Form W 3: Fill & Download for Free

It will be highly dependent on your definition of an organic compound.Actually there is no clear rule, but a simple definition is that an organic compounds contains at least one carbon atom. (But some simple molecules will be called inorganic although they have a carbon: like HCN, CO, and CO2)In general there are two main IUPAC guidancesThe Red Book deals with inorganics. (Last edition 2005)The Blue Book deals with organics.(Last edition 2013)But obviously they do overlap. Coordination nomenclature is mainly handled in the red book, but many metals form complexes with organic molecules so you need to have a bit of both so the red book will need to include some of the organic nomenclature.Also the blue book that in principle deals with the organic molecules does include guidance how to name compounds that are considered inorganic.One structure that comes to mind is Borazine a structure isostructural with benzene.The Preferred Iupac name of this structure is l ,3,5,2,4,6-triazatriborinaneIt follows the so called Hantzsch–Widman nomenclature designed for heterocyclic 3–10 membered rings.I would consider borazine an inorganic compound, but the name is using a system that is designed for organic compounds. (Please note that H-W-guidance is mentioned in the red book as well.)Other examples are linear chains of heteroatoms.Like this structure:Inorganic nomenclature ‘borrowed’ the organic system here as well and they use the ending ’ene’ similar to pentene.The structure is therefore called: pentaaz-2-ene: it is an inorganic structure, but you will find them in both guidances. (Red book IR-6.2.2.3 p 87; blue book P-31.1.2.2.1 p 372)So to summarize: There is no organic compound without carbon, but you can call them as it was an organic compound.

Sustainable societies depend upon strong families.Nations that seek to remain economically and politically vital must reproduce themselves; children are most likely to thrive—socially, emotionally, and economically—when they enjoy the shelter and stability of an intact, married family; marriage is most beneficial for children when both parents are positively invested in their lives; and families are most likely to flourish when they can be built upon strong economic foundations. [1][1][1][1]These are ideals not absolutes. As in any distribution, there are always outliers: about 30% of children from abusive environments still grow up to be decent caring people—(most often because they had someone besides the parents who cared enough to try and be a good influence)—and there is always a percentage of kids from caring parents who go off the rails no matter what the parents try to do to save them. Some poor families are stronger family units than some who are economically more prosperous. Everyone doesn’t fit the pattern perfectly, still, it is an accepted maxim that: “Sustainable societies depend upon strong families.”What is a strong family?A strong and stable family is one which provides its members with different types of care and concern as needed and able. This helps develop strong bonds between family members who make the effort to understand and tolerate each others' differences. This can then be brought into society; tolerance of those who are different is a primary requirement for a peaceful society.A strong and stable family is resilient. Societies and individuals will always eventually face tough times. Emotional and spiritual (and on occasion financial) support from a strong family often translates to resilience which is key in helping the afflicted to persevere through and overcome difficulties. With family support, individuals can better deal with the discouragement and stress of such struggles. Society must progress economically in order to be successful and it needs resilient people to accomplish that.A strong and stable family supports the education of its children. Children are the future leaders of any society, and they are better able to become good leaders with education and training. If the parents are educated, they are best placed to educate their own children.Within a stable family, parents teach their children values and help them develop good character and a moral compass. This makes it more likely their children will become morally upright individuals who will not commit crimes since crime is detrimental to society. Moral values and good character among the individuals that compose a society determines if there is social stability and harmony in a society, which in turn, affects the economic and political progress of the society. Corruption is one of the single greatest factors in determining the peacefulness of a society.How does religion impact whether a family is strong?A systematic review of studies on religion and family concluded 81 percent of such studies show an 80 percent or more positive benefit from religious practice, 15 percent of the studies showed neutral effects, and 4 percent showed harm with 10 percent or less harm. [2][2][2][2][3][3][3][3]But the truth is there is more than one kind of religious practice, and one kind tends to promote personal, family and societal health and the other tends to have the opposite effect.According to the psychology of religion and most of sociology, there are two kinds of religious orientation/motivation. [4][4][4][4] [5][5][5][5]Extrinsic religion is a generally unhealthy kind of religion which sees religion as a means to self-serving ends. Religion is just a tool used to achieve other goals that are more important to the individual than religion itself. It is an “immature” faith that revolves around using religion for social support, personal comfort, power, influence, self-esteem and so on. (Tiliopoulos et al., 2007) This produces self-righteousness, judgmentalism, legalism, hypocrisy, prejudices, and can lead to extremisms.Intrinsic religion, on the other hand, is an end in itself. It is a “mature” form of religious feeling which serves as the main motivation for the individual’s way of life. These people are mainly encouraged by personal spiritual development and a deeper, more