Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

Posted: April 14, 2018 by oldbrew in Analysis, atmosphere

As Dr Ed Berry says: ‘How can human carbon dioxide, which is only 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, add 30 percent to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.’

Science Matters

Source :NOAA

Blaming global warming on humans comes down to two assertions:

Rising CO2 in the atmosphere causes earth’s surface temperature to rise.

Humans burning fossil fuels cause rising atmospheric CO2.

For this post I will not address the first premise, instead refer the reader to a previous article referencing Fred Singer. He noted that greenhouse gas theory presumes surface warming arises because heat is forced to escape at a higher, colder altitude. In fact, temperatures in the tropopause do not change with altitude (“pause”), and in the stratosphere temperatures increase with altitude. That post also includes the “meat” of the brief submitted to Judge Alsup’s court by Happer, Koonin and Lindzen, which questions CO2 driving global warming in the face of other more powerful factors. See Courtroom Climate Science

The focus in this piece is the claim that fossil fuel emissions drive observed rising CO2 concentrations. IPCC consensus scientists…

View original post 2,142 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought [25 April 2011]

    Rising temperatures make carbon dioxide leak from the oceans for two main reasons. First, melting sea ice increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters. Second, “when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out,” says van Ommen.


    And cooler oceans do the opposite – i.e. an important part of the carbon cycle (image below, right)…

  2. tom0mason says:

    My 2¢ worth —
    The paradigm of the UN-IPCC and most cAGW advocates is that natural sinks and sources of CO2 over time eventuate to a static equilibrium, and it’s man’s CO2 input which is upsetting that equilibrium.
    This is demonstrably in error. Ice core records show CO2 levels rise and fall. The main reason appears to be nature’s response to the climate varying over long time scales [Note: 800 years ago the planet was in a warm phase]. That is to say the natural equilibrium point is a variable that depends on not only current climatic and environment conditions but also those conditions in the past. And the big question is what is the normal range of atmospheric CO2 levels? I would contend that it should be about twice the current 400ppm.

    Is the current atmospheric CO2 rise ‘alarming’. Given the requirements to maintain life, the current rise is not alarming, and should be welcomed as it makes growing food that much easier.

    Would a moderate rise in temperature, up to 1°C (and a rise in CO2) threaten life on this planet? No! Humans along with all the animals and plants known today survived the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

  3. oldbrew says:

    A large drop in CO2 would definitely be alarming.

  4. The assertion about CO2 and Global warming has more elements. These are 1/ CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs lots of long wave radiation (this is false as it only absorbs around the wavelength of 14.8 micron in a very narrow band) 2/ CO2 does not radiate the absorbed radiation to space which is a lower temperature (false as radiation at 14.8 micron has been measured by satelites) 3/ CO2 in the atmosphere radiates back to the earth surface (largely false because the earth surface is is mostly at higher temperature than the gases in the atmosphere 4/ There are no other gases or particles in the atmosphere (particles include water and and ice in clouds) which can overwhelm the supposed effect of CO2 (false as firstly water vapor absorbs over a much wider range of wavelength and the is much more present and secondly clouds have the most important effect as has been increasingly acknowledge by all sides 6/ the present level of CO2 is at record levels (false on many findings including actual measurements of past CO2 around 1941 continuously over 1.5 years three times per day and plus early measurements by eminent scientists dating back to the 1850’s, then proxy measurement going back 100’s of million years) 7/ CO2 changes lead temperature change (false as measurements including ice cores which show that CO2 changes lag temperature changes from daily, seasonal, short term cycles (10 to 60 years) and long term cycles of over 1000 years.)

    [reply] no 5/ ?

  5. Phoenix44r says:

    Tom Mason, I see no reason why a complex, non-linear system with constantly changing inputs and outputs should ever reach a stable equilibrium. I think this is of the errors in the science and one if the key reasons the models are so poor – you cannot set the initial conditions in a model where there is no equilibrium.

    If you assume no equilibrium, then the data can do a random walk similar to recent data without the need for additional forcings.

  6. oldbrew says:

    ‘stable equilibrium’

    Perhaps ‘relatively stable equilibrium’ is a better term? There are ups and downs but we have a rough idea what we’re going to (and not going to) get, and the global average annual temperature only varies within small margins.

  7. oldbrew says:

  8. tom0mason says:

    Thanks for your clarification at
    oldbrew says:
    April 15, 2018 at 10:12 am

    You hit the spot.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Tom – perhaps not unrelated to the fact that solar insolation and distance from the Sun don’t vary very much either 😎

  10. gymnosperm says:

    Ocean outgassing is the wrong isotopic composition and too small to account for atmospheric CO2 increase. Soil CO2 has a nearly identical isotopic profile to human combustion, is sensitive to increasing temperature, and is six times larger annually than current human combustion. Ferdinand Englebeen believes the Oxygen balance precludes soil culpability, but a significant (and unknown) amount of soil CO2 is produced anaerobically.

  11. oldbrew says:

    gymnosperm – oceans that are outgassing CO2 are not at the same time absorbing it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s