This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
If you are unfamiliar with Gregg D Thompson¶s claims about C02 being insignificant in the science of global warming, please check the appendix. If you know anything about the science, you will recognise that the questionnaire he came up with is not science. It¶s of the many pseudo-scientific claims to show that the strong, overwhelming, indisputable science evidence is totally invalid. Climate change deniers depend on 10- second pseudo-scientific sound bites that serve to muddy the waters and confuse lay people who are not climate scientists. If you look around on the web you will see all of their talking points, one by one, torn down to shreds with real science. Here for example, a very short form of the contrarian arguments vs the science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php In any case, there is a scientific consensus that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and dangerous. End of debate. Asking unqualified lay people to make uninformed judgements and give their opinion on heavily researched, technical scientific data is not going to change that.
Green house gases are heating up our already warm planet earth which is now at the end of an interglacial period (Holocene). Ice ages were around 6 degrees cooler than at present. In the previous interglacial period temperatures were 1 degree higher than today with sea levels 5-6 m above current levels. The difference between low C02 levels which are present at glacial cycles and high C02 level in interglacial periods is only 100ppm. This means only a small change in C02 can have a big impact on global temperatures.
The current increase to 386 ppm from 280 ppm causes a radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m^2, and 1.34 W/m^2 from increases in other gases, totaling 3.00 W/m^2. The current concentration of greenhouse gases already have a heating power equaling that of a concentration of (386í280)×3.00/1.66 + 280 = 472 ppm C02 -eq (carbon dioxide equivalent). Therefore, the current concentrations are high enough for over a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere James Hansen summarizes: "The Earth's temperature, with rapid global warming over the past 30 years, is now passing through the peak level of the Holocene, a period of relatively stable climate that has existed for more than 10,000 years. Further warming of more than 1ºC will make the Earth warmer than it has been in a million years. ³Business-as-usual´ scenarios, with fossil fuel CO2 emissions continuing to increase ~2%/year as in the past decade, yield additional warming of 2 or 3°C this century and imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." The questions posed and answered by the climate change deniers are made to hide the relevant scientific facts, while making it appear as if the science is neglecting something important. They assume that a layperson has a better overview than the scientists who have specialised in paleo-climate, geology, and biology, who have obtained degrees and have who have spent decades in the field, doing research, keeping up to date with peer reviewed journals, and creating climate models with super computers. How low have the climate change deniers stooped? Lets take a look at their misleading questions. Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? Anyone asking for C02 in % is not a scientist and is trying to confuse people by using units that are not commonly used. If someone tried to convince you that you were fat, by quoting your weight in micro grams, you would immediately know they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. For example, I could try to scare you with big numbers by saying that you weigh 80,000,000,000 micrograms, but really it translates to 80 kg. If you don't understand kilograms or micrograms, you may be very alarmed. The climate deniers do the reverse. It is common practice to measure C02 in parts per million. As of Dec 2010: 390 ppm = 390 parts per million which in percent looks much smaller = 0.039 % Rising at approx 2ppm per year. In this case, asking for C02 in percent is trying to make the number look minuscule by changing the units from parts per million to a percentage. It is a psychological trick rather than scientific evidence that is being applied here to mislead people into thinking it is a small amount of little significance. One of the most interesting facts is that a difference of 100ppm of C02 is all that is needed to change the state of the earth from an interglacial period to a glacial period. In the long run every ppm of C02 matters in terms of the equilibrium temperature the earth will reach. Here is one example of why "390 ppm C02" is not a minuscule amount in a short video:
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/22/how-can-390-parts-per-million-possibly-matter-hereshow/ Here are other climate denial myths debunked on youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33 Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? No, not as a percentage. It is always provided in ppm. This is the appropriate scientific unit of measurement that is recognised the world over. Once again asking for the % of C02 actually demonstrates that the person who wrote this questionnaire does not read any scientific papers on climate change or atmospheric composition and is not an expert. Nobody who spends even one day researching C02 would think to ask the concentration in % instead of ppm. Asking the question in this way however is subtly trying to hammer in an insignificant fact that has no scientific validity. Whether C02 is provided in % or ppm is the same thing if you understand the units, and the context of the number. By showing C02 concentration in %, which is never used in scientific journals, one uses the psychological illusion that a small fraction means it is meaningless. Nature has countless examples where units are measured in parts per million or even parts per billion. This includes poisons, toxins, eg arsenic, perchlorate, gases, insulin in blood and even paint and ink. Why would you ask for this in %, unless you were trying to distort the science so you can mislead a non-scientific audience to believe it can't matter at that concentration?