meaningful relationship with God. (Hills et al., 2004; Hunter & Merrill, 2013). This tends to produce moral character and behaviors such as those listed in the beatitudes and the “fruits of the spirit”.The negative effects of extrinsic religion on a societal scale are small, while the positive effects of intrinsic religion are measurably large.Intrinsic religious orientation is a protective factor against mental illness, while extrinsic religious orientation has been classified as a risk factor in regards with mental illness (Hunter & Merrill, 2013).In a study conducted to examine the relationship between religious orientation and mental health symptoms among students, extrinsic orientation emerged as the only significant predictor for hostility, anxiety and depression (Kuyel, Cesur, & Ellison, 2012).Three studies affirm intrinsic religiousness reduces both death-thoughts and helps manage terror when a person is facing death. (Hathaway &Pargament, 1990).General anxiety is a characteristic of extrinsics generally. In a set of findings on anxiety about death, extrinsics fared worst of all: worse than intrinsics and worse than those without religious beliefs.[6]Even acknowledging the difference between the effects of these different approaches to religion, it is still fair to say: The strength of the family unit is intertwined with the practice of religion.Healthy family dynamics and practices are influenced to a powerful degree by the presence or absence of intrinsic religious beliefs and practices.[7][7][7][7]Regular churchgoers are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced or single, and more likely to manifest high levels of satisfaction in marriage. [8] [9][10]The centrality of stable married family life in avoiding such problems as crime,[11] illegitimacy,[12] and welfare[13] has become indisputable.Church attendance is the single most important predictor of marital stability and happiness.[14] [15] The Sex in America study published in 1995, conducted by sociologists from the University of Chicago and the State University of New York at Stonybrook, showed very high sexual satisfaction among "conservative" religious women. [16] [17] Black Protestants and white Catholics, who share similarly high church attendance rates, have been shown to have similarly low divorce rates.[18]A 1993 national survey of 3,300 men aged 20-39 found that those who switch partners most are those with no religious convictions.[19]The regular practice of religion helps poor persons move out of poverty. Regular church attendance, for example, is particularly instrumental in helping young people to move out of poverty.[20]Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to the formation of personal moral criteria and sound moral judgment.[21] Happiness is greater and psychological stress is lower for those who attend religious services regularly.[22]Intrinsic religion lowers the risk of a host of social problems involving adolescents, including suicide, drug abuse, single mother births, crime, and divorce. Intrinsic religious behavior is associated with reduced crime for adults as well. This has been known in the social science literature for over 20 years.[23][24] [25] [26] [27] [28]A systematic review of 100 studies revealed that religious beliefs and practices are associated with positive emotions, such as a sense of well-being, satisfaction with life, and happiness creating a strong correlation with limited unhealthy behavior, such as moderate alcohol consumption and a lower probability for smoking.(Koenig, McCullough,&Larson, 2001).Another study investigated the relations between spiritual well-being (SWB), intrinsic religiousness (IR), and suicidal behavior in war veterans with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Veterans with high spiritual well-being, emotional well-being, religious well-being, and intrinsic religiousness were less suicidal. Veterans who had attempted suicide at least once in their lifetime, had significantly lower scores. (Mickley, Soeken,& Belcher, 1992).Intrinsic religion has beneficial effects on mental health producing less depression, more self-esteem, and greater happiness.[29] [30] [31]A large epidemiological study conducted by the University of California at Berkeley in 1971 found that the religiously committed had much less psychological distress than the uncommitted.[32] Rodney Stark, now of the University of Washington, found the same in a 1970 study: The higher the level of religious attendance, the less stress suffered when adversity had to be endured.[33] [34]Intrinsically religious individuals show important benefits in stress management (Park, Cohen, & Herb, 1990; Pollard & Bates, 2004).The relationship between uncontrollable stress and depression was positive for low intrinsic individuals, but negative for high intrinsic individuals (Crystal, Lawrence, & Lisa, 1990).In repairing damage caused by alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital breakdown, religious belief and practice are a major source of strength and recovery.[35]Intrinsic religiosity and spiritual well-being are associated with hope and positive mood states in elderly people coping with cancer (Fehring, Miller, & Shaw, 1997).Regular practice of religion is good for personal physical health: It increases longevity, improves one's chances of recovery from illness, and lessens the incidence of many killer diseases.[36] [37]Several studies have demonstrated that intrinsic religious orientation is associated with better physical and mental health (Smith, Richards, & Maglio, 2004; Masters et al., 2005; Salsman & Carlson, 2005).Intrinsic religious oriented people tend to have lower blood pressure reactivity to stress factors. (Powell, Shahabi, &Thoreson, 2003).In public health circles, the level of educational attainment is held to be the key demographic predictor of physical health. For over two decades, however, the level of religious practice has been shown convincingly to be equally important.