Posts Tagged ‘CO2’

CO2 increasing + no increase of global temperature = idiot climate policies

September 9, 2014

The UN has a special summit on climate on 23rd September and the alarmist wind-up has started (though the leaders of India, China and Gernany will not attend). The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has kicked off on the hype with a bulletin pointing out that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has reached 396 ppm(v/v) which is an increase of 3 ppm from the previous year. It is – they say – the fastest rate of increase since 1984.

The WMO is just another advocacy group and their conclusions seem to be based more on wishful thinking rather than on any knowledge.

(My comments in red)

Comment 1: If this rate of increase occurred also thirty years ago in 1984 when the world’s consumption of fossil fuels was an order of magnitude less than today then the increased use of fossil fuels is clearly not as great a contributor to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than previously thought.

BBCA surge in atmospheric CO2 saw levels of greenhouse gases reach record levels in 2013, according to new figures. Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since 1984. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) says that it highlights the need for a global climate treaty. ….. 

According to the bulletin, the globally averaged amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 396 parts per million (ppm) in 2013, an increase of almost 3ppm over the previous year. “The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years,” said Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the WMO. ….. However, global average temperatures have not risen in concert with the sustained growth in CO2, leading to many voices claiming that global warming has paused.

Comment 2: The logical conclusion is that CO2 concentration has little impact on global temperature. The undoubted “greenhouse” effect of CO2 is clearly being suppressed by other negative feedbacks.

“The climate system is not linear, it is not straightforward. It is not necessarily reflected in the temperature in the atmosphere, but if you look at the temperature profile in the ocean, the heat is going in the oceans,” said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the atmospheric research division at the WMO.

Comment 3: This is now “global warming” restricted by magic mechanisms to hiding in the deep oceans and which is no longer visible in the atmosphere!!!! “Climate science” is trying to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics and heat flows.

The bulletin suggests that in 2013, the increase in CO2 was due not only to increased emissions but also to a reduced carbon uptake by the Earth’s biosphere. The scientists at the WMO are puzzled by this development. That last time there was a reduction in the biosphere’s ability to absorb carbon was 1998, when there was extensive burning of biomass worldwide, coupled with El Nino conditions.

“In 2013 there are no obvious impacts on the biosphere so it is more worrying,” said Oksana Tarasova. “We don’t understand if this is temporary or if it is a permanent state, and we are a bit worried about that.”

“It could be that the biosphere is at its limit but we cannot tell that at the moment.” The WMO data indicates that between 1990 and 2013 there was an 34% increase in the warming impact on the climate because carbon dioxide and other gases like methane and nitrous oxide survive for such a long time in the atmosphere.

Comment 4: Fundamentally the WMO does not know very much about the biosphere and its impact on CO2, and even less about the impact of CO2 on global temperature. Why is the WMO then advocating action on parameters, the effects of which are unknown?

The only things that the WMO bulletin demonstrates are that the linkage between CO2 concentration and global temperature is unknown (if it is even significant), and that the linkage between fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 concentraion is uncertain.

Hardly a sound basis for the idiotic demonisation of fossil fuel combustion.

Advertisements

Carbon Cycle: Emissions from forest clearance underestimated, land absorption underestimated

May 23, 2014

Two new papers just published show that the carbon cycle is far from being certain. We still have large uncertainties regarding the sources of carbon dioxide emissions and their magnitude and the sinks where, and mechanisms by which, carbon dioxide is absorbed. One in Global Change Biology. shows that emissions due to forest clearance have been underestimated by some 40% while the second in Nature suggests that there are large land sinks for carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere (paywalled but reported here) which have largely been ignored by climate models.

  1. The amount of carbon lost from tropical forests is being significantly underestimated, a new study reports. In addition to loss of trees, the degradation of tropical forests by selective logging and fires causes large amounts of “hidden” emissions. 
  2. they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated. 

The “settled science of climate” is a an edifice tottering on two unproven hypotheses:

  1. That carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is a key driver of global temperature, and
  2. That man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (primarily fossil fuel combustion) are the key contributor to concentration in the atmosphere.

If either of these two assumptions are incorrect, the entire edifice of climate science and climate policy comes tumbling down.

The first now looks decidedly weak. For almost 20 years now global temperatures have stagnated (and show a slight negative trend) while carbon dioxide emissions from combustion have increased sharply. Carbon dioxide concentration has also continued to increase but at a much lower rate than the rate of man-made emissions. No doubt carbon concentration has some impact but it is clearly far from being a key driver of global temperature.

