Featured

On Earth Day, gloomy predictions haven’t come to pass

This Earth Day, it almost feels like we should be carving some turkey. Why? Because we have a lot to be thankful for since the first Earth Day event occurred 49 years ago.

We should be thankful that the gloom-and-doom predictions made throughout the past several decades haven’t come true. Fear-mongering about explosive population growth, food crises and the imminent depletion of natural resources have been a staple of Earth Day events since 1970. And the common thread among them is that they’ve stirred up a lot more emotions than facts. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Advertisements
Featured

AOC Talks Climate Change and Socialism

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Crisis: Global Warming has Caused Polar Bear Obesity Epidemic

Global warming has caused Polar Bear Obesity. Electric vehicles also emit more CO2 than diesel.

Read More

Read More

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

AOC and the Green New Deal Video

Children in NYC graduate from high school unable to read and AOC promotes the GND.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Failed Governments and their wars, not Climate Change, are Driving Immigration; People tend to Immigrate TOWARDS the Warmth, not away from it.

AOC could learn a lot from Obama.

Please like, share, subscribe, re-blog and comment

Featured

Progressive Leftists are by Far the Greatest Threat to America

  1. Repeal the Electoral College
  2. Highly divisive identify politics whose only purpose is to divide America
  3. Vote “Harvesting”
  4. Open Borders
  5. Tech Tyranny and Censorship
  6. Politicization of Science and Education
  7. Medicare for All
  8. Social Security for Illegal Immigrants
  9. Green New Deal
  10. 16 Year Old to Vote
  11. Stacking the Supreme Court
  12. Political Violence tolerated and even encouraged
  13. Anti-Semitism Tolerated
  14. The embrace of divisive tactics like the Kneelers
  15. Anti-Police and Military Support
  16. Politicization of the Media and Press
  17. Support of Globalism over Nationalism
  18. Undermining the 1st and 2nd Amendment
  19. Undermining the integrity of our voting system each time they lose an election
  20. Support for Abortion after Birth
  21. Assault on Private Property Rights/Wealth Tax
  22. Slavery Reparations
  23. And the list goes on and on and on
  24. Universal Livable Income
  25. Higher Minimum Wage
  26. Compulsory Unionization
  27. Arming our enemies with Nuclear Material (Iran)
  28. Dropping sanctions and literally giving pallets of cash to our enemies (Iran)
  29. Attempted Coup

Common denominator? 100% Trump hating Democrats

America is doing its best to destroy itself from within.

If $15 Minimum Wage Is Such a Good Idea, Why Did AOC’s Bar Close Down?

The brilliant Thomas Sowell, when in college, considered himself a Marxist. Asked what changed him, Sowell said, “Evidence.”

After completing undergrad at Harvard and obtaining a master’s in economics, Sowell landed a summer internship with the Department of Labor. While there, he researched the impact of minimum wage law on employment. Sowell learned two things, both of which he found startling. First, minimum wage laws create job loss by pricing the unskilled out of the labor force. Second, Sowell discovered that “the people in the labor department really were not interested in that, because the administration of the minimum wage was supplying one-third of the money that was keeping the labor department going. … I realized that institutions have their own agendas and their own incentives.” In short, Sowell found that the Department of Labor did not care about the real-world effects of the minimum wage law. He credits this experience, this search for evidence, with having the “biggest” impact on his thinking. (Source)

In about 120 BC Rome embraced political violence over the rule of law (Murder of the Gracchi Brothers). By 100 BC Rome was in full civil war (Marius and Sulla). By 80 BC Rome’s last chance at restoring the Republic died (Sulla), by 50 BC Caesar is crossing the Rubicon. After that, Rome was no longer a Republic, but it all ties back to the embracing of Political Intolerance and Violence that started the ball rolling.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-blog and comment

Featured

The Greatest Strength Climate “Science” has is that it has existed in the shadows; That is all about to change

CEI Leads Coalition Letter on Commission on Climate Security

A letter sent to president Trump supports Dr. Will Happer, has dozens of supporters.

Dear President Trump,

The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act. (Source)

The Wicked/Guilty Flee When No One Pursues. In other words, one’s actions will betray them. While the groups listed in the above article cheer President Trump demanding transparency into the scientific methods and conclusions, others are crying foul. Those crying foul are those at risk of being exposed. Can you guess who is crying foul? You guessed it. Michael Mann of Hockeystick in-Fame-y.

Michael Mann: Reviewing Climate Change Claims is Stalinism (Source)

More on this Topic:

Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

Hockeystick Con Job; CO2 Can’t Cause Temperature Dog-Legs

Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism.

Today’s children, as they become more politically aware, will be much more radical than their parents, simply because there will be no other choice for them. This emergent radicalism is already taking people by surprise. The Green New Deal (GND), a term presently most associated with 29-year-old US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has provoked a wildly unhinged backlash from the “pro free market” wing, who argue that it’s a Trojan horse, nothing more than an attempt to piggyback Marxism onto the back of climate legislation. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

The Week That Was..In Pictures

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Featured

Climategate 2.0 Provides More Evidence of Fraud; Constants Can’t Cause Variations…That is Why they are Called Constants

Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’ (Source)

We at CO2 is life have pointed out countless times that CO2 is a constant, blanketing the globe with 410 ppm CO2. CO2 is 410 ppm at the North Pole, South Pole, Equator, Surface, and 70 km up into the Mesosphere. The above email proves that the Climate “Scientist” actually understand the basics of Ceteris Paribus Cause and Effect. Because CO2 is a constant, it can’t cause a temperature differential in one desert at a certain latitude and altitude without causing the same effect in another desert on the same latitude and altitude. CO2, after all, provides back radiation so the amount of “trapped” radiation between 13 and 18µ by CO2 would be constant for every 1°C Surface Temperature. If CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 410 in 2018 at the North Pole, it did the same at the South Pole. If CO2 generated 1.6 W/M^2 in additional back radiation at the North Pole, it did the same at the South Pole.

Because the effect of CO2 is a constant and defined by the quantum physics of a CO2 molecule, one doesn’t need countless temperature measurements to measure the impact of CO2. One only needs one long-term continuous instrument record measured in a relatively consistent manner and environment. That place is Central England, and temperature graphic demonstrates basically 0.00°C change since the late-1600s early 1700s. In other words, CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 410 ppm made no measurable impact on the temperature trend. Current temperatures for all seasons are well within the norm of the past nearly 400 years.

Where this concept is most damning however is when it is applied to the various sea level measurements. No matter where you are on the oceans you are exposed to 410 ppm CO2. NOAA does a great job providing the evidence of the CO2 caused sea level rise fraud. Here we have sea level rise for the East Coast of America and the rate of increase is about the height of 2 dimes, or 5.5 mm/yr. At this pace, it would take 70,000 years to submerge the Empire State Building.

The problem is, when we go out to the West Coast, where CO2 is also 410 ppm, sea levels are increasing at a much much much lower rate. Some areas on the West Coast actually have sea levels FALLING!!!

If we go out to Hawaii, where CO2 is also 410 ppm, things seem to be pretty steady.

If we go up to Canada, where CO2 is 410 ppm, we see that sea level is actually collapsing.

Sweden, where CO2 is 410 ppm, is also seeing sea level collapse.

Japan, where CO2 is 410 ppm, sea level has been flat for almost 100 years.

Spain, where CO2 is 410 ppm, is also flat.

Iceland, which is right next to the melting Greenland Glacier and has CO2 of 410 ppm, is also basically flat, with current levels below the levels of the mid-1960s.

Antarctica, where CO2 is ppm and giant ice shelves calve off every other day, is also basically flat.

Up in Alaska, where we are supposedly going to have an ice-free North Pole and CO2 is 410, the sea levels are all over the place, but mostly FALLING!!!

The bottom line is that there is way way way too much variability in sea levels to attribute any change to a constant CO2. If CO2 was the cause, sea levels would be experiencing a parallel shift upward and this simply isn’t happening.

Oh, and for those of you that are worried about New York flooding. Battery Park shows no rise in sea level since 2000…and CO2 is 410 ppm.

Pensacola Florida, where CO2 is 410 ppm, also looks pretty safe.

Sea level variation is also tied to natural cycles related to the sun, not CO2.

Bottom line, you have to look hard and wide to find a sea level data set to support the alarmist’s claims. More importantly, none of the data sets I examined demonstrate an acceleration in sea level increase which would be the CO2 signature. Doubt me? See for yourselves. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment.

Featured

Why Obama Will Go Down in History as One of America’s Worst Presidents; 8 Years of Doing Nothing of Value

FFR

While there is no denying that President Obama won the Presidency during a very difficult economic time. There is also no denying that nothing he did was stimulating the economy. Obamacare and much greater regulations did nothing but create uncertainty. Ironically, the major job-creating industry during his era was the Fracking and Energy Sectors. What economic advancement there was can be 100% attributed to 1) Monetary Policy and 2) Sectors that he attempted to eviscerate.

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy (Source)

Monetary Policy Drove Stock Market In Obama Years (Source)

FRACKING BOOM MASKS OBAMA’S HORRIFYING ECONOMIC NUMBERS (Source)

This is how he spins this approach. Note: GE is now in freefall, and Wind and Solar haven’t made a dent in our energy production.

Economic textbooks will need to be rewritten to explain how someone with 0.00% interest rates and a doubling of the Federal Debt couldn’t get economic growth above 3% for a single year. It is impossible to overstate what an economic failure President Obama truly was.

Debt.JPG

Progressives can claim all they want that Obama was behind the US recovery, but they will never be able to erase the history recorded in the Fed Funds Rate. The 0.00% for almost 100% of the Obama Era is undeniable testimony that his policies were doing nothing to spur the economy. What is the Proof? The Dog-Leg in the rates once the economy started discounting the end of his administration. Optimism returned once the Obama Era neared its end. President Trump has the US Economy ACCELERATING UPWARD extremely late in a business cycle, wages are ACCELERATING UPWARD, Rates are being driven higher due to strong MARKET CONDITIONS, and the recent 3.0% GDP Growth is higher than any year under President Obama, and once again, we are almost 10 years into a recovery. Strong economic growth usually occurs at the start of the recovery, not at the end.

Obama did nothing to alter the trend in atmospheric CO2, absolutely nothing.

The trend in Sea Level also remained unchanged.