[38] [39]Over the last decades, there has been systematic research in the relationship between religion and health, mainly among general population (Ironson et al., 2002; Margeti & Margeti, 2005; Peterman et al., 2002) and among special parts of the population, such as patients. (Brady et al., 1999; Fehring, Miller, & Shaw, 1997; Koenig, Pargament, & Nielsen, 1998).Religion can positively affect the promotion of healthy behavior (Hunter & Merrill, 2013; Turner-Musa&Wilsons, 2006) and diet. (Hart et al., 2004).Religious beliefs and practices seem to have a positive impact on illness prevention, better post-surgery recovery and other mental and physical disorders’ treatment. (Matthews et al., 1998).Other studies reveal a positive relation between religiousness and lower blood pressure. (Masters&Knestel,2011).Religiousness is a survival indicator for patients that undergo elective open-heart surgery. In addition,prayer seems to have a positive impact on hospitalized patients with coronary heart disease. (Masters & Knestel,2011; McCullough et al., 2000; Oxman, Freeman,&Manheimer, 1995).The comprehensive answer to the question Is religion good or bad for society? is yes—it is both—however the good is so much greater and the bad is so much less in weight, impact and overall amount, that the answer most reflective of a total reality must be that religion is an overall good.The practice of religion is good for individuals, families, states, and the nation. It improves health, learning, economic well-being, self-control, self-esteem, and empathy. It reduces the incidence of social pathologies, such as out-of-wedlock births, crime, delinquency, drug and alcohol addiction, health problems, anxieties, and prejudices.[40][40][40][40]Religion—on balance—is good for society.Footnotes[1] Strong Families, Sustainable Societies[1] Strong Families, Sustainable Societies[1] Strong Families, Sustainable Societies[1] Strong Families, Sustainable Societies[2] http://Jeff S. Levin and Harold Y. Vanderpool, "Is Frequent Religious Attendance Really Conducive to Better Health?: Towards an Epidemiology of religion," Social Science Medicine, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 589-600; David B. Larson, Kim A. Sherrill, John S. Lyons, Fred C. Craigie, S. B. Thielman, M. A. Greenwold, and Susan S. Larson, "Dimensions and Valences of Measures of Religious Commitment Found in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Archives of General Psychiatry: 1978 through 1989," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 149 (1978), pp. 557-559; Fred C. Craigie, Jr., David B. Larson, and Ingrid Y. Liu, "References to religion in The Journal of family Practice: Dimensions and Valence of Spirituality," The Journal of family Practice, Vol. 30 (1990), pp. 477-480.[2] http://Jeff S. Levin and Harold Y. Vanderpool, "Is Frequent Religious Attendance Really Conducive to Better Health?: Towards an Epidemiology of religion," Social Science Medicine, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 589-600; David B. Larson, Kim A. Sherrill, John S. Lyons, Fred C. Craigie, S. B. Thielman, M. A. Greenwold, and Susan S. Larson, "Dimensions and Valences of Measures of Religious Commitment Found in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Archives of General Psychiatry: 1978 through 1989," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 149 (1978), pp. 557-559; Fred C. Craigie, Jr., David B. Larson, and Ingrid Y. Liu, "References to religion in The Journal of family Practice: Dimensions and Valence of Spirituality," The Journal of family Practice, Vol. 30 (1990), pp. 477-480.[2] http://Jeff S. Levin and Harold Y. Vanderpool, "Is Frequent Religious Attendance Really Conducive to Better Health?: Towards an Epidemiology of religion," Social Science Medicine, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 589-600; David B. Larson, Kim A. Sherrill, John S. Lyons, Fred C. Craigie, S. B. Thielman, M. A. Greenwold, and Susan S. Larson, "Dimensions and Valences of Measures of Religious Commitment Found in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Archives of General Psychiatry: 1978 through 1989," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 149 (1978), pp. 557-559; Fred C. Craigie, Jr., David B. Larson, and Ingrid Y. Liu, "References to religion in The Journal of family Practice: Dimensions and Valence of Spirituality," The Journal of family Practice, Vol. 30 (1990), pp. 477-480.[2] http://Jeff S. Levin and Harold Y. Vanderpool, "Is Frequent Religious Attendance Really Conducive to Better Health?: Towards an Epidemiology of religion," Social Science Medicine, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 589-600; David B. Larson, Kim A. Sherrill, John S. Lyons, Fred C. Craigie, S. B. Thielman, M. A. Greenwold, and Susan S. Larson, "Dimensions and Valences of Measures of Religious Commitment Found in the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Archives of General Psychiatry: 1978 through 1989," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 149 (1978), pp. 557-559; Fred C. Craigie, Jr., David B. Larson, and Ingrid Y. Liu, "References to religion in The Journal of family Practice: Dimensions and Valence of Spirituality," The Journal of family Practice, Vol. 30 (1990), pp. 477-480.[3] Religion and mental health[3] Religion and mental health[3] Religion and mental health[3] Religion and mental health[4] http://Dean R. Hoge, "A Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale," Journal for Scientific Study of religion, Vol. 11 (1972), pp. 369-376.[4] http://Dean R. Hoge, "A Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale," Journal for Scientific Study of religion, Vol. 11 (1972), pp. 369-376.[4] http://Dean R. Hoge, "A Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale," Journal for Scientific Study of religion, Vol. 11 (1972), pp. 369-376.[4] http://Dean R. Hoge, "A Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale," Journal for Scientific Study of religion, Vol. 11 (1972), pp. 369-376.[5] The New Indices of Religious Orientation Revised (NIROR): A Study among Canadian Adolescents Attending a Baptist Youth Mission and Service Event[5] The New Indices of Religious Orientation Revised (NIROR): A Study among Canadian Adolescents Attending a Baptist Youth Mission and Service Event[5] The New Indices of Religious Orientation Revised (NIROR): A Study among Canadian Adolescents Attending a Baptist Youth Mission and Service Event[5] The New Indices of Religious Orientation Revised (NIROR): A Study among Canadian Adolescents Attending a Baptist Youth Mission and Service Event[6] http://Bergin, Masters, and Richards, "Religiousness and Mental Health Reconsidered: A Study of an Intrinsically Religious Sample."; Ann M. Downey, "Relationships of Religiosity to Death Anxiety of Middle-Aged Males," Psychological Reports, Vol. 54 (1984), pp. 811-822.[7] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[7] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[7] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[7] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[8] http://Larson, Larson, and Gartner, "Families, Relationships and Health."[9] http://Wesley Shrum, "religion and Marital Instability: Change in the 1970s?" Review of Religious Research, Vol. 21 (1980), pp. 135-147.[10] http://David B. Larson: "Religious Involvement," in family Building, ed. G. E. Rekers (Ventura, Cal.: Regal, 1985), pp. 121-147.[11] http://Patrick F. Fagan, "The Real Root Causes of crime: The Breakdown of marriage, family, and Community," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1026, March 17, 1995.[12] http://Patrick F. Fagan, "Rising Illegitimacy: America's Social Catastrophe," Heritage Foundation F.Y.I. No. 19, June 1994. Robert Rector, "Combating family Disintegration, crime, and Dependence: welfare Reform and Beyond," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 983, April 1994.[13] http://Robert Rector, "Combatting family Disintegration, crime, and Dependence: welfare Reform and Beyond," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1026, March 17, 1995.[14] http://See, for example, G. Burchinal, "Marital Satisfaction and Religious Behavior," American Sociological Review, Vol. 22 (January 1957), pp. 306-310.[15] http://Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little Brown 1995), Chapter 6.[16] http://Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little Brown 1995), Chapter 6.[17] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01926180600814684?src=recsys&journalCode=uaft20[18] http://Wesley Shrum, "religion and Marital Instability: Change in the 1970s?" Review of Religious Research, Vol. 21 (1980), pp. 135-147.[19] http://J. O. Billy, K. Tanfer, W. R. Grady, and D. H. Klepinger, "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 25 (1993), pp. 52-60.[20] http://Richard B. Freeman, "Who Escapes? The Relation of Church-Going and Other Background Factors to the Socio-Economic Performance of Black Male Youths from Inner-City poverty Tracts," Working Paper Series No. 1656, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.[21] http://Allen E. Bergin, "Values and Religious issues in Psychotherapy and Mental Health," The American Psychologist, Vol. 46 (1991), pp. 394-403, esp. p. 401.[22] http://Larson and Larson, "The Forgotten Factor in Physical and Mental Health," p. 76.[23] http://Naida M. Parson and James K. Mikawa, "Incarceration and Nonincarceration of African-American Men Raised in Black Christian Churches," The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 125 (1990), pp. 163-173.[24] http://Achaempong Yaw Amoateng and Stephen J. Bahr, "religion, family, and Adolescent Drug Use," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 29 (1986), pp. 53-73, and John K. Cochran, Leonard Beghley, and E. Wilbur Block, "Religiosity and Alcohol Behavior: An Exploration of Reference Group Therapy," Sociological Forum, Vol. 3 (1988), pp. 256-276.[25] http://Gartner, Larson, and Allen, "Religious Commitment and Mental Health: A Review of the Empirical Literature"; Steven R. Burkett and Mervin White, "Hellfire and Delinquency: Another Look," Journal for the Scientific Study of religion, Vol. 13 (1974), pp. 455-462; Deborah Hasin, Jean Endicott, and Collins Lewis, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Patients with Affective Syndromes," Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 26 (1985), pp. 283-295.[26] http://Orville S. Walters, "The Religious Background of Fifty Alcoholics," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 18 (1957), pp. 405-413.[27] http://Ron D. Hays, Alan W. Stacy, Keith F. Widaman, M. Robin DiMatteo, and Ralph Downey, "Multistage Path Models of Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Use: A Reanalysis," Journal of Drug issues, Vol. 16 (1986), pp. 357-369; Hasin, Endicott, and Lewis, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Patients with Affective Syndromes"; Steven R. Burkett, "religion, Parental Influence and Adolescent Alcohol and Marijuana Use," Journal of Drug issues, Vol. 7 (1977), pp. 263-273; Lorch and Hughes, "religion and Youth Substance Use"; and Edward M. Adalf and Reginald G. Smart, "Drug Use and Religious Affiliation, Feelings and Behavior," British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 80 (1985), pp. 163-171.[28] http://Lester, "Religiosity and Personal Violence: A Regional Analysis of Suicide and Homicide Rates."[29] http://Steven Stack, "The Effect of the Decline in Institutionalized religion on Suicide, 1954-1978," Journal for the Scientific Study of religion, Vol. 22 (1983), pp. 239-252.[30] http://Loyd S. Wright, Christopher J. Frost, and Stephen J. Wisecarver, "Church Attendance, Meaningfulness of religion on, and Depressive Symptomology Among Adolescents," Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 22, No. 5 (1993), pp. 559-568.[31] http://David O. Moberg, "The Development of Social Indicators of Spiritual Well-Being for Quality of Life Research," in Spiritual Well-Being: Sociological Perspectives, ed. David O. Moberg (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979).[32] http://Rodney Stark: "Psychopathology and Religious Commitment," Review of Religious Research, Vol. 12 (1971), pp. 165-176.