We are all aware of the narrative around how changes in CO2 emissions are claimed to act like strychnine to the planet (or a spike protein on a human) – very small changes result in dangerous changes to global temperatures - even of just a few degrees – which in turn is claimed to be sufficient to cause massive climate change.
Thank you for the article, it helps with context. Seemingly so simple overall but difficult to articulate (at least for me) in a world swimming in a sea of toxic propaganda.
May 9, 2023·edited May 10, 2023Liked by Peter Halligan
My eyes glaze over about all this nonsense.
The last ice age the Pleistocene ended 11,700 years bc. That was long before human civilization , the oldest is Gobeke Tepe in Turkey which is 9000 bc. That means the planet warmed enough to melt all the glaciers that covered North America and Europe without any help from humans, fossil fuels, internal combustion engines or the Industrial Revolution .
Which brings us to the Bottom Line.
Climate change is natural and constant but it occurs in geologic time IOW very slowly in the human perspective.
So in order to even entertain the idea of anthropogenic climate change you have to believe the unknown and unknowable forces that dramatically changed the climate 11,700 years BC magically disappeared but then how did the Roman Warm Period, The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period occur?
Conclusion: the climate changes naturally and humans have nothing to do with it.
What is best for the planet is about 755 ppm(which means lush greenery and abundant food) right now it is at 387ppm and dropping. Not good for us. Wonder why the forests and plants are disappearing all over the world is lack of carbon not due to the loggers or our technology or cow farts. Carbon only effects about 0.003% of our atmosphere. Proven in Australia's Supreme Court that ended the controversy of BS presented by UN fake paid for scientists.
Ironically, water vapor is also a product of fuel combustion, and is a MUCH larger component of our atmosphere. They could just as easily have made it the boogeyman. I wonder why they didn't. Maybe they thought unsophisticated people would notice that there often is naturally a lot more water in the air than other times, thus belying agw alarmists' lies about its increase affecting "climate change." And water isn't nearly as "scary" as "carbon."
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past.”
dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with temperature changes, but its integral CO2 changes do NOT lead, they LAG temperature changes in time.
The CAGW scam was independently proved false in this way in 1990 (Kuo et al, Nature), 2008 (MacRae) and 2013 (Humlum et al, Science). All these papers have been deliberately ignored to promote the CAGW scam.
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. can also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
The above sequence is an absolute disproof of the phony CAGW hypothesis, which ASSUMES that atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature - BUT the future (CO2 change) cannot cause the past (Atmospheric Temperature change).
The definition (IPCC et al) of climate change™ is predicated on direct and indirect anthropogenic influence upon atmospheric composition and land usage. It cannot be falsified without expunging humanity from the globe. Further, dealing with 'climate sensitivity' the value is trending toward unity. ie. doubling CO2 makes no difference because all the outgoing longwave radiation absorption spectra are already saturated. Is and always was a Trojan Horse idiotically called "carbon."
And then, 'climate variability' the "natural" climate perturbations that are never spoken of and account for >90% of local and global climate, although the IPCC have a handwaving confidence (not to be confused with CI value) that it is more akin, unsurprisingly, to 50%.
I wonder how much the destruction of the rain forests have contributed to the overall climb? Also, I assume the natural forests of Java etc, absorb more co2 than the palm plantations that take up some of the stripped area. We could possibly help not only the earth but the wildlife if we would stop stripping land bare. But no, let’s just kill off the ‘useless eaters’ much easier…😵💫
May 9, 2023·edited May 9, 2023Liked by Peter Halligan
Hundreds of thousands of acres of forest have been cut down to put in solar panel fields. Here is the thing...vegetation, especially forests, take in CO2 and emit oxygen. So you would think we would be planting trees instead of cutting them down. I have never seen an analysis of how much solar panels "save CO2 emissions" versus how much trees of the same size area reduce Co2 emissions. I think I know how that would go. And that doesn't even include the horrible environmental effects of how to dispose of or recycle all the heavy metals and chemicals (batteries, disposal of old solar cells, electronics, etc.) that go along with this so called "green energy". And it also doesn't include how unreliable such "green energy" is. Kinda just like the covid shots...we are told over and over how "safe and effective" they are, but they don't want to give us the real data to check for ourselves. Just trust us.
Great article. Just one issue. You are confusing tonnes and tons. A tonne is 2200 lbs and a ton is 2000 lbs.
You wrote: "A ton is around 20% heavier than a tonne – so 5 trillion tonnes is around 4 trillion tons"
This is is not the correct math. It should be 5 trillon tonnes is the equivalent of 5.5 trillion tons.
Thank you for the article, it helps with context. Seemingly so simple overall but difficult to articulate (at least for me) in a world swimming in a sea of toxic propaganda.
