Archives par mot-clé : CO2

Why CO2 is Not the Control Knob of Global Temperature and Observational Proof it is Not Causing Dangerous Warming

by Institute for the Human Environment,   August 2019


There is no debate as to whether or not atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a so-called greenhouse gas. When present in the atmosphere, this one-carbon and two-oxygen molecule indeed has the capacity to absorb infrared radiation and warm the planet. There is also no debate as to whether or not the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is rising; over the past two centuries it has increased from a meager 0.028% of the atmosphere by volume to a still-meager 0.041% today. Furthermore, there is no argument that global temperatures are warmer today than they were 50, 100 or even 200 years ago. However, there is much debate on whether or not the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 has caused, or is presently causing, dangerous global warming, warming so severe that it is threatening life all across the planet.

But how accurate is this narrative?

In answering this question, one need only examine the historic temperature and CO2 records illustrated in Figure 1 more critically. Certainly, these two variables experience a fairly high degree of correlation over the time period shown. However, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. scientist to recognize and understand the fact that correlation among two variables does not prove causation. Every textbook on statistics teaches as much, and they also teach that a hypothesis of causation among two variables can be rejected if there is no statistically significant correlation between them, or if the correlation fails to be maintained in a consistent and expected manner across time.

By applying such principles to the case being considered here, it can confidently be argued that if carbon dioxide is indeed the all-important control knob of temperature that climate alarmists claim it to be, then changes in atmospheric CO2 should always precede changes in temperature. And, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, to prove causation those changes must always be such that a rise in CO2 induces a corresponding rise in temperature, whereas a decline in CO2 must always induce a corresponding drop in temperature. Consistent observations to the contrary, if present in the historic record, would therefore serve to invalidate a causation claim, as well as demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 is nothing more than a bit player among the many factors that drive climate change.

Figure 1. 400,000 years of historic temperature and CO2 from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Source: Petit et al. (1999) Nature 399: 429-436.

CO2 Is So Powerful It Can Cause Global Warming To Pause For Decades

by Joanna Nova, July 24, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch


It’s all so obvious. If researchers start with models that don’t work, they can find anything they look for — even abject nonsense which is the complete opposite of what the models predicted.

Holy Simulation! Let’s take this reasoning and run with it  — in the unlikely event, we actually get relentless rising temperatures, that will imply that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is lower. Can’t see that press release coming…

Nature has sunk so low these days it’s competing with The Onion.

The big problem bugging believers was that global warming paused, which no model predicted, and which remains unexplained still, despite moving goalposts, searching in data that doesn’t exist, and using error bars 17 times larger than the signal.

The immutable problem is that energy shalt not be created nor destroyed, so The Pause still matters even years after it stopped pausing.

The empty space still shows the models don’t understand the climate — CO2 was supposed to be heating the world, all day, every day.

Quadrillions of Joules have to go somewhere, they can’t just vanish, but models don’t know where they went. If we can’t explain the pause, we can’t explain the cause, and the models can’t predict anything.

In studies like these, the broken model is not a bug, it’s a mandatory requirement — if these models actually worked, it wouldn’t be as easy to produce any and every conclusion that an unskeptical scientist could hope to “be surprised” by.

The true value of this study, if any, is in 100 years time when some psychology Ph.D. student will be able to complete an extra paragraph on the 6th-dimensional flexibility of human rationalization and confirmation bias.

Busted climate models can literally prove anything. The more busted they are, the better.

1980s Science: Ice Cores Show CO2 Naturally Rose 200 ppm (65 ppm/100 Years) During The Early Holocene

by K. Richard, July 22, 2019 in NoTricksZone


A few decades ago it was “consensus” science that CO2 levels had reached 400 ppm (and even up to 500 ppm) during the Early Holocene, with rising amplitudes of greater than 200 ppm and rates of 65 ppm in less than a century. Then the “consensus” opinion changed.

In 1982 it was still quite acceptable for Dr. Flohn, a climate scientist, to acknowledge that changes in CO2 concentration changes are significantly determined by temperature “rather independent of” fossil fuel emissions, but also that Holocene CO2 concentrations reached 350 to 400 ppm between 8,000 to 6,000 years ago (Flohn, 1982).

Why the discrepancy between “consensus” CO2 and historically recorded CO2?