[33] http:// R. W. Williams, D. B. Larson, R. E. Buckler, R. C. Heckman, and C. M. Pyle, "religion and Psychological Distress in a Community Sample," Social Science Medicine, Vol. 32 (1991), pp. 1257-1262.[34] http://R. W. Williams, D. B. Larson, R. E. Buckler, R. C. Heckman, and C. M. Pyle, "religion and Psychological Distress in a Community Sample," Social Science Medicine, Vol. 32 (1991), pp. 1257-1262.[35] http://Harsha N. Mookherjee, "Effects of Religiosity and Selected Variables on the Perception of Well-Being," The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 134, No. 3 (June 1994), pp. 403-405, reporting on a national sample General Social Survey of 1,481 adults aged 18-89.[36] http://David B. Larson and Susan S. Larson, "Does Religious Commitment Make a Clinical Difference in Health?" Second Opinion, Vol. 17 (July 1991), pp. 26-40.[37] http://David B. Larson, H. G. Koenig, B. H. Kaplan, R. S. Greenberg, E. Logue, and H. A. Tyroler, "The Impact of religion on Men's Blood Pressure," Journal of religion and Health, Vol. 28 (1989), pp. 265-278.[38] http://George W. Comstock and Kay B. Partridge, "Church Attendance and Health," Journal of Chronic Disease, Vol. 25 (1972), pp. 665-672; D. M. Zuckerman, S.V. Kasl, and A. M. Osterfield, "Psychosocial Predictors of Mortality Among the Elderly Poor," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 119 (1984), pp. 410-423; J. S. House, C. Robins, and H. L. Metzner, "The Association of Social Relationships and Activities with Mortality: Prospective Evidence from the Tecumseh Community Health Study," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 114 (1984), p. 129.[39] http://J. S. Levin and P. L. Schiller, "Is There a Religious Factor in Health?" Journal of religion and Health, Vol. 26 (1987), pp. 9-35.[40] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[40] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[40] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability[40] Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability

This post lists 22 scientific reasons as to why we should all be skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which claims human CO2-emissions are now dangerously heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, requiring urgent mitigating measures to counteract. It’s my opinion that anthropogenic global warming is minuscule at 0.0018°C per 1ppmv of CO2 and punitive green-taxes, carbon offset programs and disruptive geoengineering projects are all unnecessary and a waste of time and resources.1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect. The measured radiative forcing at the surface from CO2 from 2000-2010 was 0.2 W/m² from a 22ppmv increase (Feldman et al 2015) which works out at about 0.01 W/m² per 1ppmv. However, because of the logarithmic nature of CO2’s radiative forcing, regular 1ppmv increments of CO2 would produce ever-diminishing increments of radiative forcing and so 0.01 W/m² per 1ppmv would be a generous linear relationship to use as of 2018. According to the Keeling Curve, CO2 is increasing at the rate of around 2.5 ppmv/year. Therefore the annual radiative forcing from CO2 would be about 0.025 W/m² and that would be sufficient to raise the global temperature at the surface by about 0.0046°C under the S-B law*¹ (assuming none gets absorbed in the evaporation of seawater). Far from being catastrophic such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in the inaccuracies of the measurements.2) The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour. The planet’s average surface temperature is currently about 15°C while its blackbody temperature is -18°C and the temperature difference of about 33°C represents a large amount of radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse. In fact it amounts to about 153 W/m². The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is on average 1% (source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet) while the concentration of CO2 is 0.04%. Hence water vapour is about 25 times more abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere, and pound for pound, it also has a far greater potency than CO2 as well because it absorbs IR-energy over a much greater spectrum. CO2 comprises approximately 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse by volume and since it is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapour it follows logically that it cannot be contributing more than 6 W/m² (4%) to the greenhouse effect of 153 W/m² whereas water vapour should contribute upwards of 146 W/m² (96%).❝Water vapour is by far and away the most important greenhouse gas... even if all other greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98% of the current greenhouse effect❞ — Richard Lindzen3) The ¹³C/¹²C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere. The atmospheric life-time for CO2 has been confirmed empirically — by observations of the atmospheric ¹³C/¹²C ratio. Around 99% of atmospheric CO2 consists of the ¹²C isotope with the remaining 1% consisting of ¹³C. The ¹³C/¹²C ratio is commonly referred to as δ¹³C. δ¹³C is the difference between the ratio of ¹³C/¹²C in a substance compared to a standard of Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) minus one. The number is multiplied by one-thousand and expressed as “per mil” (parts per thousand). Anthropogenic CO2 has an approximate δ¹³C of around -29 (with values ranging between -20 to -44) and natural biogenic CO2 is similar with a δ¹³C of -26. The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ¹³C of around -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans. The CO2 in the atmosphere (2015 data) has a δ¹³C of about -8.3. So, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is around 6%*² (i.e. 6% of -29 and 94% of -7) with the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. 