Gregg D Thompson, do some research on the Keeling Curve which has consistently and accurately recorded the concentration of atmospheric C02 in ppm since 1958 from Mt Loa in Hawaii, and is confirmed by many other stations around the world. Have you heard about the famous Ice Core Data from Vostok, Siberia? Considering how afraid you are about talking about the science, it doesn't surprise me that you don't mention it. The main significance of the data lies in the high correlation between GHG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. Now, if you look at it and don't notice the correlation, then just admit that you don't believe believe South America and Africa weren't once joined together approx 200 Mya . You might as well get it off your chest that you don't believe in plate tectonics and continental drift because continents moving at a rate of 1-10 cm per year could never amount to kilometres. Never in a million years! Why don't those silly scientists measure continental drift in terms of % of speed of light? I wonder why. Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Once again we have the same psychological trick using a small % figure to fool the uneducated public, who cannot recall a percentage figure ever being used to describe C02 concentrations. Instead of clarifying the number and putting it into context, the audience is made to believe that the scientists are stupid for not making this figure widely known. This is a trick and used to make people worried about the integrity of the science, when in fact the person asking the question is being misleading and deceitful. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. More than 30 billion tons of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere annually by human activities, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels. The emissions of CO2 have been dramatically increased within the last 50 years and are still increasing by almost 2ppm each year. Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to 315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994. All the signs are that this CO2 rise is human-made. To roughly calculate the % of C02 that humans have contributed since the pre-industrial revolution: (390 - 280) / 280 = 39.29% The effects of H. sapiens on the terrestrial climate, defined as the Anthropocene from the beginning of the industrial age about 1750 (Steffen et al., 2007), involves emission of over 370 billion ton carbon and the rise of CO2 from 280 to 389 ppm, leading to a rise of mean global temperature by c.0.8° C since 1750AD (IPCC 2007-AR4), plus about 0.5° C currently masked by sulfur aerosols, yielding a climate sensitivity value of >3.4° C, not accounting for the full effects of current albedo loss due to melting cryosphere. Incipient effects of the Anthropocene may have commenced with the rise of early civilizations, extensive agricultural cultivation and livestock husbandry, indicated by the rise of methane by about 100 ppb from c.7000 years-ago and CO2 by 20 ppm from c.5000 years-ago (IPCC-2007-AR4 Report, Figure SPM.1; Ruddiman, 2003, 2007; Kutzbach et al., 2010). http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange109.html Human-made global climate forcings now prevail over natural forcings. Warming 'in the pipeline', mostly attributable to slow feedbacks, is now about 2°C (see Fig. 2). No additional forcing is required to raise global temperature to at least the level of the Pliocene, 2-3 million years ago, a degree of warming that would surely yield 'dangerous' climate impacts. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/350ppm_CO2_the_Target.php Paleo-climate data tells us what we can expect in the long term given certain ppm readings: The current CO2 concentration of 389 ppm is within the range indicated for the early to midPliocene (4.2--3.0 Ma) (365-415 ppm CO2; 2.4 -- 4° C and sea level 25±12 meters above preindustrial (Pagani et al., 2010), and also the range of the mid-Miocene climate optimum (16 Ma; 350-430 ppm CO2; 3-6° C; sea level 25-40 meter) (Tripati et al. 2009; Kurschner et al. 2008; Royer, 2008). The superposition of these warm periods above periods characterized with CO2 levels of about 300 ppm invites comparison with current rise above Holocene conditions.
These observations imply current climate change is at a lag stage tracking toward conditions induced by mean global temperature of c.3.0-4.0° C, which in the Pliocene resulted in melting of large parts of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters (Haywood and Williams, 2005). The trend results in migration of climate zones toward the poles, weakening of the polar vortex, weakening of cross-latitude cold ocean currents and weakening of the La Nina phases of the ENSO cycle, by analogy to midPliocene (>2.8 Ma) conditions. Depending on the rate of future carbon emission, the possibility that conditions similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55 million years-ago may be reached can not be discounted. At that stage the release of c.2000 GtC as methane (Zachos et al., 2008), less than the current fossil fuel reserves (c.6000 billion ton carbon), resulted in >5° C temperature rise and in extinction of species. Factors relevant to this scenario include feedbacks from the carbon cycle and ice/warm water interactions, reduction of the ocean's CO2 absorption capacity, the scale of deforestation and release of methane from permafrost, bogs and shallow sediments. http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange109.html By continuing to ask for fractions of fractions, the details of what is known about C02 and its relationship with global temperature and sea level rise is completely ignored, although the science is quite precise and well established. But this is too much information for Gregg D Thompson who is only interested in little sound bites which seem credible to a lay person who has done no serious research into the science. The only people he can fool are those who have no understanding of climate science. Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? Again, no scientific argument is actually mounted here, in fact the person asking these questions has nothing to say about the science, but likes to use inadequate percentages to fool people. Lets look at the numbers in a more appropriate way. The world produced 48 gigatons of C02 in 2009. Australia contributes 20.58 tonnes of C02 per person x 21 million population = 0.43 gigatons C02 = approx 1% of world C02 production. This seems small, but if we calculate C02 on a per capita basis Australians actually have the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per person of all industrialised nations; and more than double the average for industrialised countries. How inconvienent.The person asking the question doesn't want you to think of the numbers in that way. He prefers to mislead with fractions of fractions of fractions hoping that people will doubt the science. I wonder if anyone has won a court case pleading that, sure, they robbed a bank of 10 million dollars in an armed robbery, but as a fraction of the total world GDP it is a minuscule amount. 