Embedded Files
Are we Numerate in our understanding of the topic of AGW, now it has evolved to be called Climate Change ?
The whole issue of AGW, Climate Change, Methane is an emotive and reactive issue with the Media playing up the Apocolyptic conclusions.
Numbers are another way to have an analytical look at the reality or otherwise of all the information we are fed.
For example we are told Humans burn 33 GigaTonnes of Carbon each year, that's such a huge number, it has to be really bad ?
But is this actually so ?
So here is a thought experiment to put the issue into perspective.
The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever suggests any scientist to work this out for themselves in his speeches about AGW.
It's simplistic but it will give a numerical grasp to an otherwise daunting comprehension exersize.
Imagine that we can compare the CO2 from human activities to a match burning in a room that most of us are sitting in as we discuss this.
We ask the question is it equivalent to burning a Match ;
- 100 Matches burning continuously
- 10 Matches burning continuously
- 1 Match Continuously burning, i.e. light a match immediately after the first one goes out and so on....
- Every Minute
- Every Hour
- Every Day
- Every Month
- Every Year
- Every Decade
- ?
So lets scale down things to match, equivalent size.
- Imagine the Earths atmosphere can be scaled down to a room 7M x 7M x 2M roughly 100 M3.
- ( A Lecture Theatre or large Living Room or Class Room perhaps. )
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_volume_of_Earth%27s_atmosphere
So lets use 50 Billion cubic Kms as the actual size.
- 50,000,000,000 kM3
- 50,000,000,000,000 M3
- Our room is 100 M3 so the ratio is
- 1 : 500,000,000,000
Now we get the weight of the Atmosphere and divide it by our ratio.
We will use weights as the match stick has a weight and its easier to compare this way and we can avoid pressure and temperature effects on gaseous volumes etc. Thus we will asume 100% of the match goes to CO2 in combustion, erring to the CO2 catastrophy argument side.
https://suite.io/paul-a-heckert/t262dj
Multiplying Earth's surface area by the atmospheric pressure at sea level gives the total atmospheric force acting on Earth's surface. This total force is the weight of Earth's atmosphere. Doing the math gives the total weight of Earth's atmosphere of 1.2 E19 pounds or 5.2 E19 newtons. Dividing the weight in newtons by the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface gives the mass of Earth's atmosphere, 5.3 E18 kg.
- 5,300,000,000,000,000,000 kg
- 5,300,000,000,000,000 Tonnes
- 5,300,000,000,000 Mega Tonnes
- 5,300,000,000 Giga Tonnes Atmospheric Weight
So lets look at the weight of the room
1:500,000,000,000
5,300,000,000 Giga Tonnes Atmosphere
500 x 10^9 / 5,300 x 10^9 = 0.094339623 Tonnes 0.000094339623 GT
0.094339623 Tonnes
ROOM Ratios are ;
Atmosphere is 0.094339623 Tonnes
About 9.4 kgs
Lets call it 10 kgs
Sounds reasonable in a 100M3 room 10ks of gas by weight at standard temp and pressure.
33 GT Human CO2 ***** lets not quibble and use the maximum suggested rather than the more accepted 2% figure from below
/500,000,000,000
ratio of Human generated CO2 is 500 x 10^9 / 33 x 10^12 = 0.066 g
- 0.000000000000066 Giga Tonnes
- 0.000000000066 Mega Tonnes
- 0.000000066 K Tonnes
- 0.000066 Kg
- 0.066g
- 0.066 grams of Human equavalent generated CO2 in our room.
- with 1.56 gms of Natural CO2 ( 780GT :500,000,000,000)
- http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-greening-of-the-planet.aspx
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_mass_of_one_match_stick
Lets assume a match stick is 0.2 g
So we burn the match stick and assume it all goes to add to CO2 weight in the room atmosphere.
0.066g /0.2g = 0.33 times the amount of Match Stick carbon for the equavalent of 1 Year of human activity so
0.33/1 = 3Years
That is to say burning 1 match stick every 3 years is needed to simulate human activity in the room model of our atmosphere.
How in God's name do you measure the temperature changes caused by this ?
