Fractions Print Activity Alberta Education: Fill & Download for Free

Flashback to the 1980’s … Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)Note: For an updated and more complete answer please go here Allen E Hall's answer to Who would win in a war between Russia and the US?A lot has changed…..In 2016 a nuclear winter isn't possible even in an all out nuclear war. This is because both the quantities and yield of the world's nuclear arsenals has dropped precipitously from the all time high in 1986. The arsenals today are only 20% the size they were in 1986 and the total megatons available is less than 10% of the peak.Surprisingly quietly, the USA and Russia have dismantled over 50,000 nuclear weapons over the past 30 years. The nuclear materials from these bombs and other stockpiles of weapons grade materials, was recycled and used in nuclear power generation over the past 20 years. A fact that few may be aware of, the situation actually crashed the uranium market in the early 2000’s. The glut of available fuel brought the open market trading value down from $20 dollars a pound to near $2 per pound at that time. So a lot has changed from the time when many of us can remember the very real threat of mutually assured destruction.Multi Megaton Weapons Now ObsoleteWhat has changed that the world no longer is building megaton weapons? The need for multi-megaton weapons was the result of low accuracy of warhead deliver on target…. we needed a sledgehammer approach to take out hardened targets and the way that was done was through very high yield bombs >=5 mt typically. The average nuclear weapon size today in 2016 is about 443kt at full yield but a large portion of those bombs can be adjusted in the field to a very small fraction of their potential yield.Today the accuracy of on target delivery has massively improved ..we hit what we aim for. This means we need less hammer to do the same job. In the 1980’s the development of earth penetrating rounds was another game changer. Not only were we on target but now we could penetrate hundreds of feet of earth and concrete before detonating the warhead. This allowed a 100 kt weapon to do the damage of a >1 mt surface detonation. This is the primary method now for targeting hardened targets and is the final driver for smaller yield bombs.The net effect of the use of EPW’s (Earth Penetrating Weapons) is a reduction in the number of casualties as compared with the number of casualties from a surface burst. This is primarily due to a 96% reduction in the weapon yield needed using an EPW. The greater coupling of the released energy to the ground shock for a buried detonation is the same as a surface burst with 25 times the explosive energy. For rural targets, the use of a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon is estimated to reduce casualties by a factor of 10 to 100 relative to a nuclear surface burst of equivalent probability of damage.. [1]The average warhead size in the USA arsenal is 330 kt. The Russian average is higher, but not enough to change this outcome. To cause a nuclear winter the debris clouds and smoke have to be elevated above the troposphere into the high stratosphere. Any debris or smoke that is released into the troposphere (below 70,000 feet) quickly rains out in the weather within a few days to a week or so max. Nuclear weapons yields do not affect the environment on a linear scale , that is to say that a 1 megaton bomb, even though it is 10 x more energy than 100 kt bomb, doesn't mean it produces 10 x more destruction. Thermal radiation decays as the inverse square while blast decays as the inverse cube of distance from the detonation point. Much of that extra heat and energy goes straight up and drops off quickly as distance is increased from the point of detonation. With smaller yields the energy isn't enough to breach the stratosphere, and for bombs that size the earth has its own protection mechanism for particles released in the troposphere called the weather, and it is extremely efficient.The only way to get particles to stay aloft longer is to blast them considerably higher than 70,000 feet. **The reason this won’t happen today is that the world has eliminated megaton-size bombs almost completely, and shortly it will be complete as the last ones are dismantled. Russia and the US both have eliminated megaton size weapons from the high-alert strategic forces (ICBM’s & SLBM’s).To get anything above 70,000 feet you need yields substantially above 1 megaton. The bombs deployed today will throw debris up 50,000 - 60,000 feet into the atmosphere and all of that will rain back down to the earth in hours and days later near the point of detonation.(** B-83 variable yield ≈ 20 kt - 1.2 mt slated for retirement in 2025. This is a gravity bomb and is also being considered as a reserve against an asteroid impact. Marshall Space Flight Center have developed designs for an array of asteroid interceptors wielding 1.2-megaton B83 nuclear warheads. 650 units in reserve but not alert status)As we have all heard in the past that there were enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone several times over, let me put that myth to rest. Hypothetical scenario for maximum damage: Starting in an arbitrary corner of the USA (or if you prefer … Canada) take the entire world's inventory of nuclear weapons (10,000 active and stockpiled) and place each one in its own circle covering 100 square miles. Using a world average yield size of 500 kt, this sets up the scenario for maximum destruction. If all the warheads are then elevated to 6000 feet, the height for maximum destruction and fatalities, and then detonated. Each bomb would make a 10 km radius of destruction from its center with 3rd & 2nd degree burns on the outskirts of this radius. The fallout would be minimal with only air bursts, most dangers would be gone within hours or days after the blasts. Using every bomb in existence today as laid out in this hypothetical scenario, the area of assured destruction would only amount to 1/3 of the USA’s total land mass. If it was Canada, many might not even notice. That’s it. On a global scale that isn’t hardly a scratch at 1/42 of the world's total land mass.Firestorms and other bad science that led to the wrong conclusions.A lot of new knowledge on pyrocumulonimbus cloud formation and soot into the lower stratosphere is still being interpreted. Until the early 2000’s it was thought the boundary layer between the troposphere and stratosphere presented a greater barrier for smoke, however, smoke columns rising into the lower stratosphere have been observed. This indicates that there is a long term lasting effect, but to what extent is still unanswered.A 2010 study by the American Meteorological Society is the first modern attempt to quantify these effects. In their report, they tracked the effects of 17 stratospheric smoke plumes in 2002. What they found is that the average time that the smoke plumes’ presence in the stratosphere was detectable, was only about 2 months. The report indicates that particles of carbon soot start to clump together at some point after interacting with sunlight and then drop out of the stratosphere quickly.[2] This happens in weeks not in years, a major contradiction to the premise of nuclear winter theories. What isn't known is there a tipping point of equilibrium that would keep the soot aloft if there was enough of it. So like many things, there is a certain element of the unknown in this.What is known is that the TTAPS study, made famous by Carl Sagan and his team, used exaggerated volumes of soot and smoke in their model. Their assumptions for a nuclear winter were significantly off in their calculations. Key government studies since then have shown that the available combustible materials used in the models in TTAPS were significantly overstated and this has flawed all the studies since that have used the TTAPS study as the basis of their work.The nuclear winter theory relies heavily on the worst case scenario of many of the events that would unfold during a nuclear exchange and as such exaggerates the effect dramatically. [3] A contemporary example of prediction not accurately modeling reality is the forecast effects of the Iraqis setting 600 oil rigs ablaze in 1991.Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats of igniting the country's 800 or so oil wells were made, speculation on the cumulative climatic effect of this, presented at the World Climate Conference in Geneva that November in 1990, ranged from a nuclear winter type scenario, to heavy acid rain and even short term immediate global warming.As threatened, the wells were set ablaze by the retreating Iraqis in March of 1991 and the 600 or so successfully set Kuwaiti oil wells were not fully extinguished until November 6, 1991, eight months after the end of the war During this time they consumed an estimated six million barrels of oil daily at their peak intensity.In articles printed in the Wilmington morning star and the Baltimore Sun newspapers of January 1991, prominent authors of nuclear winter papers — Richard P. Turco, John W. Birks, Carl Sagan, Alan Robock and Paul Crutzen —together collectively stated that they expected catastrophic nuclear winter like effects with continental-sized effects of "sub-freezing" temperatures as a result of the Iraqis going through with their threats of igniting 300 to 500 pressurized oil wells that could subsequently burn for several months.[4]Carl Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that his predictions obviously did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6 °C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared.”The problems with the models that started the nuclear winter debate, the models used by Sagan and other teams of scientists at that time, is obvious when you look at the detail. The analysis was done at extremely low resolution and with no feedback loops. It was a 2D model, not a 3D model, so the volume and altitude of particles, heat flux, and fuel "mass loading" (the amount of fuel per square meter) were never actually calculated. The numbers were made uniform and plugged in as a single result for the entire world. So the heat flux, fuel “mass loading”, soot, smoke and debris was uniform no mater if the city was Fargo North Dakota or Los Angeles. It was inherently wrong and fatally flawed. [5][6]The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the National Science Foundation, Peter Hobbs, stated that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers (used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis)... were probably a little overblown.”[7]In a paper by the United States Department of Homeland Security finalized in 2010, fire experts stated that due to the nature of modern city design and construction, with the US serving as an example, a firestorm is unlikely after a nuclear detonation in a modern city. This is not to say that fires won't occur over a large area after a detonation, but that the fires would not coalesce and form the all-important stratosphere punching firestorm plume that the nuclear winter papers require as a prerequisite assumption in their climate computer models. Additional recent studies on smoke columns indicate that nearly every possible fire scenario results in little to no stratospheric injection of smoke..[8]The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki for example, did not produce a firestorm. This was similarly noted as early as 1986-88, when the assumed quantity of fuel "mass loading" in cities underpinning the winter models was found to be too high and intentionally creates heat fluxes that loft smoke into the lower stratosphere, yet assessments "more characteristic of conditions" to be found in real-world modern cities, had found that the fuel loading, and hence the heat flux that results from burning, would rarely loft smoke much higher than 4 km.[9]The scenarios contributing to a firestorm are also dependent on the size of bombs being used. Only bombs in the 1-megaton range and higher would ignite a sufficiently large area for firestorms to coalesce crossing over from sparsely located high fuel-load areas into these lower fuel-loaded areas in a mixed city model, such as Nashville.[10] [11]Russell Seitz, Associate of the Harvard University Center for International Affairs, argues that the winter model's assumptions give results which the researchers want to achieve and is a case of "worst-case analysis run amok". Seitz criticized the theory for being based on successive worst-case events.[12]Notes from “Disaster Preparedness, An International Perspective”: “If the amount of smoke assumed in the “nuclear winter” report (Science, v222, 1983, pp1283-92) were decreased by a factor of 2.5, the climatic effect would probably be trivial. In considering the actual terrain that surrounds most likely targets, the probable type of explosions (ground bursts against hardened military facilities), the overlapping of targets, and conditions that could reduce the incendiary potential of the thermal pulse, critics of the report believe that the quantity of smoke from non-urban fires has probably been overestimated by at least a factor of ten (Cresson Kearny, Fire Emissions and Some of Their Uncertainties, Presented at the Fourth International Seminar on Nuclear War, Erice, Sicily, August 19-24, 1984). Rathjens and Siegel (Issues in Science and Technology, v1, 1985, pp123-8) believe there would likely be four times less smoke and eight times less soot from cities than estimated in the National Research Council study.”[13]Putting the fires of a nuclear war in another perspective. Every year on earth, wildfires consume 350,000,000 - 450,000,000 hectares of forests, grasslands and structures and results in an average of 339,000 deaths worldwide. [14] This is equal to 1,700,000 square miles burned every year worldwide, nearly half the size of the entire Unites States. Earlier in this document, I laid out a hypothetical scenario where every nuclear bomb in existence, excluding ones listed as retired, are spread out equally at a density of 1 bomb every 100 square miles (10,000 bombs x 100 square miles = 1,000,000 square miles). Under that scenario, the bomb coverage only extends over 1/3 of the land mass of the USA (the USA is 3,800,000 square miles). The world burns more already every year without sending the climate into a nuclear winter. This also is equal to half the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels annually.[15] Wild fires release massive amounts of energy on a scale equivalent to nuclear weapons. The Chisholm Fire, a man-caused forest fire in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2001 released the equivalent energy of 1200 Hiroshima atomic detonations.[16] The firestorm after the bombing of Hiroshima released 200 times the energy of the atomic bomb itself.Taking all that into consideration and taking the available megatonnage in today's arsenals and and adjusting the implied atmospheric load of carbon black soot you might end up with 5 teragrams aloft in the lower stratosphere resulting in a 2–3 °C drop for several months to, worst case, several years. Not quite a nuclear winter, barely a nuclear fall… and even that is debatable since evidence suggests a much shorter time of smoke suspension in the stratosphere and that the premise on uncontrolled fire storms is unfounded based upon actual observations of the bombs dropped in 1945. While Hiroshima did experience a firestorm Nagasaki did not. Nagasaki was a city with much more combustible material than most modern day cities. The great flaw with the original nuclear winter models is that it assumed the same high loading of fuel for all cities and that firestorms would occur at all those locations. A firestorm isn’t assured and is considered unlikely in modern cities, and thus the theory is flawed from top to bottom.An interesting note about several major recent reports to the contrary of my conclusion, and even ones going back 10 years. None of these reports question the fuel loading and levels of atmospheric smoke generated. They all seem to use the original basis as put forth by Carl Sagan’s team, even though Sagan himself admitted his model did not work. The footnote here will take you to an example of the poor quality models still being pushed as real science. A Rutgers 2010 report that references the work by Sagan offers no explanation for the mechanism of smoke and soot transport into the stratosphere. Quality work is not guaranteed just because the sources are listed as a professionals in this field. Healthy skepticism is your friend, use it.[17]So nuclear winter was always a stretch because the science was unfounded and we never had enough high-yield bombs in reality to cause it ever, but for sure in 2016 because we don’t have any in the high-yield range required within the active arsenals of the nuclear nations at all (other than a small quantity of bombs held by China, around 50 and not enough to change these outcomes).Final ThoughtsI have always been intrigued by the specter of nuclear weapons and the power of the atom. I have a not insignificant set of reference books I have collected over the years. The ones from the late 1940’s and early 1950’s are quite amusing; we did not know what we were really dealing with back then.We have come a long way since the era of Dr. Strangelove.I have come full circle in my understanding and no longer buy into the popular myths because the clear science is there that tells you otherwise. However, having this knowledge may not be a blessing. Knowing that nuclear weapons are not the end of mankind in 2016 isn’t necessarily a great truth to latch onto. The pain and suffering that would transpire from the use of these weapons should always remain a strong deterrent from their use.Making the unthinkable thinkable, was there some sanity in the insanity of MAD?In dismissing the notions of nuclear winter and MAD (mutually assured destruction), could we be making the use of these weapons more palatable as a tool of political and ideological foreign policy enforcement? A quick fix to the next ISIS where collateral damage is deemed acceptable? Is that something we can manage as a civilization? Are our values within society as a whole, strong enough to kill any temptation in the future if using these weapons seems like a quick fix for an immediate problem? Is a limited exchange something to be seriously considered? Or are we better off letting our imagination embrace a nightmare, a dark vision of reality, a nuclear winter, with complete conviction without regard to the truth?Note: I make no claim that I am right… I only offer an analysis with considerations for details and data overlooked by others … sometimes intentionally. Please do your own due diligence and make an educated determination for yourself.Additional Notes and Recommended Follow-on ReadingObama committed to a major nuclear triad upgrade in order to get the Senate support of the New Start Treaty in 2010. This article does a good job questioning the reasons why we are planning to spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons systems upgrades over the next couple of decades. It is a worthwhile read, and the access is free with registration. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2016-08-01/rethinking-nuclear-policyAlso: Allen E Hall's answer to Are we in less danger or more danger today from a 1st strike?A Nuclear Conflict with Russia is Likelier Than You Thinkand with unplanned yet uncanny timing …on 60 minutes tonight 9/25/2016 Risk of nuclear attack risesA well thought out and compelling Harvard report “The end of MAD” argues that America’s technological edge and the reduced nuclear arsenals are actually compelling the USA towards a first strikeThis article makes three empirical claims. First, the strategic nuclear balance has shifted dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy. Second, the shift in the balance of power has two primary sources: the decline of the Russian nuclear arsenal and the steady growth in U.S. nuclear capabilities. Third, the trajectory of nuclear developments suggests that the nuclear balance will shift further in favor of the United States in the coming years. Russia and China will face tremendous incentives to reestablish mutual assured destruction, but doing so will require substantial sums of money and years of sustained effort. If these states want to reestablish a robust strategic deterrent, they will have to overcome current U.S. capabilities, planned improvements to the U.S. arsenal, and future developments being considered by the United States. U.S. nuclear primacy may last a decade or more[18]If this becomes a trend, the nuclear winter bit might need another take: Architects design 'world's tallest' wooden skyscraperFootnotes[1] The National Academies Press[2] http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3004.1[3] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02786828908959219[4] Doomsday Scenarios[5] http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Articles/Turco_Nuclear_Winter_83.pdf[6] http://www.junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Nuclear-winter_MetAtmPhys1988.pdf[7] It Happened Here[8] https://www.remm.nlm.gov/PlanningGuidanceNuclearDetonation.pdf[9] http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/S.Utyuzhnikov/Papers/AMM_SU.pdf[10] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a240444.pdf[11] Nuclear Disasters & The Built Environment[12] In from the cold: 'nuclear winter' melts down[13] http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/PDF/5.pdf[14] Wildfires kill 339,000 people per year: study[15] Global Wildfires, Carbon Emissions and the Changing Climate - Future Directions International[16] http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5247/2006/acp-6-5247-2006.pdf[17] http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/WiresClimateChangeNW.pdf[18] http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

NATURAL SOURCES DWARF HUMANS.If CO2 is a weather dragon (which is unfounded science) human fossil fuels are innocent of being any force in such a doubtful weapon because they are dwarfed by natural sources. This means the Paris Accord is a fraud in its attack on human caused global warming.Media bias ignores reality about sources of carbon dioxide because the facts are inconvenient to their demonizing fossil-fuels. The fact is most emissions of CO2 are from natural sources at 97%, largely from outgassing of the oceans.Scientific studies show‘CO2 Has Risen By 110 ppm Since 1750The Human Contribution Is Just 17 ppm’Because the numbers are measured in parts per million any increase will only be minute. Sadly many think wrongly that human activity is significant as much as 80% when the reality is less than 7%.NATURAL SOURCES ARE SO LARGE HUMAN EMISSIONS ARE NEAR ZERO.The “scientists” who attempt to strike fear in your heart regarding man-made carbon dioxide intentionally withhold from you the tremendous amounts sent skyward by the 1500 active volcanoes; the hundreds of coal-seam fires; the trillions of tons of organic matter that decompose; the rotting of billions of animal and fish corpses and other natural sources. These yearly “producers” of trillions of the stuff make human-”contribution” insignificant.Kathleen BlakeThis reality is inconvenient to the liberal