Polish physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski (1997) was a fierce critic of the means by which ice core data have been collected to assign CO2 concentration values to past epochs.

His criticisms center around the post-1985 tendencies for fellow scientists to openly employ selection bias in making pre-determined decisions about what measurements are “right” and which ones are “wrong” – effectively rendering their results meaningless.

He cites Pearlman et al. (1986), for example. These authors collected 74 Antarctic ice core CO2 samples. Of those, 32 (43%) were rejected because they had values that were too high or too low to match with the agreed-upon pre-determination.

In what other branch of science is it acceptable to discard measured data we don’t agree with?

 

La croissance du CO2 dans l’atmosphère est-elle exclusivement anthropique? (3/3)

by J.C. Maurin, 19 juillet 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Effet Bombe et Modèles du GIEC

Les prévisions du climat sont générées par des modèles informatiques. Leurs concepteurs pensent pouvoir décrire l’état moyen de l’atmosphère en 2100, en prenant comme principale donnée d’entrée, le taux futur de CO2 qui constituerait donc le ‘bouton de commande’ du climat.

Il y a deux étages de modélisation : on commence par prévoir le taux de CO2 en 2100 avec des modèles sélectionnés par le GIEC (ces modèles « IRF » du GIEC sont l’objet de l’article).
Cette prévision constitue ensuite l’entrée du second étage, à savoir les modèles types « échanges radiatifs » ou « effet de serre » qui ne sont pas traités ici (mais on peut consulter ceci).
Le présent article ( qui est la suite de deux autres ici et ici) compare la réponse impulsionnelle théorique de ces modèles « IRF » avec la réponse impulsionnelle observée du 14CO2(effet Bombe).

The Response of Grape Plantlets to CO2 Enrichment

by Zhao et al., 2019 in BMCPlantBiology/CO2Science


Recognizing that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations promotes plant development and growth, Zhao et al. set out to investigate the effect of elevated CO2 on a key wine grape variety, Pinot Noir.

Their experiment was conducted in controlled climate chambers at the Fruit Tree Physiology and Biotechnology Laboratory, College of Horticulture, Gansu Agricultural University, China. Grape plantlets (Vitis vinifera, cv. Pinot Noir) were propagated and then cultured in a 2% sucrose solution at either ambient (380 ppm) or elevated (1,000 ppm) CO2 concentrations for a period of 25 days. At the end of the experiment the authors examined the impact of CO2 on various growth-related parameters, while also conducting transcriptomic and proteomic analyses.

Results indicated that elevated CO2 stimulated total plant dry weight, leaf area and plant height by 125%, 96% and 31%, respectively (see Figure 1). Photosynthetic parameters also revealed a CO2-induced stimulation and the various physiological changes were found to be related to differentially expressed genes and proteins among the plants growing in the two environments. Such findings suggest Pinot Noir may well be a “winner” (in terms of growth and development) among plants in the future if the air’s CO2 content continues to rise.

Figure 1. Visual display of the growth differences between grapes grown under ambient (380 ppm) or elevated (1,000 ppm) CO2 concentrations for 25 days. The average dry weight of the grapes growing under elevated CO2 was 125% greater than those growing under ambient CO2. Source: Zhao et al. (2019).

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE

by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, July 13, 2019 in Physics.gen-ph


Abstract. In this paper we wil lprove that GCM-models used inI IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

1. Introduction

The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific lit- erature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the cli- mate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the com- ment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.

2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature

Scientists: Humans Perform As Well Or Better When Exposed To High (5000-15000 ppm) vs. Low CO2 Concentrations

by K. Richard, July 8, 2019 in NoTricksZone


A new paper finds the performance of test-taking (cognitive, decision-making) “astronaut-like” subjects exposed to 5000 ppm CO2 was “similar to or exceeded” the performance of those exposed to baseline (600 ppm). This study follows up on a 2018 paper that determined submariners exposed to 15000 ppm CO2 performed just as well as subjects exposed to 600 ppm.

Those of us who own CO2 monitors know that indoor (bedroom) CO2 concentrations typically vary between about 600 ppm during the day and 1000 ppm overnight – the latter earning a frowny face air quality rating.

 

CO2 is a cognitively-impairing toxin?

In recent years there has been a push to create the impression carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or toxin. Consequently, there have been a few studies suggesting exposure to higher CO2 concentrations (~1500 to 2500 ppm) severely impair human cognitive and decision-making performance (Satish et al., 2012, Allen et al., 2016).

