable energy in recent years the growth in output last year met only a quarter of the world’s increasing appetite for energy.

The following chart says it all. While the West struggles to pull back emissions the developing world which includes China and India, have been carrying on with business as usual. (That’s the red line - emissions continue to rise).

Since the Paris Climate Agreement the emissions of developing countries have increased by 20%. Wind and solar power in China sits at just 4% of total energy consumption. In the developing world they seem to have the sense to realise that only fossil fuels can provide the energy they need to build their economies and give their citizens the standard of living they deserve.

So while developing countries are continuing to emit carbon dioxide in large quantities is there any point in other countries trying to stop emissions? On this basis alone Net Zero will never be reached. Climate will keep changing regardless.

Ross McKitrick, the scientist who played a large part in discrediting Mann’s hockey stick graph looked at the Net Zero situation in Canada. He concluded that Canada would not get to Net Zero. He said the cost of even trying will quickly go far beyond what Canadians are willing to pay. Long before Canada got there, the macroeconomic costs would be so severe that any government trying to pursue such a plan would be defeated. Net Zero would not be affordable even if it were attainable.

One of the consequences of trying to get to Net Zero is seen with the Opel car manufacturers. The owner of Opel has warned that the carmaker will be forced to close factories in Europe because of tough Net Zero penalties. This kind of thing will happen worldwide with many workers being laid off work.

The transformation of the global economy to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050 would require $9.2 trillion in annual spending on physical assets. How many countries can afford their share of this? Many countries are already not complying with the Paris Climate Agreement. So we are never going to achieve Net Zero on this basis alone. These non complying countries are in the meantime, progressing their economies because they are using cheap economical fossil fuels, or nuclear.

Governments without clear thinkers, will continue to be sucked in by statements such as “the emission of CO2 by humans is causing global warming.” (That’s the tiny 5% of all of the earth’s carbon dioxide emissions). And further scaremongering - “We have a climate crisis.” These statements are completely false.

No one is denying climate change. It’s just that humans emitting a tiny amount of carbon dioxide are not causing climate change. Climate is changing by natural causes, and we cannot stop it. What we must do is adjust to these changes, not try and stop them. Trying to stop them is futile. We are fortunate enough to be living in a warm period, but this will eventually change into another ice age, and those living at the time will have to cope with very low temperatures. Strong adjustment will be vital for the survival of mankind.

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.