94%) being isotopically-indistinguishable*³ from natural sources.4) The demonstrable impotence of atmospheric CO2 as the driver of global warming is evidenced by the fact that from 1998 to 2012 the global temperature increased at the risible rate of 0.05°C per decade (source: IPCC AR5) despite the fact humans emitted a total of 30% of our cumulative emissions since 1850 (see graph here).5) CO2 behaves somewhat logarithmically and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the less warming each molecule should have. The logarithmic effect of CO2 is apparently due to the availability of photons of the required frequency that are absorbed. The vast majority of the warming from CO2 comes from the first 20ppmv and after that CO2 has essentially no effect (here). The insignificance of CO2 as a climate driver is corroborated by the fact that Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer measurements imply the warming from CO2 is only 0.01 W/m² per 1ppmv (see Feldman et al 2015). That gives a warming at the Earth’s surface of [288⁴+0.01/σ]¹/⁴-288 = 0.0018°C.*⁴6) The ice-core data is not representative of true paleo-climate CO2 levels. The ice-core is not a closed-system and there are various processes that happen as CO2 is inside the ice that causes the ice to underestimate ancient CO2. Some of these processes include gravitational compression, which forces CO2 out of the ice over millennia and the high solubility of CO2 relative to N2O and O2 which is absorbed preferentially by liquid in the ice, underestimating CO2’s true values (Jaworowski 1997). Direct measurements of the surface-snow in Antarctica has shown that the surface-snow can actually underestimate atmospheric CO2 by up to 50% (Jaworowski et al 1992). Therefore the ice-core is not a reliable representation of paleo-climate CO2 levels. There are chemical measurements suggesting CO2 was higher only a few hundred years ago, peaking at around 450ppmv (raw data as high as 480ppmv) as shown in the graph below, adapted from Georg Beck (2007) and Stomata-proxy shows CO2 peaking at just below 450ppmv (Steinthorsdottir et al 2013). There’s different extraction methods in the ice-core to consider too. The long-term wet-extraction method shows CO2 levels of over 900ppmv (see here).7) The rate of warming is not unusual. The IPCC might want to explain why the global mean surface temperature increased at almost precisely the same rate between 1860-1880, as it did between 1910-1940 and between 1975-1998 and 1975-2009 (see here). Human CO2-emissions increased by almost 3,500% from 1860-1880 to 1975-1998 and yet the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. The warming between the years 1860 to 1880 must have been natural because the logarithmic Arrhenius equation for calculating radiative forcing (RF) increases from CO2 increases only gives 0.028 W/m² of RF, or a total temperature increase of around 0.02°C — with the hypothesized positive fast feedbacks included — the data for anthropogenic CO2-emissions are from CDIAC and it can be seen here (note that the units are in ‘million metric tonnes’; to convert to CO2 multiply by 3.67 and then to convert to gigatonnes divide by 1,000). The time-periods and warming trends below are from the 2010 BBC interview with Phil Jones.8) Global warming is explainable by clouds. According to Ogurtsov et al (2012) changes in global cloudiness have increased the shortwave solar radiation reaching the surface. The increase in this shortwave forcing amounts to 3 W/m² to 7 W/m² (here) between 1983 to 2001 or 0.17 W/m² to 0.39 W/m² per year. These figures need to be divided by 2.5 to take into account the cooling effect due to a general decrease in clouds because clouds simultaneously cool and warm the Earth. For every 5 W/m² that clouds cool the Earth by they warm it by 3 W/m² (IPCC AR5). Thus the net-warming from the increase in shortwave solar radiative forcing (from a general decrease in cloud-cover) becomes 0.07 W/m² to 0.26 W/m² per year which corresponds to a warming of about 0.013°C to 0.048°C per year which corresponds to 0.13°C to 0.48°C per decade. The global surface temperature is assumed to be increasing at the rate of 0.15°C to 0.20°C per decade. So, changes in clouds could explain the warming. There’s not much room left for CO2. *⁵❝The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% to 2% decrease in global cloud cover❞ — Dr. Roy Spencer9) The mathematical properties of the growth curves for the human CO2-emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the anthropogenic one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise. Between 1990-2003 anthropogenic CO2-emissions were stable, as atmospheric CO2 accelerated away from human emissions, meaning some source other than human emissions must be driving the acceleration. That non-human source is presently unidentified — but we can tell that it must exist. Furthermore, from 2003-2010 anthropogenic CO2-emissions accelerated while the atmospheric CO2 growth-rate remained relatively flat. So, there is a definite mismatch between our emissions and the CO2 increase (Francey et al 2013). See my post on Quora here talking about a natural candidate for the CO2 increase.10) Anthropogenic CO2 should not take hundreds or thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere. In AR5, the IPCC say: “The removal of human emitted CO2 from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years”. The Gold Standard evidence for the removal of a pulse concentration of CO2 put in the atmosphere is the measured lifetime of ¹⁴CO2! ¹⁴CO2 was in equilibrium with sources and sinks before atmospheric nuclear-testing doubled the atmospheric concentration. After the 1963 test-ban treaty stopped nuclear-testing, the pulse concentration of anthropogenic ¹⁴CO2 was naturally removed from the atmosphere with a half-life of around 10-12 years (residence time 16 years) with today’s concentration (as of 2018) approaching natural equilibrium levels. Given a half-life of 10-12 years, equilibration for the pulse ¹⁴CO2 (by ~94%) with other carbon reservoirs would take around 4 half-lives (40-48 years) which is a far cry from the IPCC’s claim of “a few hundred thousand years”. The residence time of ¹⁴CO2 of 16 years has been measured longer than that for ¹²CO2 possibly due to differences in the kinetic absorption and dissolution rates of the two molecules (Segalstad 