SeaLevel.png

 

To demonstrate what a complete and utter failure President Obama was, in the above video he discusses the “Scale of Tragedy” caused by Global Warming being unprecedented. What is really unprecedented is how a President can have such pressing social issues and do absolutely nothing about them. While progressives may love spending money on issues that can never be fixed, it is undeniable President Obama completely ignored the greatest challenges facing this Nation. (Source)

President Obama’s first act in office was to end the Washington D.C. Voucher Program, and things continued downward from there.

Obama Wrong on D.C. School Vouchers and Hypocritical, Just Like Congress (Source)

Trump administration reverses Obama policy on D.C. vouchers (Source)

With Friends like Obama, the Black Community doesn’t need enemies.

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

(Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Climategate Pt Deux; More Fraud Exposed

We’ve pointed out countless times that CO2 is a constant, therefore it can’t cause differences between similar environments. It appears that the Climate “Scientists” are well aware of this fact, and choose to ignore it.

Smoking Gun.JPG

Oooops, wonder how Congress is going to react to this one? You would think that for a “settled science” the error bars would be negligible. The variation of a ball dropped in a vacuum is 9.8 m/sec^2 +/- 0. That is what a settled science does, it removes the error.

Smoking Gun 2

Smoking Gun 3

Read more about the emails: (Source)

We’re using McCarthyistic Tactics to investigate President Trump in order to try to find a crime when real crimes are visible in plain sight by simply reading these Climate “Scientists'” emails.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments

Top-5-Lists

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame recently sent out a request for the top 5 skeptical or pro-global warming arguments. His challenge can be seen here:

Scott Adams on Climate Change Persuasion; Cudos to Tony Heller

Tony Heller’s Top 5 List; The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism (Source)

mlo_full_record jpg

#1) The global community has spent literally trillions of dollars, both directly and indirectly through regulation and opportunity costs trying to reduce CO2 emissions. The benefits of those expenditures cannot even be measured. The trend of CO2 simply remains unaltered by climate change spending. That money is being spent on the highly speculative belief that man can actually alter atmospheric CO2, a level many believe is dictated by the oceans, and not man through a relationship called “Henry’s Law.” The point being, that even if global warming is a real threat, spending money on reducing carbon emissions doesn’t seem to deliver any benefits. Society would be better served spending money on climate change mitigation like reinforcing dams, desalination plants, forest management to prevent fires, and of course building schools, hospitals, roads, and critical infrastructure. (More)

Green New Deal Cost of Changing a Lightbulb? $1,973. No, that is not a Typo or very Bad Joke.

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

EPA Climate Model Shows ‘Green New Deal’ Would Avert a ‘Barely Detectable’ Amount of Global Warming (Source)

The Benefits of CO2 (Source)

IPCC Demands $240/gal Gasoline Tax While France Burns

Democrats are Determined to Repeat the Failure of France and Europe and Destroy the Trump Economic Miracle

What has the World Gotten for its Climate Change Dollars? Absolutely Nothing

Bjorn Lomborg: UN climate officials admit ‘Paris agreement will leave 99% of the problem unsolved’ at ‘a very, very high cost’

The most amazing greening on Earth

A2

#2) Global temperature records are “adjusted” on a biblical scale, rendering them effectively useless in any real field of science. Conclusions based on garbage data are simply garbage. Fortunately, the physics of a CO2 molecule are constant, as is the concentration throughout the atmosphere. CO2 produced today has the same physical properties of CO2 produced 1,000s of years ago. CO2 is 410 ppm at the N Pole, S Pole, Equator, Surface, and 70 km up. In other words, the effect of CO2 is constant no matter where you are on earth, so you don’t need 1,000s of measurement units, you simply need 1 data set that has been measured and recorded in a constant fashion throughout time without any major changes to the surrounding environment. That location is Central England which is the longest continuous instrumental record of temperature. The Central England data set shows no relationship between CO2 and temperature since 1650, and current temperatures are at or below levels reached in the 1600s.

No real science would have 98% of the experts agree if they knew cherry picking and manipulating the data was required to support their position.

Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

Understand the Oceans, Understand the Climate, NO CO2 Needed

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

Holocene-Cooling-Antarctica-Schneider-2006

#3) Atmospheric temperatures show warming due to many factors other than CO2. Water vapor is by far the most potent greenhouse gas and has been increasing due to the “greening” of the N. Hemisphere. The urban heat island effect can cause warming as hot roads and buildings replace cooling grasslands and forests. The sun cycles, cosmic rays, and clouds also alter the atmospheric temperatures. To adjust for those factors one needs to identify a location that controls for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. That “control” is Antarctica where there is no heat island effect, no water vapor, and CO2 that is identical to the rest of the globe. The temperatures in Antarctica show no warming what so ever since the 1800s when records began, and CO2 was around 40% lower.

No real science relies upon computer models and forecasts as “evidence.” The 98% of climate scientist have no explanation as to why higher CO2 had no impact on temperatures in Antarctica. They simply ignore inconvenient facts.

Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature

Scientific Way to Discredit Use of Ground Measurements

Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

How Does 140 Years of Stable Temperatures Prove Man Made CO2 is Melting the Greenland Glaciers?

HS1

#4) The Hockeystick chart, on which most of this Climate Change Hoax is based, is some of the most damning evidence against CO2 being the cause of warming. The Hockeystick chart shows two distinct “dog-legs.” The first dog-leg occurs in 1902 and coincides with the addition of instrumental records (we will ignore the obvious data manipulation of not including the instrumental record that exists prior to 1902) and the second dog-leg occurs when all proxies are dropped in 1980. The dog-legs occur along with the data composition adjustments. There is no physical explanation as to why temperatures would dog-leg without a corresponding dog-leg in CO2. The trend in temperatures makes dramatic trend changes, yet the trend in CO2 remained constant. Clearly, something other than the CO2 molecule must have caused the dog-legs. The physics of the CO2 molecule, and its absorption of long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation, simply don’t support dog-legs in the temperature graphic.

No real science would reach a 98% consensus based upon such garbage data, and the malfeasance exposed in the Climategate emails. Anyway, consensus doesn’t prove anything, the evidence does. No matter how many experts agreed the earth was flat, it made no difference to reality. The very fact that Climate Science relies on computer models and consensus pretty much proves they are anti-science. Real science depends on credible evidence and data, experimentation, and reproducibility. Climate science has none of the hallmarks associated with real science.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry

Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann

Countering the Michael Mann Straw Man Arguments

co2_modtrans_img1

5) Real science doesn’t rely on absolute levels, they measure the marginal changes. Real science looks at the ΔY for a ΔX, or change in Y for a change in X. If one looks at the “adjustments” to the global temperatures, they are all done so in order to make temperatures more linear. By making them more linear, the models that relate CO2 to temperature produce better results. CO2 is linear, and it is pretty hard to manipulate that data because it is virtually constant around the globe. Temperatures are anything but linear, so to make the case that CO2 and Temperatures are related, the temperature data needs to be “adjusted” to make the data set more linear. The problem is, the absolute level of CO2 isn’t what matters. CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, the amount of long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation that the CO2 absorbs is what warms the atmosphere. The marginal absorption of long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation by CO2 isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. What that means is that each additional CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere absorbs LESS long-wave infrared electromagnetic radiation. This is the law of diminishing marginal returns. CO2 is like taking aspirin. The first one reduces the pain by 90%, and next one 5%, and on and on until taking an additional aspirin will actually make you sick. The fact that the physics of the CO2 molecule doesn’t support a linear trend in temperatures, and yet all the temperature “adjustments” work to make the temperature more linear pretty much proves this is scientific fraud. The “adjustments” are made to accommodate the models, not the real physics of the CO2 molecule and the greenhouse gas effect.

4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate

Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

Bonus Items:

1ab

6) Temperatures have been extremely volatile during the Holocene. There is nothing abnormal about the volatility over the past 150 years. Most of the volatility occurred with stable CO2, proving something other than CO2 causes extreme changes in climate. One can simply test the ice core data for the Null Hypothesis “Man is not causing climate change” and it will not be rejected using the scientific method.

IS GLOBAL WARMING THEORY SCIENTIFIC?

A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science

WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

Freeman Dyson on Climate Change; “Those People Don’t Look at the Observations, They are in a World of Their Own.”

112f0-600millyears

7) The geological record shows that CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm, and earth NEVER experienced catastrophic warming. The earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm, or nearly 10x the level of today. CO2 and temperatures are simply not related on a geologic scale.

h2o-and-temperature-cross

8) Water vapor and atmospheric temperatures are almost indistinguishable. Where there is water vapor there is warmth. CO2 is constant throughout the atmosphere and cannot cause this type of temperature profile.

spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353

9) If something is understood, it can be modeled. Climate models fail miserably and will continue to fail miserably because CO2 and Temperatures aren’t linearly related. As time passes, it is a 100% certainty that the difference between the measured UNADJUSTED temperatures and the predicted model results will INCREASE. Any real science with a 98% consensus would be able to model the system of which they claim to be experts.

Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable (Source)

Computer Model Output Doesn’t Change the Physical Reality

Predictably, Climate Data Fails Audit

edc_thumb

10) Al Gore’s chart demonstrates that A) Temperatures LEAD CO2 by between 800 and 1,500 years and B) Change is the normal condition for the Climate. An unchanging climate doesn’t exist in the geological record. Mother Nature simply likes climatic variations, and trying to stop natural cycles is probably the most idiotic idea ever conceived by mankind.

Any real science knows that the cause always has to lead the effect. The 98% Consensus Climate Scientists effectively believe lung-cancer causes smoking.

97 Percent

11) Simply follow the money and where the power shifts.

The Ever Changing “Settled” Science; How Can a “Settled” Science need Continual Updating?

6 Charts That Prove Results Don’t Matter to Progressives

GE was once America’s most valuable company. Today it is fighting junk-bond status.

Communist China caught funding US environmental groups to undermine military

Chinese Communist Party Funds Washington Think Tanks

The Real Scandal is How Green Activists Distort the Scientific Truth

Please post this on Scott Adams’ Twitter and Blog

This is what happens with climate change, the promoters of the global warming hoax don’t refute the arguments of the skeptics, they attack the skeptic personally and professionally. Scott Adams approach helps to change all this. He is providing a positive and constructive way to address this extremely important public policy and spending issue.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Filling in the Missing Pieces

One of the main aspects on CAGW that we at CO2isLife haven’t been able to adequately explain is what truly happens once a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon of 13 to 18µ LWIR. The conventional wisdom, the wisdom on which all the CAGW theory is based, is that CO2 absorbs the photon and then reradiates it back towards the earth or oceans. That turns out to be correct in 1/1,000,000,000 events…or statistically 0.00.

What happens, in reality, is that a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and becomes excited exactly like the above graphic. The molecule “bends” and creates a “dipole.”  If enough time passes and nothing collides with the excited molecule, it will re-emit the photon. That, however, takes about 0.2 seconds.

The more likely outcome, by a factor of 1 billion, is that the molecule will collide with another molecule, most likely N2, and transfer that energy to the N2 molecule without re-emitting the photon. The energy is simply converted from EM energy to kinetic energy. Therefore, because CO2 only represents 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere, an excited CO2 molecule can’t really alter the entire energy balance by much.

From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

  1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1nanosecond.
  2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1second(a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY.  I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]
You didn’t mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES.  I CAN’T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES.  ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.
So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]

(Source) (Source2) (Source3)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change

For the Climate Change “Experts” to be correct, Mother Nature has to be wrong. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is just that, Catastrophic. The theory is that Anthropogenic CO2 is basically a doomsday bomb. From the geologic record, we know this is nonsense, and that Mother Nature has produced CO2 in vastly greater quantities than Man could ever hope to produce and life thrived. CO2 is, after all, the molecule on which all organic based life is derived. For some reason, the climate “experts” seem to believe that the physical properties of Anthropogenic CO2 somehow differ from those of Naturally produced CO2, they don’t.

How then, would Einstein go about disproving the myth of CAGW? He would use a “thought experiment.” Einstein solved the theory of relativity by simply watching a clock while riding a train and imagined what things would be like if the train was traveling near the speed of light. We will do the same here in regards to climate change.

The Achilles Heal of the Climate Alarmists is that their “theory” treats the atmosphere almost like a closed system. That is why they focus on global temperature. The argument is that CO2 is “trapping” heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a gradual increase in temperatures. This assumption isn’t even close to true, the atmosphere has no insulated ceiling, thus freely allowing energy to enter and exit. Most importantly, energy is in flux, and different wavelengths of Electro-Magnetic Radiation have different physical properties. The key to the thought experiment is to then demonstrate the climate system in a thought experiment. To do this we will use the giant water bucket popular at water parks.

Energy is in flux, it enters the system at a certain rate, and it leaves the system at a certain rate. You can fill your car up with gasoline in 10 minutes with a large flow capacity hose, and then slowly allow fuel to drain out through a low flow capacity fuel injector and drive your car for hours. The climate alarmists use a linear model for the climate theory. The Sun’s energy is constant they say, CO2 increases, CO2 reduces the outgoing Longwave Infrared Radiation, therefore temperatures increase. That is their theory in a nutshell. It is a masterpiece in sophistry.

The problem they have with that theory is the energy flux of the atmosphere is highly nonlinear. Energy accumulates in the oceans during a “La Niña”, and then is belched out into the atmosphere during an “El Niño. The energy flux is absolutely enormous, with the ocean temperatures varying up to 4°C over a cycle, and therein lies the problem.

(Source) (Source)

Sea “surface” reaches down about 100m. (Source)

The difference between day and night temperatures of the oceans can also vary greatly. BTW, note how the very surface is COOLER than the water immediately below it. That is evidence CO2 and wind are actually working to COOL the oceans because the wavelengths CO2 absorbs don’t penetrate the surface of the oceans. (More below)

diurnal sea temp

(Source)

Enormous amounts of energy are required to warm the oceans, and enormous amounts of energy are released when the oceans cool. The specific heat of water is 4.186 joule/gram °C, where a joule is a W*Sec. The marginal contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 (Difference between 270 and 410 ppm) is a whopping 0.94 W/m^2. (Source)

co2 anthropogenic

That means that Anthropogenic CO2 can warm 1gm of water 1°C every 4.186/0.94 or 4.45 Seconds over an area of 1 m^2. A m^3 of water weighs 1,000,000 gms. It would take 4,450,000 seconds, or 1,250 hours or nearly 2 months for Anthropogenic CO2 to warm a m^3 of sea surface water  1°C. To put things in perspective, at high noon on a clear day, the oceans are being bathed by 1,000 W/m^2 by incoming solar radiation. (Source) It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours. On a cloudy day, the incoming solar radiation may only be 100 W/m^2, so the variations are enormous, yet still dwarf the contributions of anthropogenic CO2. A similar example could be done using the time it takes CO2 to replace the energy lost from just one cloudy day.

Here is the best evidence I’ve found that the sun is warming the oceans, not CO2. The warming trend has occurred along with a decrease in cloud cover over the oceans. Note how both charts of Low-Level Clouds and Temperatures “kink” or “dog-leg” around 1999. CO2 shows no relationship with temperature at all, but water vapor does.

With that background, we can now design the Einstein Thought Experiment. Assuming Mother Nature isn’t an imbecile, we would have to assume that she built safety valves in her system to ensure no catastrophic events ever happen. She did that is various ways 1) the El Niños act as pressure valves and 2) CO2 shows a logarithmic decay in its absorption of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR). The Water Park Giant Tipping Bucket is a great demonstration of how the climate system works, and why CO2 is truly irrelevant. The Bucket is filled by an enormous pipe that can fill a 1,000-gallon bucket in about 10 minutes, so the flow rate is about 100 gallons/minute. The major fill pipe is the solar radiation of 1,000 W/m^2 in the climate system. CO2’s contribution to the climate system would be like hanging a garden hose over the side of the bucket with a flow rate of about 0.1 Gallons/minute. By the time CO2 has poured 1 gallon into the giant bucket, the bucket pours all CO2’s water out and things start all over again. Because the bucket is continually dumping out all the accumulated water/energy, CO2’s contribution can never actually “accumulate” in the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough time between cycles for CO2 to have a material impact.

There is also one additional twist to the above thought experiment. CO2 shows a logarithmic decay of its absorption between 13 to 18µ LWIR. To understand this, imagine that the garden hose isn’t drooped across the top, but is piped in at the bottom of the bucket. At first, when the bucket is empty, CO2’s water easily flows into the system, but as more and more water gets into the bucket, the back pressure grows, and less and less CO2 water is piped into the bucket. Eventually, no additional CO2 water will make it into the bucket, no matter how much CO2 water is in the filling tank. 0 to 410 ppm CO2 added 7.85 W/m^2 to the system, doubling CO2 from 410 to 820 will only add an additional 1.88 W/m^2.

If you think of the bucket filling and overflowing without tipping as a catastrophic event, there is no way for CO2 water to ever prevent the bucket from tipping, so it can never cause a catastrophic event. As long as El Niños exist, CO2 will never be able to cause a catastrophic event.

There appears to be another safety valve Mother Nature created that I don’t fully understand, but it highlights how many aspects of the climate are counter-intuitive. When the incoming solar radiation is REDUCEDthe amount of radiation that actually reaches the earth’s surface actually INCREASES.

The solar radiation coming to the Earth (and individual hemispheres) is reduced (Fig. 2). The anomaly value of the solar radiation coming to the Earth surface (in respect to the mean for 1961 – 1990) from 1850 to 2013 is 3.49Е+07 J/m2. The difference of solar radiation coming to the equatorial zone and polar regions of the Earth (and hemispheres) is increased for this period by 5.83Е+07 J/m2 (relative to the mean for 1961 – 1990). The SST temperature on the Earth and individual hemispheres is increased.

(Source)

Additionally, in reality, CO2 is more likely to cause surface evaporation. The latent heat of evaporation is 2.26 j/g, so CO2 is more likely to pull heat away from the ocean surface than to add to be because H2O readily absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR likely triggering evaporation. The following chart demonstrates that 13 to 18µ LWIR doesn’t penetrate the oceans to any depth, so those factors combined with a blowing wind aiding evaporation further makes the case that CO2 cools the oceans, it doesn’t warm them. Visible radiation clearly penetrates and warms the oceans, especially very high energy blue light.

Lastly, climate alarmists make it sound as if all W/m^2 are created equal, they aren’t. A W/m^2 of blue light is likely to warm the deeper oceans, a W/m^2 of 13 to 18µ LWIR will never reach that depth. A W/m^2 from an LED Flashlight will travel to outer space without warming anything. Only when a W/m^2 is absorbed and converted to thermal energy does a W/m^2 result in an increase in temperature, and different wavelengths have different absorptive properties.

The above article would make a great High School Science Fair Demonstration.

Post Publish Edit: This seems to validate the theory detailed above…and we’re not climate scientists or experts.

An ocean of inconvenient truth
The estimated increase in ocean heat content during 1990-2015 is the same as that between 1921–1946, according to a study in the PNAS. Change in atmospheric CO2 was ~70 ppm (1990-2015) vs. ~10 ppm (1921-1946). (Source)

More evidence CO2 does not warm the oceans. Ocean temperatures have not increased with an increase in CO2. (Source)

sst

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

Models of a Truly Settled Science will all have the Same Results

Run the above experiment 1 billion times and you will get 1 billion identical outcomes. Now, look at the “settled science” of climate science. They have multiple models, none of them agree, and worse, they don’t accurately reflect reality. The only thing “settled” about climate science is that the climate experts don’t have a clue as to how to model the climate.

Don’t take it from me, listen to the true experts.

Many new scientific papers affirm climate model results conflict with one another, diverge from observations, and aren’t fully rooted in established physics. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Featured

A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science

Lab.PNG

The benefit the Climate Alarmists have is that Climate “Science” isn’t a physical science, it is a computer and political science. Climate Scientists deliberately don’t perform experiments to validate their “science.” They write computer programs and collaborate with environmental and political groups to sway opinions. The proof that climate science is pure nonsense is that their computer models and theory don’t accurately reflect observational data. Don’t take my word for it, that is the opinion of one of if not the greatest mind living today, Freeman Dyson.

Freeman Dyson on Climate Change; “Those People Don’t Look at the Observations, They are in a World of Their Own.”

The challenge then becomes for someone outside the Climate Science community to develop an irrefutable experiment that debunks the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, or CAGW. An experiment that can withstand scrutiny, be replicated countless times and demonstrated in every classroom worldwide. I think I have that very experiment.

The experiment is surprisingly simple. Just recently a Peer-Reviewed Climate Science article was debunked by a non-climate science statistician. Steve McIntyre found mathematical flaws in the Peer-Reviewed IPCC embraced Hockey Stick as well. Math and statistics aren’t requirements to succeed in Climate Science, reaching the conclusion that CO2 is the cause is all that matters.

HEADLINE-GRABBING GLOBAL WARMING STUDY SUFFERS FROM A MAJOR MATH ERROR

That flawed article, however, provides the basis for the Nobel Prize Winning Science Experiment. All the Climate Alarmists agree that the oceans are warming due to CO2. A CO2 driven warming of the oceans is critical to the CAGW theory. If CO2 isn’t warming the Oceans than the CAGW theory is invalidated.

The whole experiment then boils down to answering the question “Can CO2 cause water to warm?” It is that simple. Surprisingly that question hasn’t been definitively answered in this “settled science.”

Background:

  • The oceans are warming
  • CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through absorption/radiation/thermalization of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation
  • 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation does not penetrate the oceans to any significant depth, it is completely absorbed in the surface “microlayer”
  • CO2 does not cause warming, 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation does

With that background, we can then design the experiment.

  • MODTRAN provides the calculations needed to identify the marginal changes in W/M^2 of downward IR back radiation generated by additional CO2 (Link)
  • Calculate the W/M^2 for Pre-Industrial CO2 of 280 ppm, the current level of 400 PPM and doubling at 800 ppm using the “Looking Up” calculation
  • Shine the calculated amount of W/M^2 of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation onto a body of water enclosed in an insulated container with a blackbody absorber for a lid
  • Record the rate of temperature change to see if the sample with the additional 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation applied cools at a slower rate than the control sample
  • The control atmospheric environment needs to have 280 PPM CO2 for all samples
  • The additional W/M^2 or 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation represents the effect of additional CO2 being added

Here are the necessary MODTRAN Calculations and W/M^2 Values:

The “Control” has CO2 of 280 ppm in the atmosphere and Downward IR Heat Flux 368.636 W/m2

The “Current” has CO2 of 400 ppm in the atmosphere and Downward IR Heat Flux 369.264 W/m2 (+0.628 W/M^2 over control)

The “Double” has CO2 of 800 ppm in the atmosphere and Downward IR Heat Flux 371.148 W/m2 (+2.512 W/M^2 over control)

 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Experiment Equipment:

  • Enclosed space with 280 ppm CO2 representing per-industrial Downward IR Heat Flux
  • 3 insulated containers of water raised to 10°C above room temperature
  • A blackbody lid (Egg Crate Foam soaked in a charcoal slurry)(This represents outer space)
  • IR Light Source and 13 to 18µ filter

The Experiment:

  • Warm the water sample to 10°C above room temperature
  • Place the water in an insulated container with a blackbody absorber as the lid
  • Place it in the control environment of 280 ppm CO2
  • Record how long it takes to cool to room temperature
  • Repeat, but for each new sample shine the needed amount of additional 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR
  • Collect data to identify the marginal change in cooling rate for additional amounts of 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR
  • Repeat the experiment using room temperature water and record if the additional 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR can actually cause a measurable warming
  • Convert the findings from W/M^2 of 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR to ppm CO2
  • Publish your findings either proving or disproving that CO2 and 13 to 18µ Long Wave IR can, in fact, warm water (slow cooling)
  • Collect your Nobel Prize in Science for validating or invalidating the CAGW Theory
  • Finally “settle” this science

Because Climate Scientists aren’t required to develop computer models that actually reflect reality, they will be able to indefinitely promote their cause. They will never run out of bogus computer models and excuses. Their believers already believe them without valid computer models or supporting physical observations. It is the ideal Anti-Science Cult, packaged as real science. What is needed to shatter the Global Warming Myth is an irrefutable reproducible experiment. The first thing the Romans did when they conquered a nation was to destroy their temples to shatter the belief of all its followers. To prove to the people that the Romans were more powerful than their gods. Real scientists need to step up and develop an experiment to shatter the Temple of Computer Servers and end this Cult of Climate Change. Their weapon needs to be the scientific method.

This experiment could possibly be run using a CO2 laser.

A second experiment would be to demonstrate that nights with a full moon are statistically warmer than nights without a moon. If CO2 can cause climate change so can the moon.

A Full Moon’s Irradiance is 1/6th that of CO2 in W/M^2

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson

(Source)

Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists. We here at CO2isLife have done the exact same thing and reached the exact same conclusion. We believe that anyone that takes an objective look at the data, science, and theories and compare them to the conclusions reached by the climate alarmist, they too would reach the exact same conclusion. The observations don’t support the conclusions and the models don’t reflect reality. Those are simply irrefutable truths. The correlation and R-Squared between CO2 and Global Temperatures are basically non-existent.

We at CO2isLife have been promoting a common sense theory behind global warming that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. The theory is simple:

  1. The oceans are warming
  2. The oceans control the global climate
  3. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere above the oceans
  4. CO2 and the LWIR wavelengths that it radiates (13 to 18 microns) don’t warm water
  5. Visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 microns do warm water
  6. More visible radiation must reach the oceans to cause warming
  7. That can happen through fewer low clouds, a hotter sun or both

That simple theory explains far more about the recent warming than CO2 and is supported by the data.

The problem with the CO2 caused climate change is that CO2 and temperatures don’t correlate. CO2 is a smooth near-linear variable and temperatures are all over the place and highly variable. Most important however is that temperatures have different characteristics over different time periods. CO2 doesn’t, it just increases in a nearly linear fashion since the start of the industrial era. In other words, temperatures don’t zig when CO2 zags. Temperatures zig a lot, and CO2 doesn’t zag much, and when it does it is mostly in the same direction, up.

As demonstrated above, global temperatures don’t “trend” upward like CO2, they appear to “step.” Looking at the above chart, temperatures appear to “trend” sideways between 1979 and 1997, a 20 year period. The 13-month average is the same in 1997 as it was in 1980. The lowest levels reached in 1993 were lower than the lowest levels recorded in 1979.

Something strange then happens in 1997, an El Niño spiked temperatures, which then started a slight upward “trend.” The 1997 El Niño peak was surpassed by the 2016 El Niño peak, and the bottom reached in 2012 was above the bottom reached in 1999. So for some odd reason, there was no warming between 1979 and 1997 while CO2 increased from 335 to 360 ppm, and then steady warming between 1997 and today. Two very distinct periods, two very distinct temperature variations, and yet CO2 increased during both periods. CO2 can’t be the cause. CO2 can’t cause no change in one period and then change in another period. The physics of the CO2 molecule are constant.

Given that irrefutable evidence, one would discount CO2 and go looking for a variable that has a dramatic change starting in 1997. When you do that, guess what you find? Low level clouds, the clouds that result in cooling, started a dramatic decline in 1997 which continues to this day.

Imagine that, if you stop blocking sunlight from reaching the oceans the oceans will warm, and with it the globe as well. Who woulda thunk it? Clearly not the Einsteins staffing our climate “science” departments. Bottom line, if you aren’t searching for the real answer you will never find it. If clouds, or lack thereof,  are the real cause of the warming, then the funding would get slashed for the climate change departments and research. I doubt these unethical climate alarmists are going to publish research that will put them out of a job. Would you?

I’m pretty sure that if more people would take the time to look into this nonsense there would be a lot more headlines like the following. It appears “Peer Review” has some holes in it. Funny how it took a “climate contrarian” to catch the mistake.

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study (Source)

Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Share this Video with your Climate Change Kool-Aid Drinking Progressive Professor or Teacher

Capitalism is clean and efficient, Socialism if wasteful and dirty. Progressive’s solution is to expand socialism. Focus on problems what can’t be solved or even quantified. Basically, waste money because people have been convinced that it will do some good. People used to sacrifice virgins for the same reason, and the outcomes are the same. Tremendous waste/loss and absolutely no benefit.

“Why do we have more trees today in the Northern Hemisphere? Because we burn coal and not trees.”

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

6 Charts That Prove Results Don’t Matter to Progressives

Ignoring the fact that Progressives elected a person that they believed could stop the seas from rising, Obama not only failed on the economy, but he also failed on the environment.

At an extreme cost, Obama’s agenda did nothing to alter the trend in CO2.

At extreme cost, Obama’s agenda did nothing to alter the trend in atmospheric temperatures. (Source)

GlobalTemp

At extreme cost, Obama’s agenda did nothing to alter the trend in sea level. (Source)

SeaLevel.png

Social Issues he failed as well.

(Source)

Race Relations

(Source)

(Source)

No wonder Progressives hate President Trump. Every day he is undeniable proof of just how big a failure their agenda is. They live a lie and President Trump proves it to them every single day. Impotent people don’t like people reminding them that they are impotent.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Real Climate Science is Finally Figuring Things Out; Its the Sun Stupid

We here at CO2isLife don’t have Ph.D. in Climate Science, we have Ph.D.s in Common Sense and Masters in Honesty and Fairness. The whole purpose of this Blog is to expose what we view as nothing short of Scientific Fraud perpetrated by the “Consensus”  of Climate Science Departments. We believed that if a group of amateurs could do a better job explaining the climate than the experts we would produce credible evidence that the entire field of Climate Science as defined by the “Consensus” is a fraud.

Years ago when we looked at the real science and physics behind the climate it was easy to identify the major factors that drive climate change and none of them were CO2. The key observation was that the oceans were warming. It takes enormous amounts of energy to warm water, energy simply not contained in the 13 to 18 Micron Long Wave IR that CO2 absorbs and emits.

To warm the oceans you need more radiation to reach the oceans. To accomplish that you need either 1) A warmer sun 2) fewer clouds blocking radiation from reaching the oceans or 3) both. The climate model truly is that simple. It is a simple input/output model. The oceans are the thermostat of the earth. The oceans are the hypothalamus of the earth. Understand the oceans and you understand the climate. Climate Scientists study the climate when they should be studying the oceans. A warming atmosphere is a symptom of a warming ocean. Blaming a warming atmosphere on CO2 is like blaming a fever of a person’s sweat. Climate Scientists are simply barking up the wrong tree.

