Name Math 8 Foundations Chapter 4- Understanding Percent: Fill & Download for Free

So, you are going to appear for your 10th board exams this year and may be wondering if it is possible to score 99% in your 10th class examination. Well, I would like to say you, “Yes, it is possible”. It is not easy, but can be done, if you really want to do it.People might ask what is so special about 99% marks. It is just that anyone can score 90%. That is not at all difficult. Even a student with average intelligence, who studies hard can score 90%. But 99% marks mean that you have mastered the complete syllabus. There is no one better than you. You are the champion of champions.Well, first of all remember that there is nothing that you cannot achieve. It might be a 99% in your board exams or anything else in your life, everything is possible, if you truly want to achieve it. All it takes is a lot of hard work and perseverance.Secondly, remember that there is no shortcut to success and you must try harder to make it right. Just be positive and focus on to your goal.Important points to get 99% marks in your 10th ExamsDon’t count hours, study till you understand a topic completely. As soon as you understand something, write it down in your own language to make your own notes.Important thing is the planning. To make sure that you do not lose your track in between, you must have a solid plan of study. Make a plan in the very beginning and follow it for the complete year. Start off from the topics that you don’t have much confidence on. These topics are the ones, which are difficult for you to understand, to grasp and to remember. Study those topics first, keep two books with you (one rough and the other for revising it during exam). Make your own notes for the difficult topics first.The next thing is the study pattern. If you really want to achieve that 99% target, you must love your books. Yes, you must be completely in love with them. Do not take study as a burden, but try to like it. Your study pattern plays a big role. Try to make your study interesting.Make a schedule (time table), which would eventually help you in tracking your completion everyday.Do not compromise with your health.Give enough time for other important things that you like to do like games, music, food and friends.Do not worry even if you cannot complete the syllabus in first 6 months, but make sure that you complete it twice or thrice before the exam.Before going to sleep at night, revise everything that you have studied on that day.There is no shortcut or trick to score above 90.Hard work and dedication is all it takes.Preparation Tips for SubjectsClass 10 ScienceThe CBSE Class 10 Science mainly focuses on the following areas – Chemistry, Physics and Biology. Those students who wish pursue the science stream in class XI are advised to strictly focus on all these three areas as this will clear their foundations.The complete list of formulae, experiments and derivations should be kept handy.It’s a strict no-no to miss the science laboratory lectures and classes. Utilise the science laboratory as much as you can for every single experiment.The NCERT books are to be followed thoroughly to score well in Science. Almost the whole question paper revolves around the concepts that are given in the NCERT book.Some science formulas have certain rules that you strictly need to follow and use it correctly. For example, to use the quadratic formula; you must first change the equation to the standard quadratic form.PHYSICS-Get a grip on the fundamental concepts of the subject. A major part of the exam contains direct formulae- and theorem-based questions. Therefore, revise them thoroughly to solve questions accurately. Use the formulae and theorems extensively in solving various problems from last years’ papers and model papers.CHEMISTRY-The good news is this is a high-scoring subject, and also requires lesser time for preparation. Speed and accuracy in solving different problems can be acquired through in-depth study of the subject and extensive practice. Study the name reactions; make charts of formulae along with names and revise them as and when possible.BIOLOGY-As the subject includes lots of diagrams, give special attention to important diagrams and their theory. Make sure you remember the important terms and their respective functions. Biology involves learning and memorising difficult terminology. Write such terms repeatedly so as to get acquainted with them. Get thorough with the important definitions as the subject is mostly theory.Class 10 MathThe CBSE Class 10 Class 10th mathematics focuses on the basic geometry, trigonometry and the concept of numbers. The subject helps to build a basic aptitude and concepts that would be beneficial for the students who wish to appear for the aptitude based tests in future.The class 10 Maths formulas are otherwise very general, but sometimes it is seen in the previous question papers that the questions are asked from the middle of such numerical which you have to identify it.The concepts/formulas sheet should be kept handy.You should know the usage of all the Maths formulas.If you really want to score an A1 in math exam, then it is really important to completely be in synch with your NCERT book. Almost the whole questions paper comprises of the concepts and formulas that are given in the NCERT book.If you are solving a problem based question, it is advisable to read the problem again and again to get the exact idea of what you’re being asked to solve.Write down in a rough paper, exact what it is given in the question paper and what you are asked to find. Then in a systematic way, try and find what is asked to you.Once the revision is done, start solving the sample papers, unsolved papers and practice papers within the given set of time.Class 10 Social StudiesAlthough social science may seem dull, use study tools to make it fun. Flash cards, timelines, colorful charts and funny mnemonics can help you study in addition to textbook and notes reading. In 10th class either your social sciences studies are beginning or ending.Read the course once without trying to remember it, just read like you would read the newspaper or novel and try to understand it.Give priority for your subjects and topics according to marks weight-age and easy and difficult chapters and use this list to create a practical study schedule.Take notes for specific points you feel are important and you are likely to forget, in addition to school notes.Create a chart with important dates, flip through it often and you will find that you are able to easily remember the dates.Study subject-wise rather than from all topics combined; they were separated for a reason.Use flash cards for definitions and also for various history events; flash cards help for fun and quick revision.Practice map work by tracing the