campaign to blame humans for climate change because of their CO2 emissions. Too minuet to be a factor.The infamous and fraudulent Paris Accord demands countries reduce their human emission to net zero by imposing carbon taxes, etc. Yet the recent lockdown from the Covid 19 pandemic is evidence that human emissions are too small to matter.CO2 rises in 2020 just as though there was no big slump in human industry from the Covid lockdown. Why? Human emissions are too small to matter.May 2020 Mauna Loa data shows CO2 levels are increasing over last year. Why? Because human emissions are not a significant source of CO2 when compared with natural and variable emissions from volcanos, wildfires, termites and coal seams.Dr Timothy Ball thinks human CO2 emissions are misrepresented by as much as 4 X too high in order to keep up the fear of AGW by alarmists about fossil fuels.There are so many natural sources of CO2 ignored by alarmists that dwarf our human emissions. Recent research on wildfires shows major emissions that dwarf all other.The percentage of man-made Co2 is far from permanent unlike Nitrogen at 78% and Oxygen at 21% and Argon at 0.8%.The percentage of all CO2 natural and man-made is only 412 ppm not even 0.1% Think about how such a tiny trace gas unevenly distributed could matter to the climate? IT CANNOT.The percentage of man-made Co2 in the atmosphere will vary so it is less than 4% of 0.039% = 0.00156% or near zero.As for volcanoes, relatively recent (2018), but intentionally ignored, evidence has emerged that volcanic contribution to atmospheric CO2 has been enormously under-estimated, as illustrated in the following article:Discovery of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper on Global Warming Theory -James E. Kamis on November 6, 2018“Recent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory.”Volcanic gas emissions breakthrough overlying fractured and partially melted glacial ice sheet. (Image credits: Christina Neal, AVO/USGS)“The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere. “There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.“Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based upon supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991) Present‐day CO2 emissions from volcanos“Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers). Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.“To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.“Recent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory.” Discovery of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper on Global Warming Theory — Plate climatology and Discovery of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Rebuts human caused Global Warming Theory...geological heat flow is possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans.Sadly this question confirms the general innumeracy about carbon dioxide as a trace gas measured in parts per million ppm - very minute. Human contribution is grossly exaggerated as example of our general failure to understand big numbers like millions.“Why do even well-educated people understand so little about mathematics? And what are the costs of our innumeracy? John Allen Paulos, in his celebrated bestseller first published in 1988, argues that our inability to deal rationally with very large numbers and the probabilities associated with them results in misinformed governmental policies, confused personal decisions, and an increased susceptibility to pseudoscience of all kinds.”Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences by John Allen PaulosI submit much of the greenhouse delusion comes from innumeracy.Most people have no idea how little the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere really is. Even if one adjusts the values given in the figures 2 and 3 upward to 400 ppm=0.04 percent amounting the 2500th part of air, it seems unlikely that this would be responsible for the warming up of the whole atmosphere. In spite of this, the carbon-dioxide is always washed out by rain which impedes an unlimited accumulation….Preliminary ObjectionsIt needs no professional knowledge to realize that some assumptions of the greenhouse theory are questionable. And it needs not much professional knowledge to find some further snags which query this theory fundamentally. Hence it seems useful to allege these arguments in the first place.Any artificial greenhouse needs a solid transparent roof, which is absent in the case of the atmosphere. Rather, the atmosphere represents an open system in which complicated physical processes occur. But even in a greenhouse the texture of the bottom acts an important part. Moreover, the scale of a greenhouse is much smaller than the scale of the atmosphere which implicates different regularities.The fact that the atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration has increased while the average global temperature has increased, too, does not reveal a causal relationship but solely an analogous one. The two phenomena just occurred simultaneously. Likewise, the urbanisation and the industrialisation of the world have considerably increased, as a result of the global population increase, being related to an increase of the buildings and further superficial changes, in particular of the brightness.Thomas AllmendingerGlattbrugg/Zürich, SwitzerlandThe Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful AlternativeWhen you use a long term time scale essential for climate research you see the increase in CO2 to 414 from 180 is minuscule. Today we are truly CO2 starved. We need more not less.It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph. The yellow molecule is Co2 at 1 in 2500 or 4% of the atmosphere. Human emissions are disputed but only a small percentage natural at > than 3%.Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere. It is an integral part of the carbon cycle, a biogeochemical cycle in which carbon is exchanged between the Earth's oceans, soil, rocks and the biosphere. Plants and other photoautotrophs use solar energy to produce carbohydrate from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water by photosynthesis. Almost all other organisms depend on carbohydrate derived from photosynthesis as their primary source of energy and carbon compounds.Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million by mass (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations peaked at ~2000 ppm during the Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago) period. Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century to 415 ppm as of May 2019. W.The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago).When you contemplate the nature and variety of the major natural emissions of CO2 that includes volcanoes, wildfires, organic decomposition, oceans and soil you must be perplexed about the numeracy possible with these unpredictable sources. I live in BC and we have wild fires some hears they are terrible other years not so bad. After a bad year research about CO2 showed the wild fires emitted more than all the other sources including humans yet the alarmists do not measure the fires rather they use a modest fixed number to cover CO2 emissions for all the wild fires in the world annually. This number cannot be correct. Likewise there is gross innumeracy about the numbers used for volcanoes. How can we possible know with any precision the emissions for decomposition of organic matter or termites?Now researchers report in the NY Times says that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world's smokestacks.TERMITE GAS EXCEEDS SMOKESTACK POLLUTION (Published 1982)Lets do some sums on the facts about CO2…Composition of Earth's atmosphere by volume, excluding water vapor. Lower pie represents trace gases that together compose about 0.043391% of the atmosphere (0.04402961% at April 2019 concentration . Numbers are mainly from 2000, with CO2 and methane from 2019, and do not represent any single source.Keith WhiteThere is nothing to worry about with CO2 - and CO2 is NOT the “great poison” that Climate Alarmists are making it out to be.Lets do some sums on the undeniable facts about CO2…CO2 takes up around 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm is about 0.04% No argument there.There are about 750 gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year – the majority of it from natural sources. No argument there.Now there are several figures for human created CO2 - depending on who you ask and believe – but it is reasonable to state that it is somewhere between 6 gigatons and 40 gigatons - but either way it remains insignificant, as I will demonstrate:So get your calculators out team…Now I am prepared to give the CAGW Alarmists a fair go here - and if it is 40 gigatons that is anthropologically caused, then that means that 5.33% of all CO2 emitted comes from human causes – 5.33% of 0.04% is still only 0.0021% of the atmosphere is CO2 that comes from human causes…It is simple math and no matter how you slice and dice it - it remains infinitesimal!Blockbuster Paper Finds Just 15% Of CO2 Growth Since Industrialization Is Due To Human EmissionsBy Kenneth Richard on25. February 2017CO2 Has Risen By 110 ppm Since 1750The Human Contribution Is Just 17 ppmHarde, 2017Abstract:Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.Conclusion:Climate scientists assume that a disturbed carbon cycle, which has come out of balance by the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change, is responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years. While over the whole Holocene up to the entrance of the Industrial Era (1750) natural emissions by heterotrophic processes and fire were supposed to be in equilibrium with the uptake by photosynthesis and the net oceanatmosphere gas exchange, with the onset of the Industrial Era the IPCC estimates that about 15 – 40 % of the additional emissions cannot further be absorbed by the natural sinks and are accumulating in the atmosphere.The IPCC further argues that CO2 emitted until 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years, and in the same context it is even mentioned that the removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence) (see AR5-Chap.6-Executive-Summary).Since the rising CO2 concentrations go along with an increasing greenhouse effect and, thus, a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is a necessary prerequisite for all future climate change predictions. In their accounting schemes and models of the carbon cycle the IPCC uses many new and detailed data which are primarily focussing on fossil fuel emission, cement fabrication or net land use change (see AR5-WG1-Chap.6.3.2), but it largely neglects any changes of the natural emissions, which contribute to more than 95 % to the total emissions and by far cannot be assumed to be constant over longer periods (see, e.g.: variations over the last 800,000 years (Jouzel et al., 2007); the last glacial termination (Monnin et al., 2001); or the younger Holocene (Monnin et al., 2004; Wagner et al., 2004)).Since our own estimates of the average CO2 residence time in the atmosphere differ by several orders of magnitude from the announced IPCC values, and on the other hand actual investigations of Humlum et al. (2013) or Salby (2013, 2016) show a strong relation between the natural CO2 emission rate and the surface temperature, this was motivation enough to scrutinize the IPCC accounting scheme in more detail and to contrast this to our own calculations.Different to the IPCC we start with a rate equation for the emission and absorption processes, where the uptake is not assumed to be saturated but scales proportional with