Well, guess what? Some non-Consensus Real Climate Scientists have also looked at the data and they have reached the exact same conclusion we did here years ago. The sun drives the ocean temperatures which in turn warms the atmosphere. What is really nice about this new research, however, is that they have made a forecast that we will be able to use to validate or invalidate the theory.

The Millennial Turning Point – Solar Activity and the Coming Cooling

Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity MTP and the varying climate metrics. The temperature peak is about 2003/4 – lag is about 12 years. The arctic sea ice volume minimum was in 2012 +/- lag = 21 years. Possible sea level Millennial Turning Point – Oct 2015 lag = 24 years +/- (see https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ ) Since Oct 2015 sea level has risen at a rate of only 8.3 cms/century. It will likely begin to fall within the next 4 or 5 years. For the details see data, discussion, and forecasts in Figs 3,4,5,10,11,and 12 in the links below. (Source)

If the above forecast holds true, it will go a long way to discrediting the entire “Consensus” model of CO2 drive climate change. Al Gore et al have forecasts that conveniently extend beyond the expected lifetime of the reader. The above forecast can be invalidated in a few years.

Follow the Forecast using these sources:

Colorado ENSO (Source)

Colorado Sea Level (Source)

Colorado Sea Level Graph (Source) (Warning)

KNMI Climate Explorer (Source)

Global Temperatures (Source)

NASA Sea Level (Source)

Original Journal Article (Source)

In conclusion, if a group of non-Consensus Scientists can create a better model than the “Consensus,” then the “Consensus” is simply wrong. The inspirational goal of CO2isLife was to highlight a model that is far superior to the “Consensus” CO2 model. Finally, we have some researchers publishing some research quantifying this model so that we can either validate or invalidate this model.

Featured

Finally Some Common Sense; Cloud Cover Down Temperature Up

We at CO2isLife don’t have Ph.Ds in Climate Science, but we do have Ph.Ds in common sense. We have continually made the argument that to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans.

Understand the Oceans, Understand the Climate, NO CO2 Needed

The theory is very simple.

  1. The Oceans are warming
  2. CO2 and 13 to 18 Micron Long Wave IR doesn’t warm water
  3. Visible light is required to warm the oceans
  4. The warming of the oceans must be due to more incoming visible radiation reaching the oceans
  5. Clouds are the greatest barrier to visible radiation reaching the oceans
  6. Cloud cover must be shown to have reduced during periods of warming
  7. There are no theories that explain how CO2 can alter the clouds
  8. There are theories that Cosmic Rays alter the cloud cover
  9. It is easy to demonstrate visible radiation warming water in a lab

Dr. Spencer in his new books provides evidence to support the theory that we non-climate scientists have been promoting for years. (Source)

Isn’t it funny how people seeking the truth seem to keep reaching the same conclusion? You won’t find this common sense in Climate Science Departments.

Scientists Have Found The ‘Missing Link’ From Sunspot Activity To Cosmic Rays-Clouds To Climate Change

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

The Ever Changing “Settled” Science; How Can a “Settled” Science need Continual Updating?

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2000 CO2 Sensitivity 4.25°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2005 CO2 Sensitivity 3.75°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2010 CO2 Sensitivity 2.75°C

The “Science” was “Settled” in 2015 CO2 Sensitivity 0.50°C

(More)(Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

The Smartest Kids in the Room Can’t Explain Global Warming’s Green House Gas Effect

Does it seem strange to you that the smartest kids in the class, the kids that can explain the quantum mechanics supporting the greenhouse gas effect, can’t adequately explain how Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) and CO2 can warm the earth? This Video made by TEDEd does a phenomenal job explaining the quantum mechanics involved, but then they forget to mention the most important metrics.

Here are the important facts they failed to mention:

  1. CO2 only absorbs LWIR of 2.7, 4.3, and 15 Microns.
  2. Earth emits LWIR around 10 Microns
  3. The only LWIR spectrum applicable to CO2 and the Greenhouse Gas Effect is 15 Microns
  4. 10 Microns has a blackbody temperature of about room temperature of 64°F/18°C
  5. 15 Microns has a blackbody temperature of about -112°F/-80°C

How does LWIR Electromagnetic radiation convert to thermal energy? Molecular Vibrations

666 cm-1 wavenumber is 15 microns and is associated with the “bending” of the CO2 molecules. The 2.7 and 4.3 Micron absorption bands are related to the stretching and are not involved in the atmospheric absorption.

This graphic shows the absorption spectrum of CO2, which is transparent to incoming visible radiation (0.4 to 0.8 microns)

CO2GHG

What makes a potent Greenhouse Gas is a “permanent dipole” or bend. CO2 doesn’t have a bend, unlike the extremely potent Greenhouse  Gas H2O.

Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole

Because CO2 doesn’t have a Permanent Dipole, it only absorbs the three above mentioned wavelengths, allowing it to absorb only a small amount of radiation.

The Mechanism:

LWIR of 15 Microns gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule, kicking the CO2 Molecule’s electrons into a higher energy state, causing them to bend back and forth. This movement is thermal energy, the LWIR electromagnetic radiation is changed in form into kinetic energy which can be measured with a thermometer. (Remember, Energy can be neither created or destroyed, it can only be changed in form)

In the video, it claimed that the CO2 molecule radiates LWIR back to earth resulting in warming. That isn’t the Greenhouse Gas Effect, and LWIR of 15 microns won’t even warm ice. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is the thermalization of the LWIR causing warming of the surrounding atmosphere.

Why CO2 isn’t significant is because it is a trace gas. CO2 is 410 parts per million or 4.1 parts per 10,000, or 0.00041 or 0.041% of the atmosphere. If you look at a 100,000 seat stadium, with each person representing a molecule in the atmosphere, CO2 would represent 41 people. If 41 people suddenly went into epileptic seizures, would their kinetic energy be able to significantly alter the kinetic energy of the other 999,959 people in the stadium? Absolutely not. Being only 0.041% of the atmosphere, its impact is greatly diffused to basically nothing.

More importantly, the energy associated with 15 Microns isn’t even warm enough to melt ice. Ice emits LWIR of a shorter wavelength than 15 Microns. In other words, the 41 people aren’t having violent epileptic seizures, they are having slight shivers.

Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Can’t be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice

In Conclusion, 1 out of every 2500 molecules vibrating at an energy level consistent with -112°F/-80°C isn’t going to warm anything to any significant amount.

More on this topic:

Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earth’s Lower Atmosphere; You Can’t Absorb More than 100%

Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

See, We’re Not Nuts, CO2 does Cool the Atmosphere

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earth’s Lower Atmosphere; You Can’t Absorb More than 100%

The one thing I’ve learned about Climate Science is that the “experts” do everything to avoid the actual science supporting the Greenhouse Gas Effect. To isolate the impact of CO2 on the climate one must understand the physics of the CO2 molecule and the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

This is the radiative profile of the CO2 molecule. Note the -80 Degree C and 15 micron peak in the following graphic.

  1. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the Greenhouse Gas Effect and the thermalization of longwave IR between 13 and 18 Microns, with a peak of 15 Microns. Every observation much be related back to that single mechanism for CO2 to be the cause.
  2. Energy is transferred through the atmosphere by three mechanisms; Conduction, Convection and Radiation. Conduction and convection dominate the warm water vapor rich and dense lower atmosphere. Radiation dominates the upper atmosphere.
  3. Because the lower atmosphere is tightly packed, kinetic energy is easily passed from one molecule to the other. The radiative path is also very short relative to other altitudes, meaning that the molecules can momentarily “trap” more radiation resulting in warming. That is why high levels of water vapor in the lower atmosphere is so important. Water vapor traps and converts huge amounts of outgoing longwave radiation into thermal kinetic energy.
  4. At higher altitudes, the molecules have wide separations representing large windows for radiation to easily pass. That is why CO2 works to cool the stratosphere. A molecule in the stratosphere radiating towards earth is radiating into a traffic jam, with an increasing number of radiation absorbing molecules in its path the closer it gets to earth. It is unlikely that the radiation from a stratospheric molecule will be able to pass the gauntlet of ever-increasing molecules and smaller and smaller windows to get to earth. On the other hand, a stratospheric molecule radiating towards outer space is facing the opposite of a traffic jam, with the spacing between cars increasing the farther away it gets, and the windows keep getting bigger and bigger. That is why radiation is best for cooling, not warming. It most efficiently transfers heat out of the atmosphere and it does it near the speed of light.
  5. The earth emits radiation centered around 9.5 to 10 microns, or about room temperature. CO2 thermalizes radiation between 13 and 18 microns, which is consistent with a black body of temperature between -50 and -110 degree C. CO2 absorbs the far right (cool end) of the IR spectrum emitted by the earth.

With that understanding, we can then examine CO2’s role is altering the earth’s lower atmosphere’s temperature. To do that we need to look at a “gas cell” filled with various amounts of CO2, and then shine a light of 13 thru 18 microns into it and measure its absorption.

We will start with the pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm. What we find is that at that concentration, 100% of the longwave IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns is absorbed by the altitude of 150 cm, or about 5 feet. 13 and 18 microns with a peak of 15 microns has a wave number of 666 in the following graphic. The peak reaching 1 represents 100% absorption, or 0% transmission. The take home is that by an altitude of 5 feet, the pre-industrial CO2 Greenhouse Gas Effect is saturated.

GC280

Now we have to measure the change in the saturation altitude to understand the impact of the additional 130 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age. This literally is the only effect CO2 has on changing the climate. Once again, you can’t trap more than 100%, and pre-industrial CO2 saturates by 5 ft. All CO2 can do by increasing its concentration is to make the radiative windows smaller so that the outgoing radiation gets “trapped” sooner (closer to earth).

What do we find when we change the gas cell to today’s CO2 level of 410 ppm? We find that 100% saturation occurs at 120 cm, or about 4 feet. That literally is the only relevant contribution the post-industrial CO2 makes to the climate. Saturation occurs 1 foot closer to the earth.

GC400

Another way to look at it is to plug in 280 ppm for the saturation level of 410 ppm to see how much less radiation is being trapped. As you can see, about 98% of the radiation is being absorbed by 4 feet, and the remaining 1 foot absorbs the final 2%. That is it, that is the contribution of post-industrial CO2 and you are being told that that small change can cause catastrophic climate change.