The second assumes that “natural emissions” and absorption are roughly in balance and therefore it must be fossil fuel combustion which is responsible for the increase of carbon dioxide concentration. But the Carbon balance of the earth is far from certain. Volcanic de-gassng of CO2 has been grossly underestimated. The mass of CO2 absorbing bio-mass in the oceans has also been underestimated and remains still highly uncertain.

The error bands surrounding “natural” emissions are of the same magnitude as man-made emissions. Absorption of Carbon dioxide by the oceans and the biological life (algae) in the oceans are, at best, relatively uncertain estimations.

ktwop: Even though the combustion of fossil fuels only contributes less than 4% of total carbon dioxide production (about 26Gt/year of 800+GT/year), it is usually assumed that the sinks available balance the natural sources and that the carbon dioxide concentration – without the effects of man – would be largely in equilibrium. 

…… Carbon dioxide emission sources (GT CO2/year)

  • Transpiration 440
  • Release from oceans 330
  • Fossil fuel combustion 26
  • Changing land use 6
  • Volcanoes and weathering 1

Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere by about 15 GT CO2/ year. The accuracy of the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by transpiration and by the oceans is no better than about 2 – 3% and that error band (+/- 20GT/year)  is itself almost as large as the total amount of emissions from fossil fuels. ….. 

The demonisation of fossil fuel combustion is based on belief and not on evidence. The carbon dioxide assumptions which are the foundations of the climate orthodoxy are unsound.

CO2 is bad, bad, bad……

February 12, 2013

Global warming morphs to climate change which morphs to extreme weather but CO2 is just plain bad!!!

CO2 is bad

It’s not CO2, stupid!

November 14, 2012

Carbon dioxide keeps going up while global temperatures decrease.

It’s certainly not rocket science that’s needed.

But unfortunately “climate science” has deteriorated to be nothing much more than “voodoo” science.

Carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature – Source: WoodForTrees.com via http://notrickszone.com/

Reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled by NOAA

July 29, 2012

1. Anthony Watts has a new publication

This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville.

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. ……

2. Massive Human CO2 Emissions Still Unable To Reverse Nature’s Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years

Hadcrut global cooling co2 ipcc climate models global warming june 2012

CO2 and temperature

 

UK University parents emit twice as much CO2 as Ash Cloud Volcano

August 24, 2010

A new study by the UK’s low cost delivery service for students has found that the average fuel cost in the UK for transporting student belongings to and from university is £192 million per year. In total, parents taking their children’s belongings to and from uni emit 291k tonnes of CO2 every year – twice as much CO2 as Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano; which grounded flights across the world with a giant ash cloud, emitted every day.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iceland/eyjafjallajokull/index.html?inline=nyt-geo


The research, commissioned by low cost student baggage delivery service www.UniBaggage.com asked 1,196 parents if they helped their children move their belongings to and from student housing throughout their three years at university. In the academic year of 2008 – 2009 there were 2,396,050 university students in the UK.

The NYT reports that:

Seismic activity is petering out at the volcano that caused major European air-traffic disruption earlier this year, though the eruption has not yet been declared officially over, the authorities in Iceland said Monday. The most serious problem now is posed by mud flows created when heavy rains mix with ash settled along the top of glaciers close to the Eyjafjallajokull (pronounced EY-ya-fyat-lah-YO-kut) volcano, said Sigurlaug Hjaltadottir, a geophysicist with Iceland’s Meteorological Office.

But Eyjafjallajokull’s bigger sister Katla is still due to erupt at any time.

Eureka!! Turning Off the Air Conditioning Helps Save Fuel

June 29, 2010

The wonders of what now passes as SCIENCE (no doubt peer-reviewed).

Science Daily reports on major insights resulting from a study by “Empa – a Research Institute of the ETH Domain” on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).

This ground-breaking study shows that Automobile air conditioning systems do not run “free of charge.” The article reminds us that Car air conditioning systems require energy to compress the cooling agent, and the greater the degree of cooling required the more energy (i.e. fuel) they use.

This is good strong stuff. I need more coffee.

The article continues. The study, the results of which have just been published in the scientific journal “Environmental Science and Technology,” shows that the fuel consumption of the test vehicles with air conditioning systems in operation increases with rising ambient air temperature and humidity, reaching a value of some 18 per cent on a typical Swiss summer day with an air temperature of 27 degrees and relative humidity of 60 per cent.

Wow!

This highly significant peer-reviewed, CO2 related (what else) paper is referenced as:

Martin F. Weilenmann, Robert Alvarez, Mario Keller. Fuel Consumption and CO2/Pollutant Emissions of Mobile Air Conditioning at Fleet Level – New Data and Model ComparisonEnvironmental Science & Technology, 2010: 100608141025002 DOI:

What is not reported is how much this nonsense cost. But since it has CO2 in the title it must be worth every penny.


%d bloggers like this: