CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CO2 MYTHOLOGY

[angbumabasa 93]

Where does the carbon dioxide really come from?

 0

BY THE MANILA TIMES ON JULY 26, 2018ANALYSIS

Twitter

RE: Yen Makabenta’s “Face the facts: Globe is not warming, it’s cooling” (The Manila Times, July 21, 2018):

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don’t you think?

In a brief summary, here’s what Professor Plimer has written:

Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just four days, negated every single effort you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet — all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress — it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days!

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days — yes, four days — by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time — every day.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year — think about it.Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of natural solar and cosmic activity, and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the wildfire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “global warming” anymore, but just “climate change”?

It’s because the planet has cooled by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming advocates got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an emissions trading scheme — that whopping new tax — imposed on you by your government, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

But, hey, go give the world a hug and have a nice day

Arthur Buckland-Pinnock
arfabuck@gmail.com

·          

[Oz Jon 354]

18 hours ago, angbumabasa said:

Where does the carbon dioxide really come from?

 0

B

........................................

Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just four days, negated every single effort you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet — all of you............................

 

·          

Well, OK, that's one man's (a bit of science, but mainly philosophical/political) opinion.

 

This volcano CO2 theory has been disputed by other scientists in several publications already.....nowhere near enough CO2 emitted from volcanoes to account for the measured rise in world CO2 levels.

 

It seems very unlikely that this guy is right and hundreds (thousands?) of other competent scientists with contrary opinions (backed by hard data)  are wrong?

[angbumabasa 93]

True, but still just opinions. What I do believe is that Permafrost is no more, Glaciers are melting sometimes exposing 10,000 year old ice, and the two Polar Ice Caps are disappearing. I’m waiting for a new Standard Seawater of 35ppt to be declared. Further we are clearly in the Sixth Mass Extinction with the only differing opinions being of when it began.  

[angbumabasa 93]

More CO2 Mythology

Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf

Edited October 10, 2018 by angbumabasa

[Oz Jon 354]

A very interesting lecture - Thanks for flagging it angbumabasa.

It has triggered me to check some of his "facts".

 

A bit disturbing though, was two of the GWPF lecturers (Australians whose views I'm familiar with) listed in the annexe :-

 

Cardinal George Pell  (disgraced protector of pedophile priests)

and Tony Abbot (master of "weasel-words" and politically "to the right of Genghis Khan")     

 

[Oz Jon 354]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:52 PM, Oz Jon said:

A very interesting lecture - Thanks for flagging it angbumabasa.

It has triggered me to check some of his "facts".

 

A bit disturbing though, was two of the GWPF lecturers (Australians whose views I'm familiar with) listed in the annexe :-

 

Cardinal George Pell  (disgraced protector of pedophile priests)

and Tony Abbot (master of "weasel-words" and politically "to the right of Genghis Khan")     

 

Well!

Up to now, I have accepted the popular theory that global warming is the result of increases in CO2 in the atmosphere (much of which was man-made since the industrial revolution).

Now, I'm not so sure.  I did a bit of research on the key claim in Lindzen's lecture - he may well be right!

(Hey! - I'm an Engineer with a scientific background and a healthy skepticism for unproven facts)

 

Lindzen claims that CO2 contributes only about 2% to the greenhouse effect and that water vapour is overwhelmingly the most important contributor.

Furthermore, water vapour's effect is in a positive feedback loop  (increased concentration of water vapour raises earth temperature which causes further increases in water vapour). These claims are endorsed by such reputable authorities as NOAA , NASA and others.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

NOAA warns that:-

" The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood"

 

But apparently, global warming is a much more complicated process than simply the effect of greenhouse gasses.

 

As air with it's water vapour content warms up and rises, that water converts to liquid (sometimes ice) to form clouds.

And clouds have a cooling effect on the earth by reflecting incoming light and emitting heat radiation into space.

As NOAA says 

"As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up)"     https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

NOAA further warns that there is little data available on this effect and it is not well understood. [see ps]

 

So, it's not so clear that we should be quite so enthusiastic about reducing man-made CO2 production in an effort to slow global warming.

But reducing atmospheric pollution from burning dirty fuels (like coal) remains a good idea.

 

ps.  If we haven't already done it, we need high earth orbit satellite measurements of the intensity of solar radiation and measurements of outgoing radiation from cloud cover, to get a better understanding of this effect

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Oz Jon
typos, ps added