How do you draw cataclysmic dire predictions of pending climate doom from this ?
http://www.climatechange101.ca/index.php?id=5
FJ Shepherd July 27, 2016 at 8:39 am
I just don’t know how my region is going to cope with another degree of Celsius warming. It really scares me. As it is, in my region, every year, from January to July, we rise from -10 degrees C to +27 degrees C. A rise of 37 degrees C every freaking year. That extra one degree C rise is going to kill us all in my region. Should I beg the UN to do something for us?
The influence of Clouds ( Water Vapour ) on Feedback
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/04/cloud-feedback-2/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2014/02/why-earths-climate-is-self-regulating.html
4 parts per 10,000 is 400 ppm, and this is how it looks. Each square is either Oxygen or Nitrogen. 100 years ago there were 3 red squares of CO2, so how does 1 extra red square make for a climate calamity ?
Water vapor, shown by the clouds in proportion, plays the largest effect in retaining infrared radiative heat, far greater effect than 1 extra molecule of CO2.
Water Vapor!
N2 – 78%
O2 – 21%
Ar – 0.9%
Water Vapor – 0.01% to 4.24%
CO2 – 0.04%
At 2.5%, H2O is 25,000 ppmv to CO2’s 400 ppmv
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/05/co2-good-or-bad/
So now we have a numerical perspective, lets look at some implications
We Burn roughly 33 Billion Tonnes of CO2 as above per year.
This equates to 2 ppm ( parts per million ) of the 400 ppm we have in the atmosphere as we consider this.
So each ppm is equavalent to 33BTonnes / 2 which is about 16.5 BTonnes per ppm.
IPCC says in the next 100 Years we will add 468 ppm extra to the atmosphere for 7 degrees F, 3.6-4.0 Celcius, increase.
16.5 BTonnes * 468 = 7.020 GTonnes will be added by human activity in the next 100 years
( some say there isn't that much Oil available to do this becasue of Peak oil anyway, but that's a whole other consideration )
IPCC says 1 degree Farenheight = 1GTonne of emmissions;
thus 7 degrees F ( about 3.6 - 4.0 Celcius ) Warming in 100 years for that 7.020 GTonnes
So if we want to stop just 1 degree F of that 7 degree warming we need to stop using 1GTonne of CO2 now.
Well we use 33 BTonnes each year now so thats 1GTonne or
1,000 BTonnes / 33BTonnes
which is 30 years
30 years of absolutly no CO2 buring, No Cars, No Power stations , No Industry, anything for a 1F , 0.4 Celcius reduction.
--- and the other 6 Degrees F will still occur---
---- pointless, impractical, isn't going to happen, shows the maddness of the IPCC delusion.----
This is why you will hear real scientists saying that just holding CO2 at 1990 levels will produce only 0.02 Celcius degrees difference, an imperceptable difference not even able to be distingusihed from the "noise" of measurement.
Why should we tax billions of dollars on emmissions ? The dollars will make no difference.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/20/spin-cycle-epa-deflates-climate-impacts-inflates-significance/
ATOMIC BOMB ANALOGY COMPARISON
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/23/getting-cooked-by-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-global-warming/
For those mathematically minded some heat transfer implications
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CHALLENGE_7b_1.cwk_(WP)(2).pdf
CO2 Fractions in the atmosphere for the above thought Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Estimated carbon in global terrestrial vegetation increased from approximately 740 billion tons in 1910 to 780 billion tons in 1990
*** Note the 5% increase probably attributed to extra growth by CO2 instead of the doomsday cutting down forests and modern land use arguments we often hear of....and also note the willful 1990 end date for natural CO2 as it has increased since then also due to the greening earth from CO2 availability. This is an extremely pertinent observation, the Earth has greened by over 5% while human population went form 2-7 billion, along with all the so called deforestation and land usage changes. Hardly an environmental catastrophe.
In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-weight-ratio-co2-fuel/
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html
Depending on your source of Data, there are wildly different estimates of CO2. Lets use the worse case estimates...
https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/monthly-reading-on-co2-atmospheric-concentration/
Another comparison is made as well. There are 10 sites recording the CO2 atmospheric concentration, as listed previously here. The average reading of one year recording at each site is compared to other 9 locations. The range of the reading is as big as 4.44 ppmv among these locations around the world. Translating this concentration number into CO2 weight, a difference of 2.931E+10 (or 29.31 billion) tonnes to 34.70 billion tonnes of CO2 is noted. Again, this number is exceeding the anthroprogenic CO2 emission (24.13 billion tonnes).
780 / 6 = 0.8% of CO2 from man made sources in 1990
780/33.5 = 4.2% of C02 from man made sources in 2010 ? a jump of 5 x unlikely.
As above the fluctuations of the measuring station are greater than the ascribed Anthropomorphic CO2 production.
Lets use the 4.2% as an average however.
10M x 10M x 2M room, 100 M3 volume
10kg becomes 100 M3 in our room, that's 100M3 or 100,000 Litres
10Kg of air becomes 100,000 Litres in our room - 100 M3 volume
0.0156 kg becomes 15.6 Litres in our room - about 1 bucket full of Natural CO2
0.00066 kg becomes 0.66 Litres in our room - about 2 glasses of Man made CO2 , assuming a glass is 330 ml. 2 empty Stubbies of beer.
( that's at normal STP so imagine just putting glad wrap over a glass and saying the contents are CO2 gas. 2 glasses, 0.66 L, in 100,000 Litres Man made CO2 )
CO2 is colourless, odourless and it is not a pollutant. It comes in fizzy drinks and we all expire CO2 as we breathe .
What happens even if we Double CO2 concentration from 400 to 800 ppm ?
ECONOMIC COST OF CARBON
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/21/the-economic-impact-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
THE GREENING EARTH NUMBERS
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang February 17, 2016 at 2:04 pm
Samuel C
I tapped the same quote:
“Going forward, Wang said, the positive effect of carbon dioxide-induced water savings may eventually be offset by the negative effect of carbon dioxide-induced temperature increases when the temperature increase crosses a certain threshold.”
Hey! A new speculated tipping point! Based on whose physics? Let’s take Wang’s less speculative physics and apply it together with observations (real data) to future climatic conditions.
Notice something (Wang did) – If the CO2 goes up 27% the soil moisture goes up about 2/3 of that. The region is defined as having rainfall less than 2/3 of the evaporation potential. So when the CO2 rises high enough, the rainfall will not have to increase (something we are, in addition, promised by models) in order to push the ‘dry lands’ into a different, wetter, more productive climate zone classification.
++++++++++
Gap: 33.3% (shortage of rainfall) = 0.33
Observed CO2 rise since 1960: 27% = 0.27
Observed increase in soil moisture: 17% = 0.17
Dose-response effect: 17%/27% = 0.63% soil moisture increase per % CO2 increase
CO2 rise needed to close the evaporation-rainfall gap: 1/0.63*0.33 = 0.52 (factor)
Wang’s 1960 CO2 baseline: 400 ppm/(1+0.27) = 315 ppm
Average ppm rise in CO2: (400-315)/(2016-1960) = 1.52 ppm/yr
Tipping point after which dry lands will no longer be considered dry: 315*(1+0.52) = 479 ppm
Model Prediction
Year in which the dry land are permanently transformed and no longer considered ‘dry’, based on a 1.52 ppm CO2 increase per year:
(479-315)/1.52) +1960 = 2068 A.D.
As the CO2 has been observed to be rising faster than 1.52 ppm/yr at present, 2068 is latest the tipping point will be reached.
++++++++++
Conclusion
If the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises above 479 ppm the land upon which 2 billion of the poorest people on the planet live will be permanently transformed from dry lands into farm and grazing lands capable of supporting more animals, more people and consequently a greater urban population. Any additional rainfall caused by any accompanying temperature increase will bring the tipping point forward.
Children just aren’t going to know what a population bomb is anymore.
The 1973 Nobel Prize co-winner in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever
So now the ususal worry is the "Radiative Forcing of CO2" issue.
How to calculate Radiative forcing, and its an inferred or derived relationship from speculating and extrapolating Ice Core samples.
http://physics.info/radiation/vostok-co2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=257
As you can see, CO2 is just one of many factors involved, and all of these factors have serious measurement variance issues.
However the actual temperature record as graphed below not follow this assumption so something is wrong.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html
These figures ARE INFERRED from the temperature measurements !!! Not empirically and experimentally verified derived !!!!
If you look at the error bars to the Total for Anthropogenic warming it runs from 0.6 W/ m2 to 2.4 W/ m2.
The error bars for Albedo ( white reflection) effect from Clouds are greater than the assigned value so go figure how this is accurate?
http://www.thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html
The IPCC routinely use 0.8 W/m2 as their basis for prediction based on 2 papers only.