10 million / 58 trillion = 0.000017% It can't matter, and we can totally overlook the millions which were stolen! According to the logic of Gregg D Thompson, the robber should receive a get out of jail free card! This is exactly the same type of logic the coal industry uses - "if we don't sell the coal someone else will". So, if I don't commit murder, someone else will, therefore I should commit murder. Try that one at court and see how far you come. Maplecroft finds Australia's heavy reliance on coal makes for an average output of 20.58 tonnes of C02 per person per year, compared to 19.78 tonnes in the USA. China, which recently overtook the US as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter overall, has a per capita average of about 4.5 tonnes per person. In the medium and long term, a world-wide average emission of maximum 2 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per person per year must be targeted. This amount is nowadays considered to be the maximum allowed quantity for a sustainable living on earth!! If we REALLY want to fix the climate and bring it back to
normal C02 levels, basically we have to live at the standard of living of someone living in India. If we don't, we can expect 1-2m sea level rise by 2100 and trillions of dollars of damage and millions of lives lost in floods and droughts. If the world, including Australia, continues with business as usual, we should expect 10,000 boats from India arriving on Australian shores fleeing from floods which will be worse due to global warming.
If in future decades it turns out that we are legally obligated to pay for climate change compensation claims proportional to our emissions, then 1% of $1.1 trillion (according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) = $10 billion dollars. To be even fairer we should pay for the cumulative emissions we have contributed to in relation to the total cumulative emissions. It would be fairer because a lot of developing countries are only beginning to scratch the standards of living and level of emissions that we have become accustomed to. We have been polluting the atmosphere for centuries, whereas many countries have only just begun to increase their emissions in the last decade or two. Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant? Lets not talk semantics. It is more informative to define anthropogenic inputs of carbon dioxide as a climate forcing, as was done in the 2005 National Research Council Report. The fact is C02 is the biggest control knob of temperature in earth's history. Watch this interesting climate-geological video from Richard B Alley of Penn State University http://eveningperson.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/a23a/ "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today ² and were sustained at those levels ² global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," "Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last
20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history" If you want to call it a pollutant or not its really just semantics. Arguing that C02 can't matter to the earth's climate because it is barely visible, is like saying that the physics behind engineering is invalid because static forces cannot be seen. You cannot get much more unscientific than that. If Gregg D Thompson has any qualifications in science they should be immediately revoked for this complete ignorance and disdain for scientific reasoning. This whole questionnaire reeks of propaganda. You would never ask hundreds of lay people to diagnose a medical condition, and then make fun of the medical profession because ordinary people have different ideas about how medicine works than actual doctors. The PDF, in two paragraphs contradicts itself. First it says polls show believers in man-made global warming are in the minority, but then goes on to say popular beliefs are not fact. However the details under those headings are cherry picked stories to support the denial agenda. You can't have it both ways. Global warming does not care about people's level of understanding, all that matters is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the rotation of the earth in space, and the fluctuation of solar output (which is minimal). The earth does not care if humans call C02 a pollutant or not or if polls show that people don't care that much about global warming. The evidence is clear, and the science tells us that it matters. Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? Once again, another non-scientific question is being asked. Does Gregg D Thompson not believe in evolution because he has never actually seen one species evolve into another? Gregg D Thompson might as well be asking have you ever "seen" bacteria with your naked eye? No? There you go, the germ theory of disease is invalid too. All those clever scientists can't be right. Nearly 150 years of science supporting germ theory and evolution suddenly means nothing because lay people cannot "see" these things? Similarly Gregg D Thompson believes that because many laypeople do not observe and keep track of climatic trends over centuries or millennia, that somehow this means there is no evidence for global warming due to C02. Co2 may not easily be seen, but climate science has calculated the radiative forcings of various gases, and Co2 overwhelmingly has the largest impact on earth's temperature. The forcing is measured in w/m^2 and is approximately +1.5 w/m^2 for C02. A positive forcing tends to warm the system, while a negative forcing tends to cool it. We need science because it helps to explain things that requires deep thinking. What we don't need is unscientific emotional responses like - the earth has to be the centre of the solar system, we can't have evolved from apes, tiny bacteria and viruses cannot possibly cause disease, or tiny trace house gasses can't possibly change the energy balance of the planet. The article also says that CO2 heats the air. It doesn't. It insulates the earth from the heat leaving. This is so elementary that one wonders how a serious scientist could have overlooked the physics you can find in a school book, and still call himself a scientist.