GCDiff

In reality, that slight change is completely immaterial because the lower atmosphere is so well mixed through conduction and convection, minor changes in the saturation level are irrelevant. Take a thermometer outside and measure the temperature at 4 ft and then again at 5 foot and you will record identical temperatures. Once again, CO2 doesn’t trap more heat, it simply traps the heat sooner. You can’t trap more than 100%. That is why all these claims of CO2 causing catastrophic climate change are complete and utter nonsense.

Additionally, remember, the above example isolates the impact of CO2. It is a minor trace Greenhouse Gas, with a very narrow absorption band. Just look at the absorption spectrum of all Greenhouse Gasses, and the breadth of what water vapor absorbs, and you quickly realize this focus on CO2 is completely absurd. Additionally, water vapor also absorbs longwave IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns. It just saturates at a higher altitude.

If we decide to look not only at the impact of CO2, but the entire atmosphere including water vapor, the impact of CO2 is simply drowned out by water vapor and other factors. If, using 280 ppm CO2, we program MODTRAN to be looking down from 0.01 km and measure the Upward IR Heat Flux, we get 446.508 W/m2.

This is the IR Profile of the pre-industrial lower atmosphere.

MODTRAN 280.PNG

If we then change only the CO2 level from 280 to 410 ppm to reflect the marginal impact of industrial era CO2, we discover that the change in Upward IR Heat Flux is a whopping 0.00 W/m2. There is absolutely no change what so ever to the lower atmosphere with the addition of 130 ppm industrial CO2. None, nada, zip, the Upward IR Heat Flux remains completely unchanged at 446.508 W/m2.

MODTRAN 410.PNG

I have yet to find an atmospheric calculator, modeler or Meteorology textbook that shows that CO2 has any impact at all on the atmosphere. Only when you get into the Climate Science Department does CO2 suddenly play a significant role in the climate, and their models are completely worthless.

Much has been written about CO2 causing the Sea Ice to decline. Al Gore claims melting glaciers will flood Manhatten. The only problem is, the LWIR emitted by CO2 won’t melt ice. Longwave IR between 13 and 18 microns has a black body temperature of -80 Degree C. The graphic of the Spectralcalc output is above. The blackbody radiation of 0.00 Degree C Ice has a peak radiation of 10.5 microns. In other words, Ice emits higher energy radiation than CO2 does (shorter wavelength radiation has higher energy). That isn’t a joke. Climate alarmists claim that energy that won’t even melt ice can cause catastrophic global warming. Sorry, climate change.

BB Ice.PNG

In conclusion, either the SpectralCal and MODTRAN Programs are lying to me, or the Climate Scientists are, and I tend to trust the calculators.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Featured

Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists

mlo_full_record jpg

Chart #1: This is the chart on which the entire CO2 driven climate change fraud is based. It is also the chart that will ultimately be used to prove the fraudulent nature of the NASA, NOAA and HadCRU data “adjustments.” CO2’s increase in near-linear and it is this linear trend that will ultimately undermine the CO2 driven climate change fraud. The reason will be explained later in this posting.

Chart #2: This is an 800,000 year ice core record of temperature and CO2. The first thing to note is that climate change is the norm. Never in 800,000 has the climate not been changing. If Al Gore and his policies were somehow able to stop the climate from changing, it would be the first time in 800,000 that that has happened, and extremely unnatural.

The second thing to note is that every previous temperature peak was higher than today’s temperatures and occurred at LOWER CO2 levels. In other words, record high CO2 didn’t result in record high temperatures.

The third thing to note is that there is no linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, and what relationship does exist has temperatures LEADING CO2. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 would suddenly increase shortly before the ending of an ice age and there is no mechanism by which CO2 would suddenly decrease before the start of an ice age. CO2 can’t explain the most significant points of the glacial intra-glacial cycle. CO2 simply can’t be the Climate Control Knob the alarmists claim it to be.

Chart #3: This is a 600 million year history of atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. The first thing to note is that NEVER in 600 million years has CO2 resulted in catastrophic warming, even when it was as high as 7,000 ppm, or nearly 18x the level that it is today. The second thing to note is that no matter what CO2 is doing, temperatures seem to stay between 12 and 22°C. The last thing to note is that we are in a CO2 drought, and near the lowest levels of the past 600 million years. Plants begin to die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm. As above, there is no linear relationship between CO2 and temperatures.

Chart #4: If something is understood, it can be modeled. Well, the IPCC Climate Models FAIL at a 95% confidence rate, and the rate is INCREASING. A monkey throwing darts at the WSJ would do a better job of modeling the Stock Market than the Climate Models do the climate. The fraud is obvious in that 100% of the Climate Models overestimate the temperature increase. That isn’t evidence of a sound and settled science, but of an systemic bias and failure. The reason I say this is a fraud goes back to Chart #1, the linear rate of increase of CO2.

Additionally, as the models’ failure grew, the IPCC’s confidence in their theory also grew. That is basically the scientific method flipped on its head. No real science behaves that way. Results like the IPCC models would result in any real science looking into causes other than CO2, which their models do a good job ruling out as the cause.

Chart #5: Climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The alarmists use the core model of ΔT = f(ΔCO2). It is a direct, linear, and essentially single variable model. That is how they can claim man is responsible for ALL the industrial era warming. CO2 they claim is the only disruption to the climate system that can explain the warming, and that CO2 is 100% attributable to man.

Sounds good, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t what is important, it is the amount of energy that the excess man-made CO2 absorbs/ thermalizes that is important. If you have a 5-gallon bucket with a hole in it, it doesn’t matter how large the bucket is, it won’t hold much water. Well, the absorption of energy by CO2 shows a logarithmic DECAY with an increase in concentration. (Source)

Mother Nature isn’t stupid, she designed CO2 with a natural off switch. A certain level of warmth is needed for life to survive, so the first 280 ppm (Pre-Industrial) of CO2 trap 258 W/M^2 of outgoing LWIR. The additional CO2 attributed by man, the additional 130 ppm up to the current 410 ppm, traps only an additional 2 W/M^2, and that is rounded up. Anyone seeking the truth can experiment with various CO2 scenarios using the program MODTRAN (Click Here)

Because the marginal absorption of energy by CO2 isn’t linear, I can say with 100% complete certainty that the IPCC Models will NEVER in all CAPs be even close to being correct. Never, and I can make that bold of a statement without having a Ph.D. in climate “science.” Anyone that takes 2 seconds to understand the basics of the CO2 molecule would reach that exact same conclusion. (Source) (More Info)

Chart #6: Highlights how ground measurement data from NASA has been “adjusted” over time. Why I say the “adjustments” aren’t done in good faith is because of the way they are adjusted. The adjustments are systematically applied to result in a more linear and steeper incline of ground temperatures. Why I say the “adjustments” are fraudulent is because that isn’t what you would expect if CO2 was the cause of the warming. As Chart #5 demonstrates, CO2’s relationship with temperatures isn’t linear. A linear increase in temperatures disproves CO2 as the cause and proves there must be some other factor. The climate alarmist then manufacture untestable  and unexplainable “feedbacks” to justify the linearity. As we will see, those feedback claims crumble under scrutiny as well. (More Info)

Chart #7: In Climate Science there are 3 main data sets. Satellite (UAH), Balloons (RSS) and Ground Measurements (NASA GISS). Two of the data sets confirm each other, and one is an outlier. The Climate Alarmists, of course, choose the highly “adjusted” NASA GISS ground measurements over the highly more accurate balloon and satellite measurements.

By far the most accurate temperature data we have are from satellite and balloon measurements. In the above graphic, you can see that actual atmospheric temperatures are in no way linear and in no way tied related to CO2. That data clearly shows temperatures are extremely correlated with water vapor and ocean cycles, which are in turn related to the sun and the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible radiation.

The Red RSS V7 TCWV line is atmospheric water vapor and the other lines are atmospheric temperature. Water vapor and atmospheric temperatures are almost indistinguishable. The reason you most likely have never seen this before is because we don’t debate this issue in public, and charts like this totally destroy the CO2 drives temperature myth.

Chart #8: Ground measurements have known corrupting forces, largely water vapor, and the Urban Heat Island Effect. The above graphic highlight the best example I’ve found to demonstrate the Urban Heat Island Effect. It highlights two different weather stations separated by only a small lake. On one side is a great deal of urban development, on the other side no development at all to speak of. It is the perfect location to isolate the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect. What we find is that the one side of the lake, undisturbed by urban development, shows actual COOLING over the past 80 years, or at least between 1930 through 1995. (A period including Al Gore’s hottest 10 years in history) The other side impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect shows distinct warming. Climate Alarmists use this obviously corrupted data to implicate CO2, when in fact, it is really measuring the Urban Heat Island Effect and has nothing to do with CO2. (More)

(Source)

Chart #9 and 10: The other problem with ground measurements is that water vapor saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the lower atmosphere. The CO2 “signature” isn’t even measurable until you are at an altitude of 3.5km or above. 100% of all ground measurements are taken in the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 has absolutely zero impact. By relying on the “adjusted” ground measurements, Climate Alarmists are allowed to claim warming, and attribute it to CO2. In reality, the only warming in the lower atmosphere is due to greater sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and oceans, water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect and intentionally biased data “adjustments”, not CO2.

Chart #11 and 12: The regrettably small graphics above are MODTRAN results of the lower atmosphere under conditions of 400 ppm and 800 ppm. The graphics record the outgoing LWIR of 417.306 W/M^2 for both levels of CO2. (Click Here) What that means is that the ground measurements are taken at the level where it is impossible to measure the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature because it is dominated by water vapor. CO2 is irrelevant to the lower atmosphere, so once again, the linear adjustments NASA applies make even less sense. The reason you haven’t heard of MODTRAN is because the more people that know how to use it, the less credibility the Climate Alarmists have. It is hard to win a public debate when your position is that the calculator is wrong.

Chart #12 and 13: The impact of CO2 on temperatures is also absent from the ice core records of the Holocene. Temperatures didn’t increase with CO2 over the Holocene, THEY FELL. Temperatures have been falling for the past 3,500 years, during a time when CO2 was increasing, and in fact is now at a record level for the Holocene.

The other oddity about Climate “Science” is that it doesn’t rely on the Scientific Method, Experimentation and Reproducibility, the hallmarks of any real science. If it did, this debate would have been over a very long time ago. If one tests the hypothesis “Man if not causing climate change” using ice core data, that hypothesis isn’t rejected, not even close. Simply calculate the mean and standard deviation of the temperature of the Holocene before the industrial age, then calculate the mean temperature of the Industrial Age. You will find that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the past 150 years of temperature variation. Simply eyeballing the above chart will tell you that, no need for a calculator.

