April 29, 2022

Anthropogenic CO2 NOT the Driver of Warming

This from physicist Tomer D. Tamarkin:

The published analysis of ClimateCite’s Pinatubo Study Phase 1 will be released this week.

Digital signal processing technology was used to analyze daily carbon dioxide data from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory. The period surrounding the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano was rigorously investigated and analyzed for slope and acceleration of net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration and found to be consistent with the theory that Henry’s Law, the Law of Mass Action, and Le Chatelier’s principle control net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration rather than human-produced CO2 emissions. The background and theory are explained. A method of using common physics and math for a novel purpose is presented to compare natural CO2 emission or absorption with human-produced CO2 emission. The claim that human-produced CO2 emission is causing increasing global CO2 concentration and therefore AGW or climate change is shown to be without scientific merit.

Roy W. Spencer asks:

Does the study address the observation that forests took up more atmospheric CO2 after Pinatubo, due to more scattered sunlight (indirect sky radiation) penetrating forest canopies? (Despite a total 2-4% reduction in total absorbed sunlight). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12663919/#:~:text=Volcanic%20aerosols%20from%20the%201991,in%201993%20under%20cloudless%20conditions

The Liahong Gu, et al., abstract says: "Volcanic aerosols from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption greatly increased diffuse radiation worldwide for the following 2 years. We estimated that this increase in diffuse radiation alone enhanced noontime photosynthesis of a deciduous forest by 23% in 1992 and 8% in 1993 under cloudless conditions. This finding indicates that the aerosol-induced
increase in diffuse radiation by the volcano enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink and contributed to the temporary decline in the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide after the eruption.

Our team finds their writing to be very questionable; interesting application of estimates. This "scattered light" must be researched further as it is so questionable. What wavelength density? How much is reflected back into space? What measurement techniques ?

Ellsworth G. Dutton, a former meteorologist with NOAA's Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., traced the effects of Pinatubo's cloud with ground-based instruments that directly measure the strength of sunlight. Dutton says his results show a 20 to 30 percent decline in the amount of solar radiation that reaches the ground without being scattered or reflected, and a 2 to 4 percent decline in total solar radiation.

Weather satellites confirm cooling in the lower atmosphere, recording a global drop of more than 0.5 C since last June, with this June being 0.2 C cooler than average, according to John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Roy Spencer of NASA's Earth Science Lab at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Christy says their data indicate that the greatest cooling, 1.0 C, occurred in the northern midlatitudes -- an area that includes the continental United States -- while temperatures in the southern hemisphere have dropped by only 0.3 C.

This is the conclusion of my own paper:

The environment demonstrated a measured capacity to absorb 239 times the human-produced CO2 when very conservatively calculated. Simply said, the natural environment is controlling CO2 concentration. Human CO2 emissions are not causing growth of atmospheric CO2. CO2 concentration in the natural environment is controlled primarily by global temperature, most immediately by surface temperature, primarily sea surface temperature. These temperatures are controlled by various natural forces, but that topic is beyond the scope of this paper. We can state that since an amount equal to human CO2 emissions plus all other CO2 were absorbed rapidly by the environment, then there is no net warming or net cooling resulting from net human CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emission flux is a minor perturbation which is rapidly returned to trend by much larger CO2 absorption flux.
Scientist P. Stallinga, PhD concluded, "The correlation between temperature and [CO2] is readily explained by another phenomenon, called Henry’s Law: The capacity of liquids to hold gases in solution is depending on temperature. When oceans heat up, the capacity decreases and the oceans thus release CO2 (and other gases) into the atmosphere. When we quantitatively analyze this phenomenon, we see that it perfectly fits the observations, without the need of any feedback [1]. We thus now have an alternative hypothesis for the explanation of the observations presented by Al Gore. The greenhouse effect can be as good as rejected and Henry’s Law stays firmly standing. We concluded that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate is negligible and the effect of the ocean temperature on atmospheric [CO2] is exactly, both sign and magnitude, equal to that as expected on basis of Henry’s Law.” (Stallinga, P., 2018, Stallinga, P., 2020)
Where did the CO2 go after Pinatubo? It was held in the oceans primarily, but also in cooler soils and in biosphere. The Henry’s coefficient adjusted downward due to the lower sea surface temperature, resulting in much less CO2 being emitted from the cooled tropical ocean, soils and biosphere. Meanwhile, colder water in higher latitudes continued absorbing CO2, so the net global average CO2 concentration, and the slope of CO2 concentration, and the acceleration of CO2 concentration declined. About 2 years after Pinatubo, when the cloud belt dissipated and normal insolation of tropical oceans returned, then an enormous and rapidly accelerating CO2 emission returned, surpassing the average acceleration prior to Pinatubo. Professor Murry Salby provides calculations and graphs showing that the observed long-term slope of CO2 concentration is explained by a series of such offsets. "There is no evidence of a systematic trend in temperature [referring to the actual mean global UAH satellite record for global anomalous temperature.]” (Salby, 2018, beginning about 16:30 time mark in the video.).
Concerning the Pinatubo perturbation, Stallinga and Khmelinski write, "In total, the natural contribution is negative 50% of the anthropogenic emissions (i.e., a sink; Sabine et al. estimate 48% ( Sabine, C.L. et al, 2014), plus fluctuations, with these fluctuations being of the same order of magnitude as the anthropogenic emissions… We have thus direct proof of Henry’s Law that predicts such effects of temperature on the carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Oceans undeniably outgas and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and they govern the dynamics, the correlation of [CO2] with temperature.” (Stallinga, P. and Khmelinski, I. 2018) In other words, human emissions are absorbed by nature.

Kauppinen and Malmi explain, "Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature.” "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.” (Kauppinen & Malmi, 2018)

Since most of Earth’s surface around the equator that was obfuscated by the Pinatubo cloud belt was tropical ocean, we safely infer that the rapid deceleration of CO2 concentration was caused by cooling of millions of kilometers of tropical ocean surface. This resulted in a net CO2 gas absorption impulse over 230 times larger than net human emission impulse during same period. We expect that continuing this study into its next phases will yield a matrix of supporting evidence and, theoretically, a calibration curve for human-CO2 emission, based on measurements rather than estimates, so that the pernicious claims of global climate change due to human-produced CO2 can be summarily dismissed.
The argument that human-CO2 emission is causing global climate change is shown to have no scientific merit.
Thoning et al (2021). K.W. Thoning, A.M. Crotwell, and J.W. Mund (2021), Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow, Alaska, American Samoa and South Pole. 1973-2020, Version 2021-08-09 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML), Boulder, Colorado, USA. Full set of references are provided in the paper.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1345 words, total size 10 kb.

1 No wonder the Algore, John Kerry, Joe Bite-Me, Scoldilocks and many other are wrong on this. It's complicated! Belief systems are much easier to handle than facts. And there are a bunch of real facts here -- we're dealing with adults in this column.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at April 30, 2022 04:02 PM (GIKgf)

2 Exactly Dana.

Henry's Law explains why we observe an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide years, even centuries, after a warming trend. It can be as long as eight hundred years. (What happened eight hundred years ago? The Medieval Warming Period).

It's too complicated for many people, who want a simple, unidimensional answer. The reality is the climate is hideously complex. In fact, chaos theory was devised by a guy who was running a weather program. He found that he could run the same program with the exact same data and get wildly different results each time. He realized minute differences in conditions could have vast effects on the overall system.

Our modeling hasn't really improved all that much. The only reason we do better now at forecasting weather is because we have satellites and other tools allowing us to understand what is happening over a large area. Without that we are stuck with just barometric pressure and dew points and the like for a single point in space.

But of course the warmiacs believe in the simple answer because it allows them the smug self-satisfaction of believing their are smarter than the average bear. And for the political class it never was about the science.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 01, 2022 09:40 AM (Ms87g)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

29kb generated in CPU 0.0091, elapsed 0.1912 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1851 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Let the Truth be Told
>Numbers Watch
The Reform Club
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 18614
  • Files: 2777
  • Bytes: 885.4M
  • CPU Time: 20:45
  • Queries: 635713


  • Posts: 26679
  • Comments: 113486


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0