the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see also Essenhigh, 2009; Salby, 2016). This is justified by the observation of an exponential decay of 14C. A fractional saturation, as assumed by the IPCC, can directly be expressed by a larger residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and makes a distinction between a turnover time and adjustment time needless. Based on this approach and as solution of the rate equation we derive a concentration at steady state, which is only determined by the product of the total emission rate and the residence time. Under present conditions the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average residence time we only find 4 years.The stronger increase of the concentration over the Industrial Era up to present times can be explained by introducing a temperature dependent natural emission rate as well as a temperature affected residence time. With this approach not only the exponential increase with the onset of the Industrial Era but also the concentrations at glacial and cooler interglacial times can well be reproduced in full agreement with all observations. So, different to the IPCC’s interpretation the steep increase of the concentration since 1850 finds its natural explanation in the self accelerating processes on the one hand by stronger degassing of the oceans as well as a faster plant growth and decomposition, on the other hand by an increasing residence time at reduced solubility of CO2 in oceans.Together this results in a dominating temperature controlled natural gain, which contributes about 85 % to the 110 ppm CO2 increase over the Industrial Era, whereas the actual anthropogenic emissions of 4.3 % only donate 15 %. These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission.The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect. Our analysis of the carbon cycle, which exclusively uses data for the CO2 concentrations and fluxes as published in AR5, shows that also a completely different interpretation of these data is possible, this in complete conformity with all observations and natural causalities.New studies confirm that volcanoes emit more CO2 than fossil fuels.There is no actual observation of the three primary different sources of Co2. Numbers are simply statistical estimates from data. This is a significant problem for the alarmist theory of human caused global warming.“For example, until recently estimates of the carbon dioxide yield of one of the world’s best known land volcanoes, Kilauea Volcano (Hawaii), was 2,800 tonnes/Co2/day. In 2001, Gerlach and co-authors established by measurement a more accurate figure of 8,800 tonnes/day. which is over three times as great. If such uncertainty attends to well-studied subaerial volcanoes, the estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from submarine volcanoes, the majority, are obviously little better than guesses.” Robert M. Carter, CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS.NO DOUBT THE 2001 ESTIMATE IS WRONG AFTER RECENT HAWAII VOLCANIC EXPLOSIONSKilauea is one of the most active volcanoes on earth and has been in a state of constant eruption since 1983, turning explosive this month after a magnitude 6.9 volcano rocked the area.So far, at least 47 homes and other structures have been destroyed by lava from 23 open fissures, forcing thousands from their homes.Worse is the way alarmist science ignores the amount of C02 from wildfires.The current devastating wildfires in California obviously are having a large effect on the climate. In fact the evidence is wildfires spew out 3 times the C02 that comes from fossil fuels.How do CO2 emissions from forest fires compare to those from fossil fuels?Posted: Sep 15, 2018 12:00 PM ET | Last Updated: September 14, 2018Forest fires like this one in BC emit 2 to 3 times the amount of CO2 as the burning of fossil fuels from other sectors. (Getty Images Chris Harris)What is the relative size of the CO2 emission of the forest fires compared with that from fossil fuel usage?Dr. Werner Kurz has the answer. He is a Senior Research Scientist with Natural Resources Canada, and also leads the team that develops Canada's forest greenhouse gas inventories and the Forest Carbon Management Project of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). Dr. Kurz says that in 2017 about 1.2 million hectares of forest burned in British Columbia, and 1.3 million hectares and counting this year. Compared to the average annual area burned in the province between 1990 and 2015, each of the last two years burned 15 times more than the average area.Forest fires like these release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, such as methane into the atmosphere. The initial - albeit unofficial - estimate is that the direct fire emissions in 2017 were about 150 (plus/minus 30) million tons of carbon dioxide.This is two to three times the emissions from fossil fuel burning from all other sectors in B.C.But the impacts on the atmosphere are even greater because the many trees killed by fires will decompose over the next decades, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Also, trees killed by fires will not be removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as living trees would. Therefore, the combined impact on the greenhouse gas emission balance is larger than just the direct emissions. Fortunately, most forests affected by wildfires will regrow in future decades, and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere again.Note British Columbia has a land mass larger than the UK for example.The analysis of Dr. Kurtz of Co2 emissions from forest fires does not match the very low 10–15% used by the alarmist science. This is the key difference between observational science and theoretical science based on computer modelling. The result is further evidence that the whole global warming