Satellite data reveals the earth is out of energy balance with space and that the Earth's energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet's history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. To understand the difference, think of a one-watt light bulb shining over an area of one square meter. Although it doesn't seem like much, adding up the number of feet around the world creates a big effect. To put this number into perspective, an imbalance of one-watt per square meter, maintained for the past 10,000 years is enough to melt ice equivalent to one kilometer (.6 mile) of sea level, if there were that much ice. Alternatively this can be calculated as 0.85 watts / m^2 * 5.1×10^14 m^2 = 433.5 TW (terawatts) which is constant, and is equivalent to an ongoing 4.3 × typical category 4 hurricane power release (~~ 1×10^14 W ). If you keep this up long enough, you will start seeing the damage, and we do. The evidence is called global warming. Here are some of the key pieces of evidence that it is happening now. Remember, water and ice does not have any political ideologies. It only responds to the temperature. Sea level rise: Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Global temperature rise: All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.
Warming oceans: The oceans have ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Meltwater: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet Shrinking ice sheets: The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice Declining Arctic sea ice: Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glacial retreat: Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world ² including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/files/oerlemans_glacier_length.pdf Extreme events: The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. Ocean acidification: The carbon dioxide content of the Earth's oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7933589.stm Indeed, he recent floods in Australia, at least in part, some scientists say between 10 and 15% can be attributed to climate change: "I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change," said Matthew England of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. "The waters off Australia are the warmest ever measured and those waters provide moisture to the atmosphere for the Queensland and northern Australia monsoon," he told Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B1XF20110112 Watch this story of Oil which shows how we are making the climate return to the Jurassic climate. http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/ Anyway, if you have time, please download my Global Warming Facts document that I created in 2007, and look at what SCIENCE is saying about man-made global warming. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17676370/Global-Warming-Facts And no, the science didn't start with the IPCC. The science investigating global warming and coming up with theories as to how it works is 187 years old! It's nearly the same age as the science of evolution and the germ theory, and yet we still have so-called "experts" like Gregg D Thompson deny the solid foundation of the science that says humans are producing greenhouse gases which increases global warming. Scientists who have no credentials in one area should not be called upon as experts for that field. Its very simple. We should listen to the relevant scientists and accept that they understand more than we do. When we see blatant lies, misrepresentation, un-scientific arguments, deceit, fake credentials, etc then we must really ask who is behind this. We must ask why these people are taken seriously, and who has put these unqualified people on a pedestal next to scientists who are actually qualified to say something about the science. The people supporting the denialists should be ridiculed, as should the climate denial "scientists". I beg you Gregg D Thompson, stop making a fool out
of yourself. Scientists and even lay people like myself can't stop slapping their heads in frustration every time you open your mouth to try and discredit the science. Leave it to the experts Gregg D Thompson. You have no credibility whatsoever, and your arguments are no arguments at all. They are uneducated opinions at best, and downright lies and fraud at worst. Gregg D Thompson you have proven that you are ³making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science [you] know virtually nothing about.´ Steven Muschalik
How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air? Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages. Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant? Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don¶t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources. The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can¶t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not. On the following pages are respondent¶s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Q1. What % of the air is CO2? Respondent¶s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%. The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is al most 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don¶t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media? Respondent¶s answers: All said ¶No¶. Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce? Respondent¶s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %. The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that¶s all. Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce? Respondent¶s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%. The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That¶s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That¶s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all. We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is! Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants. Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant? Respondent¶s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Calling CO2 a µpollutant¶ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey µsmoke¶ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it¶s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it¶s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This µemission¶ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either. The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn¶t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn¶t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers. Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? Respondent¶s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof. The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can¶t cause a greenhouse effect. It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That¶s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume. Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere. 1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air. 2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no µrunaway¶ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable. 3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then. Water vapour is 4% of the air and thatµs 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2¶s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature. The Earth¶s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no µceiling¶ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day. Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page. The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today¶s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false. The Effect of the Sun on Earth¶s climate It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun¶s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn¶t! It¶s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are expiring now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades. For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/another-dalton-minimum/
The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US. Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind¶s contribution to CO2 is so small it¶s not measurable. Polls on Climate Change Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who ³don¶t know´ if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom! Popular beliefs are not fact The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year¶s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone µhole¶ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong. A Carbon Tax Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone¶s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.
Gregg D Thompson Climate Researcher Astronomer
Environmentalist Author of two science books Business Manager and Director of 3 companies Author of science magazine articles Designer and project manager of special effects attractions Nature photographer Has a great interest in most sciences Loves creating innovation in art
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.