Chart #14: The other major problem with ground measurements is that it is an apples and oranges dataset, combining different regions over different time periods, using different instrumentation. To control for the ground measurement location and instrumentation issues, we select the longest single continuous record of instrumental temperatures, Central England. If you control for measuring instrumentation and location, what you find is that temperatures are volatile, but by no means showing an uptrend or relationship to CO2. The Central England record goes back to 1650, and temperatures were below that level as recently as 2010. There are also other long-term data sets that show no warming as well. (Click Here)

Chart #15: It is easy for Climate Alarmists to cherry pick data sets to make an alarmist’s claim. (Source) This is especially true regarding the “adjusted” data over the past 30 years. The problem is, there is a major reason the earth would have a “fever” over the past 30 years, and it has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with clean air. As the air has been cleaned of its volcanic and other particulate matter, more sunlight has been reaching the earth’s surface. CO2 has nothing to do with the recent warming.

Chart #16: The reason I can say the recent warming is due to the sun and not CO2 is because the oceans are warming. It takes vast amounts of incoming warming VISIBLE radiation to warm the oceans, especially from the blue end of the spectrum. The physics of the CO2 molecule are related to a narrow band of the IR spectrum between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths simply don’t penetrate or warm water and don’t carry much energy anyways. The black body temperature of thermalizing those wavelengths in a bone-chilling -50 to -110°C.

Chart #17: Those wavelengths won’t even melt ice, let alone warm water. Ironically, the climate alarmists use the warming oceans as their best evidence that CO2 is the cause of the warming. (Click Here)

Chart #18: If you line up the Sun’s radiation, CO2 and Temperatures, it becomes apparent that something other than CO2 is driving atmospheric temperatures, namely the sun and related ocean cycles.

Chart #19: Another piece of evidence working against the climate alarmists are the sea level measurements. Recently the sea level data is getting the “adjustment” treatment similar to the temperature data. (Source) By using the same approach we used with the Central England Temperature dataset, we can use with sea levels as well. Recently newspapers were littered with alarmist headlines about 3 Trillion Tons of Ice from Antarctica Vanishing since 1992. (Source) The impact of the rate of change of New York City sea level was immeasurable, in fact, it looks like the current level was recently below that of 1992. Facts are if temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea level would, in turn, be increasing at an increasing rate. It is a second derivative problem across the board. The problem for the climate alarmists is that sea levels aren’t increasing at an increasing rate. Battery Park, at the South end of Manhatten, shows the same rate of change/slope since 1850.

dvtemp

Chart #19: Believe it or not, record high daytime temperatures is not a sign of CO2 global warming. The Greenhouse Gas Effect thermalizes OUTGOING longwave IR radiation. Record temperatures require new energy being added to the system, and that comes from the Sun. If you are setting record high temperatures the most likely causes are clear skies and a hot sun. Recently the jet stream has been slightly altered, as has the Hadley Cell, which has allowed more sunlight to reach both the surface of the earth and the oceans. More sunlight reaching the oceans and surface can explain record high daytime temperatures and the warming oceans, neither of which CO2 can explain. (Read More)(And More) (And More)

Chart #20: Believe it or not, the real impact CO2 has on the atmosphere is to COOL it. That isn’t a TYPO, CO2 actually has worked to COOL the atmosphere, and the above graphic proves it. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is measured by the amount of outgoing Long Wave IR measured in W/M^2. The Blue in the above graphic represents more energy leaving the atmosphere or a greater outgoing flux. The amount of Blue exceeds the amount of Red, so CO2 has actually worked to COOL the layer of the atmosphere where we can isolate the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, the water vapor free Stratosphere. Even if the Stratosphere did warm over that period, there certainly is not a linear trend to the stratosphere, either warming or cooling. (Read more)

Chart #21 and 22: CO2 is a constant 400 ppm all the way up to 80 km, Water Vapor is basically out of the atmosphere by 10 km. Over that distance, temperatures fall with altitude in the Troposphere as Water Vapor decreases and CO2 remains constant, temperatures then “pause” in the tropopause close to the temperature that CO2 thermalizes LWIR between 13 and 18µ of -50 to -110°C. That is the best signature you can find for CO2, and it is to prevent temperatures from falling below a certain temperature, not to warm it. Temperatures then warm with altitude in the stratosphere largely due to the creation of Ozone, CO2 remains constant. Temperatures then fall again in the Mesosphere, and temperatures don’t fall below the magic -50 to -110°C until you are above 80km where CO2 starts to decline below 400 ppm. Temperatures then “pause” again, before warming again in the Thermosphere WHERE CO2 is decreasing.

Clearly, from the physics of the CO2 molecule (thermalizing LWIR between 13 and 18µ generating energy consistent with -50 to -110°C) and knowledge of the temperature profile of the atmosphere, CO2’s main role in the atmosphere isn’t to “warm” but to put in a temperature “floor” between -50 to -110°C. CO2 is present in all layers of the atmosphere, largely at a constant concentration of around 400 ppm, yet temperatures increase AND fall as if CO2 has no impact at all. The best CO2 signature one can find in the atmosphere is the Tropopause, where CO2 prevents temperatures from falling below -50 to -110°C. CO2 is the only major Greenhouse gas present, so the Troposphere is a natural “control” for CO2.

Chart #23: Climate data is constantly being “adjusted,” so it is difficult to put any credibility in it, especially the ground measurements. Climate scientists will have a “consensus” during one period, and then “adjust” the data to get different results, and the “consensus” remains. Oddly, it doesn’t shake the confidence of the researchers in their ability to measure global temperatures, their confidence actually grows.

The problem is, those “experts” have one of the worst records of predictions in scientific history. Even after “adjusting” the data to improve the results of their models, they still fail. One of the favorite targets of the experts is the polar ice cap. They are constantly making dire predictions of melting ice caps, ice-free Arctic, rising sea levels, etc etc. When all we have to rely on is data, it is hard to know who is telling the truth. Fortunately, we no longer have to rely on the experts, we now have photo documentation. (Source)

Al Gore and Jim Hansen can make claims that we will have an “ice-free Arctic” by the end of 2018 all they want, and we can easily test their accuracy by simply looking at the “near-real-time” computer graphic or photo. Now people have the ability to answer the question, “do I believe the Experts of my lying eyes?” My bet is that most people will trust their eyes over the experts, especially after doing it for a while. I’ve done so and rarely have I found the experts to be even in the ballpark, let alone correct. Climate Science’s obsession with CO2 guarantees their predictions will always be inaccurate. They are like the auto mechanic that keeps replacing the oil filter when your car needs new spark plugs. They simply don’t understand the problem, so they will never be able to fix it. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation. (Source)

Old Photos and Newspapers exist as well:

h/t Real Science

Chart #24: This is the infamous “Hockeystick” chart. While consistent thermometer data exists from the mid-1600s, Michael Mann inexplicably chose not to include instrumental data until 1902. The chart abruptly does a “dog-leg” precisely at 1902. Proxy data is mixed with the instrumental data until 1980. Once the proxy data is dropped, the chart does yet another “dog-leg.”(Source)  There is nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule or its rate of change in atmospheric concentration that would explain an abrupt change in trend by temperatures.  Longterm instrumental records like Central England do not show any abrupt “dog-legs.” (Source) Michael Mann also conveniently chose the peak of the Medieval Warming Period to start his graphic, and for some reason erased the Little-Ice Age. The fact that this graphic passed “Peer Review” and was accepted by the IPCC and “Consensus” should give any fair-minded individual pause in trusting these organizations and groups.

Chart #25: This is a chart of the temperature reading from the stations closest to Glacier National Park. The glaciers in the part are in fact disappearing, but the majority of the disappearance occurred before the mid-1940s, before the surge in CO2. Most importantly, there is no warming trend in Glacier National Park to implicate CO2. The Kilimanjaro Glacier is at 19,340 feet, thousands of feet above the freeze line. The Kilimanjaro Glacier never experiences temperatures above freezing, and yet its glacier is disappearing. The Kilimanjaro Glacier and many like it are disappearing not due to warming, but to changing humidity in the air. Dryer air can cause “sublimation” which is the process that makes ice cubes disappear if left in the freezer too long. Climate Alarmists routinely identify natural phenomenon and falsely attribute them to man-made CO2. I personally would like to hear Google’s explanation as to how ice “melts” in sub-zero temperatures.(Source)

Chart #26: Believe it or not, CO2 is a weak, a very weak Greenhouse Gas. (Source) The potency of a Greenhouse Gas is determined by its molecular structure. Molecules like H2O have a permanent “dipole” or bend to their structure. The bend allows the molecule to have many vibrational states, which correspond to various wavelengths in the LWIR spectrum. From the above graphic of absorptivity of various Greenhouse Gasses, Water Vapor is almost indistinguishable from the total atmospheric absorption. That is why people that know what they are talking about always say Water Vapor is by far the most potent Greenhouse Gas.

CO2, on the other hand, has no permanent “dipole” and is only affected by 3 very narrow bands of LWIR, 2.7, 4.3, and 15µ, with peek 15µ (13µ to 18µ band) being the only band of importance regarding the earth’s Greenhouse Gas Effect. The problem is, water vapor also absorbs 15µ, and it has a much much much higher atmospheric concentration. Water vapor can be as high as 4 parts per hundred, CO2 is measured in parts per 10,000. CO2 is commonly reported at 400 parts per million. Water vapor simply saturates the Greenhouse Gas Effect of the Troposphere, making CO2 simply insignificant. The first the CO2 signature is measurable is up over 3.5 km when water vapor starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.

The other important point is that the earth emits LWIR with a peak of 10µ, and CO2’s effect starts out near 15µ, the “cool” very low energy end of the IR spectrum. What CO2 does is provide a temperature floor, preventing temperatures from falling below -50 to -110°C, it really doesn’t warm the atmosphere at all, temperatures just stop falling once you reach the Tropopause and CO2’s main effect is expressed.