If true, this would be rather problematic for elementary school children, as they are routinely exposed to CO2 concentrations ranging between about 1500 and 3000 ppm in their classrooms (Corsi et al., 2002).

Driving alone in one’s vehicle could mean exposure to “3700 ppm … above outdoor [CO2] concentrations” (Satish et al, 2012), or about 4100 ppm.

This elevated-CO2-is-toxic-to-brain-functioning paradigm suggests the world’s highways are teeming with cognitively-impaired drivers.

More ‘reactive’ land surfaces cooled the Earth down

by Charles the moderator , July 6, 2019 in WUWT


Higher reactivity could explain temperature drop before last ice age

GFZ GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Helmholtz Centre

From time to time, there have been long periods of cooling in Earth’s history. Temperatures had already fallen for more than ten million years before the last ice age began about 2.5 million years ago. At that time the northern hemisphere was covered with massive ice masses and glaciers. A geoscientific paradigm, widespread for over twenty years, explains this cooling with the formation of the large mountain ranges such as the Andes, the Himalayas and the Alps. As a result, more rock weathering has taken place, the paradigm suggests. This in turn removed more carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, so that the ‘greenhouse effect’ decreased and the atmosphere cooled. This and other processes eventually led to the ‘ice Age’.

In a new study, Jeremy Caves-Rugenstein from ETH Zurich, Dan Ibarra from Stanford University and Friedhelm von Blanckenburg from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam were able to show that this paradigm cannot be upheld. According to the paper, weathering was constant over the period under consideration. Instead, increased ‘reactivity’ of the land surface has led to a decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere, thus cooling the Earth. The researchers published the results in the journal Nature.

New Paper: Mammals Thrived and Diversified With ~2000-4000 ppm CO2, 20°C Warmer Oceans Than Today

by K. Richard, July 1, 2019 in NoTricksZone


Marine species evolved, thrived, and diversified in 35 to 40°C ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations “5-10x higher than present-day values” (Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).

Image Source: Voosen, 2019

I. The insignificance of modern “global warming”

Today’s ocean temperatures average about 16°C. CO2 levels hover around 400 parts per million (0.04%).

The oceans have warmed at a rate of just 0.015°C per decade since 1971 in the 0-700 m layer according to the IPCC (2013). This warming rate isn’t detectable when considering overall long-term changes in this layer (Rosenthal et al., 2017) during the Holocene.

Plate tectonics may have driven ‘Cambrian Explosion’

by University of Exeter, June 19, 2019 in ScienceDaily/from Nature


A team of scientists have given a fresh insight into what may have driven the “Cambrian Explosion” — a period of rapid expansion of different forms of animal life that occurred over 500 million years ago.

While a number of theories have been put forward to explain this landmark period, the most credible is that it was fuelled by a significant rise in oxygen levels which allowed a wide variety of animals to thrive.

The new study suggests that such a rise in oxygen levels was the result of extraordinary changes in global plate tectonics.

During the formation of the supercontinent ‘Gondwana’, there was a major increase in continental arc volcanism — chains of volcanoes often thousands of miles long formed where continental and oceanic tectonic plates collided. This in turn led to increased ‘degassing’ of CO2 from ancient, subducted sedimentary rocks.

This, the team calculated, led to an increase in atmospheric CO2and warming of the planet, which in turn amplified the weathering of continental rocks, which supplied the nutrient phosphorus to the ocean to drive photosynthesis and oxygen production.

Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes

by From Nature Communications, June 18 in WUWT


Abstract

Most Earth system models agree that land will continue to store carbon due to the physiological effects of rising CO2 concentration and climatic changes favoring plant growth in temperature-limited regions. But they largely disagree on the amount of carbon uptake. The historical CO2 increase has resulted in enhanced photosynthetic carbon fixation (Gross Primary Production, GPP), as can be evidenced from atmospheric CO2 concentration and satellite leaf area index measurements. Here, we use leaf area sensitivity to ambient COfrom the past 36 years of satellite measurements to obtain an Emergent Constraint (EC) estimate of GPP enhancement in the northern high latitudes at two-times the pre-industrial CO2 concentration (3.4 ± 0.2 Pg C yr−1). We derive three independent comparable estimates from CO2 measurements and atmospheric inversions. Our EC estimate is 60% larger than the conventionally used multi-model average (44% higher at the global scale). This suggests that most models largely underestimate photosynthetic carbon fixation and therefore likely overestimate future atmospheric CO2 abundance and ensuing climate change, though not proportionately.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019 in WUWT


ABSTRACT

Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.

HYPOTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Fig.1a – The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes disrupt the relationship.

La croissance du CO2 dans l’atmosphère est-elle exclusivement anthropique? (1/2) et Effet Suess

by J.C. Maurin, 13 juin 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Une croissance du COatmosphérique qui serait exclusivement anthropique est contradictoire avec les observations du carbone 13 dans l’atmosphère (ici). Cet article en 2 parties va montrer qu’il existe également des contradictions avec les observations du carbone 14. Celui-ci  est utilisé à des fins de datation jusqu’à 50 000 ans BP  (Before Present)et on dispose de nombreuses études (pour calibration) sur son évolution dans l’atmosphère.  


La première partie s’intéresse, non pas aux datations, mais à la dilution du carbone 14 que provoque l’ajout de COanthropique (effet SUESS)  avant les essais thermonucléaires de 1952-1963.
Dans la seconde partie nous verrons que l’évolution du carbone 14 après 1963 est aussi en contradiction avec une croissance du COexclusivement anthropique.

1. Le carbone dans l’atmosphère [1] [5]

Le carbone existe habituellement sous 3 formes isotopiques : 12C pour ≈ 98.9% , 13C pour ≈ 1.1 % et 14C à l’état de traces (Fig. 1a).

Figure 1a.  La seule différence entre COanthropique et COatmosphérique réside dans les proportions du mélange des isotopes: le COanthropique est appauvri en 13C et 14C.  L’ajout de COanthropique va modifier, au fil des années, les proportions du mélange isotopique dans l’atmosphère.

The challenge of re-using the CO2

by Prof. Samuele Furfari, June 7, 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


In its Special Report n° 15 “Global warming of 1.5°C” (SR15) [1], IPCC proposes four scenarios  to limit Earth temperature increase to 1.5°C. In all  scenarios COemissions are kept at virtually zero by 2050. These scenarios are based on the technology called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) that will remove COto compensate COanthropic emissions.

All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 Gt CO2  over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of Gt COis subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence). Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred Gt COwithout reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence)” (page 19).

   IPCC defines   Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)” as follows : Anthropogenic activities removing CO2  from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage but excludes natural COuptake not directly caused by human activities” (page 26).

The fourth scenario recognizes the logical and inevitable increase of COemissions if the world  continues its growth to remove poverty and allow Asia and Africa countries to develop. Therefore, this scenario is based on a massive use of the CDR techniques as the report says: “Emissions reductions are mainly achieved through technological means, making strong use of CDR“.

   Indeed, CDR is just rebranding of the CCS concept that is a cul-de-sac technology for a lack of economy, a lack of available adapted geological sinks on the production sites and also a lack of population acceptance.

How deep-ocean vents fuel massive phytoplankton blooms

by Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, June 5, 2019 in WUWT


More “settled science” of the carbon cycle~ctm

Stanford study shows how hydrothermal vents fuel massive phytoplankton blooms — and possible hotspots for carbon storage

Researchers at Stanford University say they have found an aquatic highway that lets nutrients from Earth’s belly sweep up to surface waters off the coast of Antarctica and stimulate explosive growth of microscopic ocean algae.

Their study, published June 5 in the journal Nature Communications, suggests that hydrothermal vents – openings in the seafloor that gush scorching hot streams of mineral-rich fluid – may affect life near the ocean’s surface and the global carbon cycle more than previously thought.

Mathieu Ardyna, a postdoctoral scholar and the study’s lead author, said the research provides the first observed evidence of iron from the Southern Ocean’s depths turning normally anemic surface waters into hotspots for phytoplankton – the tiny algae that sustain the marine food web, pull heat-trapping carbon dioxide out of the air and produce a huge amount of the oxygen we breathe. “Our study shows that iron from hydrothermal vents can well up, travel across hundreds of miles of open ocean and allow phytoplankton to thrive in some very unexpected places,” he said.

Kevin Arrigo, a professor of Earth system science and senior author of the paper, called the findings “important because they show how intimately linked the deep ocean and surface ocean can be.”