2009).11) The “97% consensus” figure that CAGW-advocates mindlessly, unremittingly parrot is misleading. One of the most cited papers purporting to demonstrate a 97% consensus on AGW was John Cook (2013). This paper referenced a total of 12,271 papers and these papers were split up into 7 categories. Category 1 included 65 papers that claimed humans were the “primary cause” of global warming. Category 2 included 934 papers that acknowledged AGW was a “known fact”. Category 3 included 2,933 papers that acknowledged “greenhouse gases cause warning”. Category 4 took no position and 5, 6, 7, either implicitly or explicitly rejected AGW. The 97% consensus was arrived at by taking the first 4 categories (which had around 12,000 papers) and counting them as “for” AGW. However, most skeptics would agree that AGW is a “known fact” and that “greenhouse gases cause warning and therefore skeptics could be included in the 97%. Category 1 was the only one which included papers that claimed that humans were the “primary cause” of global warming (I.e. over 50%) and that included only 65 papers. The 97% consensus that humans are the “primarycause” of global warming is really a 0.5% consensus (I.e. 65 papers of 12,271) because category 1 was the only category that explicitly endorsed the idea that humans were the “primary cause” of global warming.There’s a misconception that the IPCC’s reports are based on “overwhelming peer-reviewed science”. The “overwhelming mountain of peer-reviewed science” in the IPCC reports is about as real as the mythical mountain of Shangri-La. A citizen audit of the IPCC’s AR4 report found over 5,600 grey references, which included magazine articles, newspaper clippings and NGO pronouncements.12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. The graph here (from former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer) shows that the IPCC’s models have massively overestimated the tropospheric warming. The CAGW-models can be seen to be irrational and represent the Earth’s actual climate system so poorly they can only be described as misrepresentations of it. Quote from Dr. Roy Spencer: “We know that 95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own dataset (HADCRUT4) or our own satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)”.13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity.14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse. Below is a graph adapted from the NOAA showing hurricanes in the USA, dating back to 1850, and there’s been no appreciable increase in the frequency of hurricanes. There has been no increase in global hurricanes either (as shown here).15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth and more CO2 would enhance the growth-rate of photosynthetic organisms in general. According to Donohue et al 2013: “Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982 to 2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warmer arid environments”. Hence more CO2 in the atmosphere means that more plant-life will grow which means that larger populations could be sustained. That’s a good thing. Click here to see a table that shows the increase in productivity of plant-foods from a 300ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 (from Craig Idso 2013).16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m². However, there are various reconstructions that show a large increase in TSI since pre-industrial times. Quote from Egorova et al 2018: “There is no consensus on the amplitude of the historical solar forcing. The estimated magnitude of the total solar irradiance difference between the Maunder Minimum and present time ranges from 0.1 W/m² to 6 W/m² making uncertain the simulation of the past and future climate”. Quote from Scafetta et al 2018: “The solar radiative forcing is quite uncertain because from 1700 to 2000 the proposed historical TSI reconstructions vary greatly from a minimum of 0.5 W/m² to a maximum of about 6 W/m²”. One of the reconstructions below (from the book, Climate Change The Facts) shows an increase in TSI of about 4 W/m² since 1800 which works out at a forcing of 0.7 W/m² (since TSI is traditionally converted into solar forcing by dividing by 4 in order to take into account the spherical geometry of Earth and multiplying by an albedo of about 0.7). That is 14 times greater than what the IPCC attribute to solar forcing since pre-industrial times.17) It’s often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented, thus implying that human activity must be responsible. This is another misconception. The global sea level has been rising long before human CO2-emissions became a significant factor — post-1950 (see graph below). The sea level rise pre-1950 must have been naturally-caused because human CO2-emissions were pretty negligible (as shown here). Whatever natural factors caused the sea level to rise between 1880 to 1950 could have still been at play post-1950. About 50% of human CO2-emissions have occurred after 1990. The graph below shows that the sea level has not accelerated as human CO2-emissions increased and the modern sea level rise is well-within long-term natural variation. So, how do we know that what is happening with the sea level rise is not just Mother Nature rolling on with natural cycles as she has done for eons?18) Compelling evidence the IPCC’s models misrepresent the Earth’s climate is shown in the graph below. The IPCC’s climate models predict that as atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase then the outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) will decrease as more radiation is trapped and re-radiated back towards the surface. The graph below (from Lindzen et al 2009) is a compelling refutation of the CAGW-hypothesis and shows that OLR has not increased as the models have predicted. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively. The vertical axis in the graph below is OLR and the horizontal axis is sea-surface temperature. The red line is from the ERBE satellites and the green line are the IPCC’s model predictions. The ERBE satellite shows the opposite to what the models have predicted, that is, that more radiation is being re-radiated out to space as the temperature rises and is not being trapped as the models predict.