Chart #26, 28 and 29: CO2 warms the atmosphere, it doesn’t warm the oceans. The Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice don’t melt from above, they melt from below. (Source) There are only a few months out of the year that the temperatures are above freezing, so even if the Arctic is warming, warming from -30°C to -28°C won’t melt ice. The reason the Arctic Ice is melting isn’t because of the Greenhouse Gas Effect, it is because visible radiation is reaching and warming the oceans, resulting in predictable and long-established Natural Trends in ocean cycles. Cycles like El Niño and La Niña existed long before the industrial age began. If you can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans, you can’t explain how CO2 is the cause of the melting ice caps.

Chart #30 and 31: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form. The Greenhouse Gas Effect takes cold Electromagnetic Radiation from the longwave infrared spectrum the “thermalizes” it , changing its form from cold EM to Hot Kinetic energy. Different molecules absorb different wavelengths, and CO2 absorbs LWIR, 2.7, 4.3, and 15µ, with peek 15µ (13µ to 18µ band) being the range important to the Greenhouse Gas Effect.

The above gas cells demonstrate the absorption of LWIR 15µ by CO2 for both the pre-industrial and current levels of CO2. The one of the right shows that 100% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by about 4 ft into the atmosphere for the current level of CO2. The one on the left shows that 98% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by 4ft with the pre-industrial level of CO2.

The reason Climate Science relies on computer models is that when you rely on empirical evidence, like gas cell outputs, you discover that the marginal effect of industrial era CO2 is that 2% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed 1 foot lower in the atmosphere. Pre-industrial CO2 saturates at 5 ft, current level saturates at 4 ft, but under both situations, at least 98% of LWIR 15µ is absorbed by 4 ft. Basically, additional CO2 has no marginal impact on the lower atmosphere. (Source)

Chart #32: OK, we’ve saved the best for last. The whole approach to Climate Science regarding CO2’s impact on the climate should be focused on controlling for the factors of water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect, the Sun and other factors other than CO2 that may impact temperatures. Only when you isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures can you honestly begin to understand its role in changing the climate. To do that we scoured the data sets looking for a way to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures.

That data set is the Tropopause Layer above the extreme South Pole. There is no water vapor in that layer, the sun’s role is reduced, and there is absolutely no Urban Heat Island Effect. The extreme South Pole Tropopause DataSet is the ideal control for isolating the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. If CO2 was going to warm any layer of the atmosphere, its fingerprint would be found there. (Source)

What does one find when they study the ideal dataset controlled for all factors other than CO2? What does one find when they finally can isolate and identify the impact CO2 has on atmospheric temperatures? One finds that CO2 has absolutely no warming impact what so ever on atmospheric temperatures. None, nada, zip. You are more likely to find a little green elf riding a rainbow-colored unicorn than to find warming in that dataset. CO2 simply doesn’t warm the atmosphere like the alarmists claim, and that data proves it.

The above charts and analysis detail why Climate Alarmists won’t debate this topic in public, and why the social media attempting to be the arbiters of the truth is so dangerous. They have bought into the Big Lie manufactured by the Progressive Left. The Social Media outlets should be forums for discussion so we can better understand the world in which we live, not a place for one side to force their opinions on the other. Instead of censoring, shunning, attacking, slandering and labeling people that disagree with “consensus,” the Social Media Firms should be facilitating public dialog and debates. The very fact that most Americans have never seen a debate regarding climate change should be concerning for everyone give the extreme costs of the proposed publicly funded policies.

If YouTube, Facebook, and other Social Media truly want to be a force for good and really want to get to the truth, this was written to be the basis for a public debate. I welcome the Climate Alarmists trying to refute the claims we’ve made, all of which are exquisitely sourced and supported by hard facts and data. If the Climate Alarmists want to explain why MODTRAN and NASA Satelite Data is wrong, I welcome their explanation.

Please like, share, subscribe, comment and forward to your Elected Representative, Child’s Teacher, and/or your Favorite Newspaper. Help start the debate that the Social Media is trying to stop. Fight the power, spread the word. Share this post everywhere you can. Demand the Debate, Fight the Censorship of Climate Realists.

#Start the Debate #Climate Change Debate Bring It #Only Cowards Censor over Debate

More on this Topic:

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact

Climate “Science” on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled

To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?

If Society Can’t Trust Scientists, Who Can They Trust? Climate Sophist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool

Sea Level Sophistry In San Francisco; Climate Alarmists are Playing the Judge as a Fool

Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; Exposing Climate Sophistry

Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

Climate Data Fraud Is Rampant; Simply Line Up The Charts

Real Science; How Does Ice Melt in Sub Zero Temperatures?

The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann

An Actual Climate Debate; Mann vs Curry Pt Deux

Featured

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit A

Exhibit A: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart

edc_thumb

Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.

Talking Points:

  1. Climate change is the norm. Never in the 800,000-year ice core record is climate not changing.
  2. Four Temperature Peaks in the last 400,000 years were all above today’s temperatures and occurred at lower CO2 levels.
  3. Every glaciation began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent a glaciation.
  4. The current record high level of 400 parts per million(ppm) CO2, a full 33% above any previous level on the chart, has failed to carry temperatures to a record high.
  5. For any cause and effect relationship, the cause MUST lead the effect. CO2 does not lead Temperature, it follows it by 800 to 1,500 years. This video does an exhaustive review of the research. The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking. (Must Watch Video Clip)
  6. There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.
  7. There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.
  8. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.
  9. In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore discusses how his classmate challenged the “consensus” of the continents never having been joined. The teacher mocked Al’s friend for challenging the “consensus.” The arrogant and close-minded teacher spouting the “consensus” view was wrong. Today, Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists are acting like the closed-minded and very wrong Teacher. Albert Einstein, Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo, and Galileo aren’t remembered for agreeing with the “consensus,” they are remembered for shattering the “consensus.”
  10. Because the data collected are “proxies” they represent smoothed averages, so the actual true peak temperature or CO2 levels aren’t actually known. Every data point in the Ice Core data represents a time span that can exceed 1,000 years or more. In data lingo, we would say that this data isn’t very “granular,” and doesn’t provide a lot of specific details. It is extremely possible, in fact highly likely that the actual peak temperatures exceeded the level represented in the chart.
  11. The error bars are not included on the chart so it is impossible to true understanding of just how accurate/reliable those numbers are.
  12. Along with this chart, Al Gore presented many more questionable findings in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
  13. No other climate variables are presented on the chart. There may be far more explanatory variables that are excluded, such as the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface, cloud cover, cosmic rays, average humidity, particulate matter in the atmosphere, orbit of the earth, tilt of the earth, “wobble” around the axis of the earth, location of the earth is the galactic orbit, etc etc. In other words, Al Gore and the climate alarmists only provide you with enough evidence to reach the conclusion they want you to reach. For instance, I could show you a chart of the government debt and global temperatures and they both fit together pretty well. As the debt increased, so did temperatures, but that chart is pretty meaningless, and represents nothing more than a coincidence. In other words, correlation does not prove causation.
  14. The honesty and integrity of Al Gore and his “friend Lonnie Thompson” are questionable.
  15. Climate has been extremely variable for the past 800,000, and none of the volatility was due to anthropocentric CO2 prior to 150 years ago. Natural causes clearly dominate the variation in climate, most of which are poorly understood.
  16. The data in the chart combines proxy ice core data for the historical record, and instrumental data for near-term up to the current. Those data sets appear to have different volatility characteristics, and is most likely due to the instrumental data being more “granular.” The problem is that this data set isn’t consistent, and is some ways is a combination of apples and oranges. The temperature from the ice core is taken from one location, whereas thermometer data is taken around the globe.
  17. Here is another chart that shows more information than Al Gore’s. From this chart one can see the problems with ice core data. The farther back in time one goes, the dust data seems to dilute, unless for some reason dust concentrations were different during past ice ages. We are also near a record low, which would imply that more visible/warming radiation is reaching the earth. From this chart, it is more logical to conclude that less particulate matter is what is causing the warming than CO2. Maybe that is why Al Gore fails to present the data.

co2tempdust

18. This chart demonstrates the variability of the Holocene in greater detail.

dansgaard-temperature2

19. This chart highlights how dust, particulate matter, and solar output are extremely important to global temperatures.

climate-changes

Rashida Tlaib agrees with Candice Owens; Democrats are Racists and Exploit Minorities for their Vote

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) lashed out at Democrats — not Republicans — yesterday, in the wake of crticism leveled at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for minimizing the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, accusing Dem leadership, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), of racism, and using Congressional colleagues of color as “tokens of diversity.” (Source)

It was only a matter of time before minorities started to demand something for their monolithic vote.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

By This Standard, Everything a Democrats Says is Hate Speech

Like Pavlov’s Dogs, the triggered liberals respond:

Common Sense Rebuttals:

Blindly attacking President Trump’s every action is simply exposing the progressives to be simple-minded McCarthyites that will do anything for power. They offer no real solutions to any of America’s real problems and they manufacture problems like systemic racism, White Nationalism, and global warming that no Government policy could ever fix even if they did exist.

If Progressives want to see what the threat of White Nationalism really looks like, they need to look no further than the Father of modern Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson.

Klan’s political resurgence foreshadowed in Wilson administration (Source)

Lastly, the new Democratic talking point seems to be the Democratic Party is the party of diversity. That is pure nonsense. There is no diversity in their Divisive Hate America Socialist Agenda. No matter if you are black, white, man, woman, gay or straight, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for an agenda that will ultimately destroy America as we know it.

  1. Open Borders
  2. Wealth Tax
  3. Slave Reparations
  4. Green New Deal
  5. 16-year-olds to vote
  6. Incarcerated Felons to Vote
  7. Socialized Medicine
  8. Livable Wage
  9. School Loan Debt Forgiveness
  10. Stacking the Supreme Court
  11. Expanding Democratic Representation in the Senate through DC and PR Statehood
  12. Federalizing elections, allowing Vote Harvesting
  13. Repeal of the electoral college
  14. Condoning political violence and groups like ANTIFA

Simply go down the list of Democratic Agenda Items, Zero, Nada, Zip are intended to help America as a whole. Their entire agenda is to entrench Democratic Party power and ensure single party RULE over America.

Lastly, the image AOC uses makes no sense. Hitler never “came for the socialists,” the Nazis were the National Socialists. Hitler did come after the Communists, which are international socialists, but that simply highlights that no matter what you call them, you can never please a power hungry socialist, no matter what label you put on them. Hitler and Communist Russia were allies at the start of the war.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Reblog and Comment