CO2

CO2 is not driving climate change because it is not having an affect on temperature, in any measurable way. That is not to say it is not a greenhouse gas, but rather, we can not measure its affect on the temperature record at this point in time. The temperature swings we are experiencing are mostly natural and may all be natural. The greenhouse affect is way overblown in the media and has not been proven.

It is actually temperature that drives CO2 and geologists have always know this; it is evident in the historical records such as ice core data and you can even see it in modern, satellite era measurements.

  • CO2 has been in decline for 160M years as Carbon gets sequestered forever by the aquatic invertebrates.
  • CO2 was recently at record lows and was threatening to extinguish all life on earth – we need more CO2 growth is mostly from natural sources – Humans contribute only 3% to global CO2 emissions, the other 97% are natural emissions.
  • CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapour which is 25 times more abundant and covers at least 10 times more of the spectrum where the greenhouse gases operate.
  • CO2 greenhouse effect declines logarithmically and is already close to saturation so that additional CO2 is less and less effective.
  • Fast Fourier Transform(FFT) analysis are showing that the temperature record is dominated by various cycles and not at all by the monotonic growth in CO2.
  • CO2 levels in ice cores are different than other proxies, which show higher levels in the past;
  • CO2 clearly lags Temperature if you look closely at both superimposed together on the same graph. The argument that CO2 drives temperature never satisfied the question; so then what drives CO2.

 

“Back when dinosaurs roamed the planet, some 65 million years ago, CO2 levels were 3 to 5 times higher than current levels and the planet was nearly all green, from pole-to-pole”.

“Since then, especially during the last 2.5 million years, CO2 levels have continued to decline with each cycle of glaciation, reaching near catastrophic levels during the last cycle when CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm at glacial maximum. When CO2 levels are below 150 ppm, plants die, and then of course, animals die because they need the plants to survive.”

CO2’s current level is close to the lowest level it has ever been.

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 9.46.12 PM

Like with temperature, context is so important to the understanding of what is occurring and whether we should be concerned or not.

CO2 has many sources and the man-made contribution is actually quite small

co2-budget

As illustrated in the graphic, CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, from all human sources combined, are estimated to be only 3% of the total sources of CO2 emissions.

  • Emissions from Native Source = 150 or 97%
  • Emissions from Human Sources = 5 or 3%

Today, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are approximately 400 ppm. or 0.04% of the total.

This is increasing at a rate of 4 ppm per year or 0.0004% of the total.

Human sources are 3% of that number or 0.000012% of the total

Canada’s footprint is 1.5% of world so that would amount to 0.000000018 % of the total.

This graph was taken from an alarmist website and is intended to portray the fact that sources and sinks were in perfect balance before man started burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement and tipping that fine balance. This totally ignores the fact that sources are in constant fluctuation over time and that the sinks react to changes in sources.

 

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas compared to H2O

CO2 lags temperature

I love the WoodForTrees website as they have loaded a lot of different time series from official government and education institutions databases and provide a way of graphing and analyzing them. So, I was able to zoom into a very short time period and see how CO2 varies with temperature. It is far more sensitive to temperature than I had thought.

The green line is temperature. Going from left to right, you are advancing in time. So follow the green line for a while starting at the left. As it goes up and down, what is happening to the red line?  It is doing the same thing but a little later in time, almost a year later. Clearly CO2 is sensitive to temperature and follows what temperature is doing.

CO2’s ability to increase temperature decreases logarithmically and is already saturated, such that additional CO2 is going to have only a marginal affect compared to what is already there.
Screenshot_2015-12-13-04-08-08-1

CO2’s ability to affect temperature is way overblown.

The Air Force did a study back in 1955 where they flew at 150ft and used sensitive equipment to measure the radiation spectrum coming up from the earth. At the key frequency where CO2 is active, they measured zero radiation – it was all getting absorbed!!! So once you have 100% absorption, adding additional CO2 can not cause additional absorption.

Remember, the growth of atmospheric CO2 is only 4 ppm per year and the human caused portion of that growth is only 3%. At that rate, it will take over 150 years for the human-sourced growth to accumulate another 20 ppm. This is inconsequential.

Fast Fourier Transform analysis of climate data since 1750 shows that all temperature change is due to cycles and none from CO2

 

Fig. 1: Left panel: DFT of the average from 6 central European instrumental time series. Right panel: same for an interpolated time series of a stalagmite from the Austrian Alps.

 

 

Fig 2: 15 year running average from 6 central European instrumental time series (black). Reconstruction with the 6 strongest Fourier components (red). Further Note: Most graphs only show the temperature record since 1880, which gives rise to a rapidly growing panic. If you go back to 1750, then the whole thing looks a lot different.

Using European weather station readings and Antarctica ice core proxy data, Prof. Carl Otto Weiss used Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) and found a strong peak density at the 248 years and lesser peaks at 80, 61, 47 and 34 years which shows that all of the data is cyclic.  CO2 is not cyclic, and is increasing monotonically in time and would have produced a different result. He then superimposed the 6 strongest cycles and reconstructed them back into a time series and found they fit exactly with the observed data. The 248 year cycle is thought to correlate with similar cycles in solar activity and is from the ionization of the solar wind. Further data set analysis of 2500 years showed a strong correspondence to a series of 200 year cycles called the de Vries cycle and the 65 yr terrestrial oscillation known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation AMO/PDO.

Ice core data misrepresents CO2 levels

The historic levels of CO2 are determined through a number of different proxies. The most often reported levels of CO2 for the last million years are derived from Ice core samples taken from Antarctica and the last 100,00o years from Greenland.  However, as a proxy, ice core data is controversial when comparing the measurements to other proxies. Plant stomata  seem to be the better proxy record and there is a lot of growing controversy over the accuracy of CO2 in ice cores.  http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

image354

 

CO2