❝The climate models are violently at odds with reality❞ — David Evans19) Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%). This claim is dubious and due to Venus’ high albedo, there is insufficient solar energy that the planet absorbs to drive a powerful greenhouse effect. Venus is estimated to have a solar irradiance of 2600 W/m² and its bond albedo is usually cited to be between 0.75 to 0.80 (Colin 1983) but other observations and sources indicate a higher bond albedo of 0.90 (see Mallama et al 2006 and Tian et al 2013). We can use the equation here to calculate the effective blackbody temperature of Venus, assuming a solar irradiance (Iₒ) of 2600 W/m² and a bond albedo (ᴬB) of 0.90. Plugging those values into the equation, we get 65 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation which would only be enough to raise the surface temperature of Venus to 184K. However, we find that the surface temperature of Venus is actually 740K, requiring a radiative-enhancement by the atmospheric CO2-greenhouse of ~16,000 W/m² (by the S-B law*¹). Yet Venus absorbs 65 W/m² of solar radiation (or 160 W/m² assuming an albedo of 0.75). Something else on Venus must be causing its high temperature, such as adiabatic compression.20) The threat from methane has been overblown. The graph here adapted from Barret (2005) show the absorption characteristics of the main atmospheric greenhouse gases. Water vapour is the top, methane is second, and CO2 is third. T0 means all radiation is absorbed and T1 means nothing is absorbed. Strong absorbance from methane occurs at wavenumbers around 1300 cm⁻¹. CO2 absorbs radiation strongly at around 670 cm⁻¹ and 2350 cm⁻¹, while water vapour absorbs strongly over much of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can see from the graph below that methane is rather weak at absorbing radiation when compared to water vapour. Methane exists as a tenuous trace gas, and comprises about 1.9ppmv of the atmosphere (as of 2018) whereas water vapour makes up about 10,000ppmv (NASA Earth Fact Sheet) making water vapour 5,000 times more abundant than methane while being more efficient at absorbing radiation. Methane is a trivial greenhouse gas and its effects are completely overwhelmed by water vapour. The current methane concentration of 1.9ppmv corresponds to around 5 gigatonnes (Gts); about 0.38ppmv per 1 Gt. Assuming the permafrost melted and it added an extra 5 Gts to the atmosphere by 2100 (IPCC AR5: Biogeochemical Cycles, page 530 to 531) then that would only increase the concentration of methane by 1.9ppmv, which is still 5,000 times less abundant than the concentration of water vapour. Methane only makes up 1 molecule in every 500,000 molecules spread evenly throughout the atmosphere.The IPCC’s formula below can be used to determine how much radiative forcing a given increase in CH4 would have. Where ΔF stands for the ‘increment of radiative forcing’ in W/m2; M is the new CH4 concentration in ppbv after the increment is added, and M₀ is the old CH4 concentration before the increment was added.Accepting that the current CH4 concentration is around 1900ppbv (as of 2018) and that the IPCC claim another 1900ppbv will be added to the atmosphere by 2100 due to the melting permafrost (total of 3800ppbv) then that would give us a radiative forcing from the released CH4 of 0.036(√3800−√1900) = 0.65 W/m² which would only be enough to raise the surface temperature by 0.12°C. And that is on the basis of their own figures! It makes you wonder how people can justify ‘the sky is falling’ hysteria about CH4.It’s claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term ‘acidify’ is a misnomer, because the current average ocean pH is assumed to be between 7.9 to 8.0 (depending on the source) below an assumed pre-industrial level of 8.2 and that is very much alkaline. Secondly, while humans are assumed to have contributed to the change in ocean pH, it can change naturally, and has done so in the past, due to things such as temperature, eutrophication and biological activity. The graph here (from Pelejero et al 2005) is based on paleo-climate reconstructions and it shows the rate of change of pH going back 300 years and we can see that pH changed naturally and rapidly long before humans started emitting CO2. The graph in the link above shows that between 1710 to 1750 and 1815 to 1845 ocean pH decreased by about 0.05 units per decade while the modern decrease in pH as measured at Hawaii is around 0.033 units per decade. Hence the rate of modern decrease in pH is not unusual and is within natural variation.22) Here is a video from PragerU explaining various alarmist AGW misconceptions, with one of them being that global droughts are not increasing, according to a Nature study (Hao et al 2014). See graph here.*¹ The Stefan-Boltzmann law*² Assuming a pre-industrial δ13C value of -6.5 instead of -7, we get a total amount of 8% of human CO2 in the atmosphere instead of 6%*³ If there were more than one source for the CO2 increase then the human component could be more or less than 6% due to the anthropogenic signature being mixed up with negative and positive δ¹³C values of CO2 emissions from other sources. A decrease in δ¹³C is not a unique signature of anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2 depleted in 13C like biogenic CO2 or bacteriogenic methane (which oxidizes into CO2) would decrease δ¹³C and there is evidence that this has occurred naturally in the past*⁴ This tiny warming by CO2 is corroborated by Stallinga (2020) who calculates climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations of 0.0014°C per 1ppmv*⁵ This idea that clouds could be responsible for global warming has been further corroborated by Delgado-Bonal et al (2020) who, using NASA data, has estimated that there has been an increase in shortwave solar radiation of 3.5 W/m² between 1984 to 2014 which was mainly determined by cloud-modulation (see image here)