1 ton = 2000 lbs
1 tonne = 1000kg = 2204.6 lbs
1 long ton =2240 lbs
By my conversion a ton is about 10% lighter than a tonne, not 20% heavier.
Help me get the units straight on this.
My eyes glaze over about all this nonsense.
The last ice age the Pleistocene ended 11,700 years bc. That was long before human civilization , the oldest is Gobeke Tepe in Turkey which is 9000 bc. That means the planet warmed enough to melt all the glaciers that covered North America and Europe without any help from humans, fossil fuels, internal combustion engines or the Industrial Revolution .
Which brings us to the Bottom Line.
Climate change is natural and constant but it occurs in geologic time IOW very slowly in the human perspective.
So in order to even entertain the idea of anthropogenic climate change you have to believe the unknown and unknowable forces that dramatically changed the climate 11,700 years BC magically disappeared but then how did the Roman Warm Period, The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period occur?
Conclusion: the climate changes naturally and humans have nothing to do with it.
What is best for the planet is about 755 ppm(which means lush greenery and abundant food) right now it is at 387ppm and dropping. Not good for us. Wonder why the forests and plants are disappearing all over the world is lack of carbon not due to the loggers or our technology or cow farts. Carbon only effects about 0.003% of our atmosphere. Proven in Australia's Supreme Court that ended the controversy of BS presented by UN fake paid for scientists.
Ironically, water vapor is also a product of fuel combustion, and is a MUCH larger component of our atmosphere. They could just as easily have made it the boogeyman. I wonder why they didn't. Maybe they thought unsophisticated people would notice that there often is naturally a lot more water in the air than other times, thus belying agw alarmists' lies about its increase affecting "climate change." And water isn't nearly as "scary" as "carbon."
There is a simple way to think of this with one FACT: Carbon at 200ppm ALL LIFE DIES on this planet. Period. It is that final.
Hi Peter,
My primary expertise is Energy and Climate.
Here is the short version of why the alleged Climate/Global Warming/CAGW crisis is a scam:
This graph is from my 2008 paper:
MacRae, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Look at these stunning correlations:
dCO2/dt vs UAH Lower Troposphere Global Atmospheric Temperature Anomaly
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, Detrended
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1/detrend:0.25
I’ve understood this relationship since 2008.
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past.”
dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with temperature changes, but its integral CO2 changes do NOT lead, they LAG temperature changes in time.
The CAGW scam was independently proved false in this way in 1990 (Kuo et al, Nature), 2008 (MacRae) and 2013 (Humlum et al, Science). All these papers have been deliberately ignored to promote the CAGW scam.
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. can also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
The above sequence is an absolute disproof of the phony CAGW hypothesis, which ASSUMES that atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature - BUT the future (CO2 change) cannot cause the past (Atmospheric Temperature change).
Best, Allan MacRae in Calgary
The definition (IPCC et al) of climate change™ is predicated on direct and indirect anthropogenic influence upon atmospheric composition and land usage. It cannot be falsified without expunging humanity from the globe. Further, dealing with 'climate sensitivity' the value is trending toward unity. ie. doubling CO2 makes no difference because all the outgoing longwave radiation absorption spectra are already saturated. Is and always was a Trojan Horse idiotically called "carbon."
And then, 'climate variability' the "natural" climate perturbations that are never spoken of and account for >90% of local and global climate, although the IPCC have a handwaving confidence (not to be confused with CI value) that it is more akin, unsurprisingly, to 50%.
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
In the last 20 yrs. the planet has greened by 15%.
https://fee.org/articles/rejoice-the-earth-is-becoming-greener/
http://www.co2science.org//education/reports/greening/conclusion.php
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Great article, thanks.
I wonder how much the destruction of the rain forests have contributed to the overall climb? Also, I assume the natural forests of Java etc, absorb more co2 than the palm plantations that take up some of the stripped area. We could possibly help not only the earth but the wildlife if we would stop stripping land bare. But no, let’s just kill off the ‘useless eaters’ much easier…😵💫
Greenies just need to stop hyperventilating about CO2.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of forest have been cut down to put in solar panel fields. Here is the thing...vegetation, especially forests, take in CO2 and emit oxygen. So you would think we would be planting trees instead of cutting them down. I have never seen an analysis of how much solar panels "save CO2 emissions" versus how much trees of the same size area reduce Co2 emissions. I think I know how that would go. And that doesn't even include the horrible environmental effects of how to dispose of or recycle all the heavy metals and chemicals (batteries, disposal of old solar cells, electronics, etc.) that go along with this so called "green energy". And it also doesn't include how unreliable such "green energy" is. Kinda just like the covid shots...we are told over and over how "safe and effective" they are, but they don't want to give us the real data to check for ourselves. Just trust us.