fear mongering about CO2 is ridiculously exaggerated as are predictions about sea level rise and Island refugees.'It's alarming': Wildfire emissions grow to triple B.C.'s annual carbon footprintThe fires around the city of Fort McMurray in Alberta are still not under controlAdvocates call for wildfire emissions to be included in B.C.'s annual greenhouse gas inventory. By ignoring Co2 wildfire data the alarmist increase the minute amount of human emissions. This does not make human’s anymore culpable as the whole greenhouse gas theory is a proven fiction.This means the human contributions in context are not well understood because no one, including the IPCC, can satisfactorily account for the observed levels in detail. There is no doubt carbon dioxide sources and sinks have large DATA ERRORS. Even with guesses the IPCC admits man’s carbon dioxide contribution is small, but the IPCC argues that, nonetheless, anthropogenic emissions will ‘tip’ the natural balance of the planet causing dangerous climate change and acidification of the ocean.One expert climatologist Tim Ball estimates that human production of carbon dioxide is more than four times less than the combined statistical error (32Gt) on the estimated carbon dioxide production from all other sources. IBID, page 74 Carter.This means that human emission are no more than the statistical error of the estimates.NEWS, STUDIES AND RESOURCES17 DEC, 2018Termites Emit 2Xs More CO2 Than Humans. Soil Emits 9Xs More. Termite Numbers, Soil Area Are Growing.By Kenneth RichardCO2 emissions from termites are more than double human emissions from fossil fuels.Image sources: New York Times, 1982, Zimmerman et al., 1982• Termite populations have been observed expanding rapidly in recent decades.Image Source: Grace, 2006Image Source: Buczkowski and Bertelsmeier, 2017• CO2 emissions from soil is 9 times greater than human CO2 emissions.Termite mounds are massive and growing.TERMITE GAS EXCEEDS SMOKESTACK POLLUTIONBy Walter SullivanOct. 31, 1982Credit...The New York Times ArchivesSee the article in its original context fromOctober 31, 1982, Section 1, Page 25This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.For several years scientists have been warning that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by increased burning of fuel is likely to alter world climates, like a greenhouse, by inhibiting the escape of heat into outer space.Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world's smokestacks.Termite gas production has become particularly high, the researchers say, because widespread clearing of land has offered them abundant food in the debris of felled forests. By digesting this debris, they are adding not only carbon dioxide but also methane to the atmosphere. Other researchers have found that methane in the atmosphere is increasing 2 percent a year.The high level of termite gas production is reported in the Nov. 5 issue of the journal Science. The authors measured termite gas production inside laboratory jars. In Guatemala forests, they enclosed a huge arboreal termite nest in a Teflon bag to confirm that the insects were prolific producers of methane.As pointed out Wednesday by one of the researchers, James P. Greenberg of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., termites are far more abundant than most people realize. He estimated that there were three quarters of a ton of termites for every person on earth. Balance of Natural CycleAnother author of the report, Patrick R. Zimmerman of the atmospheric center in Boulder, said that plant respiration and decay added 10 to 15 times as much carbon dioxide to the air as termites. While the contribution of fuel burning is even less, it is superimposed on what, until recently, had been a balanced cycle of gas production and absorption by plants, the seas and other reservoirs.Right! Tiny 0.01% Of Atmosphere And 0.01% Of Earth’s Biomass Drive Nearly 100% Of Climate!By P Gosselin on26. May 2018Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski at Twitter posted a couple of comments that got me wondering about man’s role on climate.The first comment was a tweet about NASA’s Jim Bridenstine who reportedly went from being a “climate denier” to changing his mind and confirming that “climate change is caused by humans”.Readers will note that there’s nothing new here. Almost all climate skeptics will say that no one doubts that humans are playing a role in climate. But again, for the umpteenth time, the debate is: to what extent?Changing sun and oceans no longer playing a role?Today alarmist scientists would have us believe that that big bright tempestuous star up there in the sky stopped playing a role since the late 19th century, and that the oceans, which cover a puny 70% of our planet’s surface (sarc), also stopped playing a role.Instead the alarmist scientists insist that today’s climate is being 90+% driven by human-emitted CO2 and the rest of the factors have been somehow disabled. If that sound preposterous, then it might have something to do with how you perceive the your planet and how different parts are interrelated.Humans only 0.01% of world’s biomassSo how does that 90+% driver compare in scale to the rest of planetary factors? That brings us to Bojanowskis’s second comment that pricked my attention, citing the PNAS: humans make up only 0.01% of the world’s biomass.Plants make up 80%, bacteria a whopping 15% and animals 0.3%. So of all the biomass on the planet, we are only one hundredth of a percent.Human CO2 only 0.01% of atmosphereThrough the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So what do the alarmists conclude from this:0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?Yeah right, and the price of tea in China drives the global economy.Right! Tiny 0.01% Of Atmosphere And 0.01% Of Earth’s Biomass Drive Nearly 100% Of Climate!