Here is a collection of other opinions and how the calculation of total forcing is actually derived from Bode (1945).
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
HOWEVER
error-summ.pdfSlides from the above video
http://www.deluxetech.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sensi-cm16.pdf
Dr Roy Clarks Independent work, he is a PhD Physicist and independently publishes
http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html
Conclusion
It is impossible for the observed 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to
have caused any kind of climate change.
This follows directly from the application of the basic Laws of Physics to the energy
transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s air-ocean and air-land interfaces.
The Suns radiation by comparison is something like 2,000-1,350 Watts per Meter,
so we are talking 0.05 % range compared to Solar radiance for "Atmospheric Forcing" by CO2.
The IPCC as above gives only a small percentage effect to the sun, this is because it is tasked only with assuming Man made AGW exists and goes looking for this, rather than looking at the real cause.
http://www.c3headlines.com/sunsolarcosmicoscillationorbital-cycles/
Dr Gerrit van der Lingen has also written about this.
https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/global-cooling-by-dr-gerrit-j-van-der-lingen/
https://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/global_cooling.pdf
The right Climate stuff....
Hal Dioron shows us the correct math below and when you here and see him adding his "sinusoids" at the end, these are in essence best fits for solar fluctuations.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page2.php
Why 2035 ? Well have a look at this...
When we look for more likely natural variations we find far better correlations......
1000 AD to 2000 AD
We can find rates of change to match observations here.
1900 AD - 2014 AD
These cycles are actually driven by the irregularities in the Earths orbit of the sun as described by Milankovitch
So underneath our "average temperatures" is a really large effect.
It's quite possible that all we measured in the 70's-90's was this Pacific Decadal Oscillation and now our flat to dropping temperatures are simply following along.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/is-the-airborne-co2-fraction-temperature-dependent/
Or the Atlantic Oscillation
http://sppiblog.org/news/new-paper-at-sppi-senate-testimony-of-dr-judith-curry
CO2 does not match the temperature record
Professor Carl-Otto Weiss Spectral analysis of underlying cycles
So we can synthesize the Sun cycles causing PDO and ADO, add the recovery from the last Little Ice Age,
and get a "true" perspective on current natural temperature variations
http://venturaphotonics.com/RootCause.html
Professor Norman Page on the Issue
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
And we have alternate data sets to confirm the Little Ice Age recovery slope of the above graph as well.
English records from 1659 exist, 200 years prior to the NOAA dataset.
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
CO2 concentrations added in black to show the abject lack of any correlation.
Satellite measurements above the cloud layer show this increase of about 0.1 degrees per decade or less,
similar to that which we observe in the ground record.
Note also the failed IPCC Model predictions, meaning the IPCC methodology is incorrect and is not a reliable predictor of anything, well maybe Lotto numbers ?
And here are the underlying cycles
Here we have the ADO PDO Sun driven cycles apparent in the longer data set.
0.15 - 0.16 Degrees per decade
And finally an overall reconstruction since 1880. Pre 1880 the graph was rising as per the 1659 data set.
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Put them all together - just in case you missed it above.
courtesy of Dr Roy Clark also DR Don Easterbrook has similar projections
The Sun is 1.3 Million Times the size of the Earth
Just to remind you of the scale of the sun and the planets and let you think about what a small variation in the Suns output would mean to the planets,
even at the orbital distances....
IPCC AGW theory ( Anthropic warming, not natural warming ) wants to tell you that a 30% increase from 300 ppm to about 400 ppm increase in CO2, a NON pollutant gas, that all life depends upon, 100 extra atoms in every 1,000,000 atoms will
produce catastrophic and life threatening climate change, dwarfing any possible variation from the Sun above you.
Latest improved Solar understanding agreeing with PDO/ADO analysis
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-ice-age.html
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
http://www.climatechange101.ca/
Climate is driven by energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect stops enough of this energy from escaping back into space, resulting in the earth having a temperature capable of supporting life as we know it. Without greenhouse gases the average earth temperature would be minus 18 °C, rather than our current livable plus 15 °C. Natural water vapour and clouds make up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 responsible for 3.6%. Of this, about 0.12%, or 0.039 °C can be attributed to human activities. Further incremental increases in CO2 become less and less effective. - See more at: http://www.climatechange101.ca/#sthash.wpRXBOHO.dpuf
The time integral of solar activity plus ocean oscillations [which are also driven by solar activity] can explain 95% of climate change over the past 400 years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/13/solar-cycle-mystery-solved/
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics
A mistake in climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.
The scare over carbon dioxide was just due to a simple modelling error. A whole category of feedbacks was omitted, which greatly exaggerated the calculated sensitivity to carbon dioxide.
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
An official history of AGW
Here is a rather long and potentially boring review of the proxy records, that is well worth enduring following along with.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/05/what-is-skepticism-anyway/
Judith A. Curry, professor och amerikansk forskare i klimatologi och rektor för School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences vid Georgia Institute of Technology:
- as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability
- substantial criticisms are already being made of the IPCC AR5 Reports as well as of the IPCC process itself; IPCC insiders are bemoaning their loss of their scientific and political influence; the mainstream media seems not to be paying much attention to the AR5 SPM; and even IPCC insiders are realizing the need for a radical change
- global CO2 emissions continue to increase at higher than expected rates and a growing realization of the infeasibility of meeting emissions targets
- failure of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties to accomplish much since 2009 beyond agreeing to establish future meetings
- Growing realization that you can’t control climate by emissions reductions
- European countries and Australia are backing away from their emission reductions policies as they realize their economic cost and political unpopularity
- increasing levels of shrillness on both sides of the political debate, with the ‘warm side’ steeped in moral panic and hyperbole
- after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.
- the politically charged rhetoric has contaminated academic climate research and the institutions that support climate research, so that individuals and institutions have become advocates; scientists with a perspective that is not consistent with the consensus are at best marginalized (difficult to obtain funding and get papers published by ‘gatekeeping’ journal editors) or at worst ostracized by labels of ‘denier’ or ‘heretic.’
- decision makers needing regionally specific climate change information are being provided by the climate community with either nothing or potentially misleading predictions from climate models.
The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.
Conclusion
The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.
If the Models are to be believed going forward, they should have worked looking back. They dont.
This is a great site to see the attempted justifications of the failed models AND have a look at NOAA REVISING the raw data to make it agree with the failed AGW hypotheses.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/25/climate-models-arent-good-enough-to-hindcast-says-new-study/
Is Sea Level increasing ? - The same thing is true of Carbon and Methane arguments.
Official IPCC Document
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf
Rebuttal
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-prediction-fact-check
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
Is SOLAR PV Generation the answer ?
Watch out for supposed Skeptics who are actually Climate Change Apologists.
https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/01/uq-climate-change-paper-has-whole-world-talking
This is the guy saying 97% of scientists agree and offering free "courses", read "do you want a set of stake knives with that your free AGW degree".
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/06/22/media-fail-john-cooks-atom-bombs/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/17/threats-from-the-university-of-queensland/
And further rebuttal of the same University
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/busting-myths-practical-guide-countering-science-denial
http://climatestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rising-sea-levels-2050-2030-SLR-height-ocean.gif
James Hansen had to re explain his rising sea scare as nothing happened. There is no scientific basis for an "exponential doubling", this is pure pseudoscience.
Dr Nils-Axel Mörner
In 1990 the IPCC predicted 2 Meters of Sea rise.
That's 25 years ago, fully a 1/4 of the predicted rise, that is to say 50cm, basically nearly 2' should have already occurred if the IPCC is to be seen as credible.
This is what the sea level has done in the last 24,000 years , and it should assist to put scare mongering in complete perspective.
La Jolla Coastline from the 1880's and today.
watch the comparison here
The author invites anyone to visit any coastline of any choosing anywhere on the globe and find more than about 5 cms , 2" of natural ocean rise, unrelated to IPCC anthrpopmorphic predicted processes. Using a log graph happend later by the IPCC to obfuscate this issue of no empirical data to support the speculations. Often referred to as a fraudulent prediction elsewhere.
Numbers for Ice melting effect, latent heat of evaporation....
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/18/ingenious-or-misleading-rational-for-the-pause/
Hmm....The science is settled I don't debate any of this, there is a consensus and I rule.
Climate Change is a natural phenonomon that has been the basis of the Earth's Biofeedback mechanisms function for Billions of years. Its not a symptom of a disease, its how the planet works. The Planet doesn't have any Political affiliations.
Michael Crichton's views
Google Sites
Report abuse