important locations you want to remember, then try locating on a blank mapUnderstand economics and political science, its better than to try to memorize.Solve previous year papers/ sample papers to practice writing within word limits.Class 10 EnglishUnseen passage/note making: This is an extremely scoring section and needs the least amount of effort comparatively. Read the passage carefully and you will be able to find the links to answer the questions.Writing skills: Follow formats religiously. Majority of the questions in this section are for 10 marks, divided into 3 marks for format, 4 for content and 3 for fluency/accuracy of English as far as I remember. Look at sample letters, articles from reference books to improve thinking skills and get an idea of presentation. The board examiners would much rather prefer an exhaustive article with lots of ideas and inputs by the student than just repetitive arguments in flowery language.Grammar: Practice, practice, practice. Brush up basic rules and attempt as many questions as possible and learn from the mistakes you make.Literature: Read all the chapters very thoroughly. Specially for poems, write in your book or a separate notepad all that your teacher explains. Having said that, you should also realise that understanding the chapter is not enough as you will be expected to write 7-10 mark answers in the exam. Keeping this in mind, try to attempt past year papers and questions from other reference material and try to frame long answers. Each of these long answers should have an introduction, body and conclusion. Aim for about 150-200 words spread across 3-4 paragraphs.Class 10 HindiIt is fairly easy to score 90+ in this paper 12th boards. But to score in late 90s, you need to study the NCERT textbooks really well. They are extremely useful.Get a question bank cum guide (Golden is one of them) and practice questions.Solve past year papers (Arihant, Oswal or any of the available sources), check against the solutions provided. In fact, a lot many times questions are just repeated in exams.This is it. These 3 simple things will equip you to score 95+ in the paper.Keep your mind fresh and never falter.Don't get stressed too much my friend. At the end you too will realise that was it really a thing of being stressed !.If I honestly make a true commitment about how I studied and managed then 101% you won't believe me. I enjoyed my 10th to the fullest I could do in the starting months. I was a backbencher and mainly depended upon tution (maths and science). I focused on ncert mainly and practiced sample papers. I started studied after September only. But after September, I studied day and night regularly. I just slept 4–5 hrs a day and was totally determined towards my boards. the last few months mainly jan-feb is the main and the most imp time for hardwork. Dont just try to take it lightly. That's the only time for self practice and to realise how much you are under water……Hope my words help.Best wishes….☺Good luck for your results. Hope you score even above 95%

It objectively isn’t worth the time and energy invested by many students, particularly if you dont finish withing your first 2–3 attempts.In my opinion, if your not going to build a career in specific core fields of Audit and Attestation, Financial Reporting or Taxation and you are going to get into any other finance field : then CA doesn’t make sense.The course is structured very redundantly - it aims to make someone that qualifies a “Jack of all trades”. Your qualifing depends on subjects that (even though you might need a basic understanding of) you are not going to truly be an expert in. For instance : Financial reporting (a Core area of CA’s) and Management Accounting/Cost Accounting (Not a core area) both 100 marks, i.e. both have equal bearing on whether you become a Chartered Accountant or not. Where as the job market rarely takes in Chartered Accountants to do a strictly Cost Accountants work.Foreign courses do not have this much redundancy. CPA - USA for example weighs Financial reporting 5 times more than Management accounting.(Financial reporting has its on dedicated paper and Cost accounting equivalent has 20–30% weightage of a different paper) which reflects the reality of requirements from the profession.The cost is just too high if you aren’t deadset on a career in Financial reporting/auditing/taxation(core fields).For Example : Mergers and Acquistions(other than tax side) and Valuations is something you can get into with a good university’s MBA. A journey for such a person would be getting into any bachelors degree, into working in a entry level position at a prominent financial services company for a couple of years, while working on your CAT/GMAT exams and spending 2 years for the MBA. You will be ready for your field by the time you are 25 or so years old (starting at age 18),earning money for a couple of years as well as not sacrificing too much of your social life.Presently CA’s are employed for such roles as well but theres no reason to be one given the often unforgiving process CA students have to go through. (Start studying for CA entrance before even 12th board exams results are out, not going to college for graduation and forgoing any social life, getting paid pennies for your work during articleship which takes 3 years of your life, going to classes early morning or late evening, and then the exams which are held only twice a year). You won’t be earning any money till you finish it, unless you start working after a few attempts in which you will not get time to study well for your next attempt as well not be worth much in the job market as a semi-qualified CA.Similarly, if you wish to get into portfolio banking/investment banking etc, A CFA makes more sense. CFA level 2 students can get a job in the field (as opposed to CA’s not being able to, generally,get a job in their field till after they pass Final). They can work, earn and get relevant industry exposure and be able to get international opportunties (Some CA’s will be restricted because their experience might be limited to Tax matters for example, if someone joined a small firm that didn’t know better)There is also the toxic job market (this moreso a product of Indian mindset than the course) where you might never get considered for jobs that you are competent enough to do, merely because you’ve had too many attempts.Theres also the mental health side of it: giving up having a college life is not a small sacrifice. You will be underpaid for most of your time you spend in articleship (getting paid 2–5k for 8–12 hour days for a months work for 3 years). You’ll get disheartened in seeing that you are not eligible for certain jobs because “Big4 experience required/Max 3 attempts” etc are included in job postings. You will have to make a tough decision every attempt : whether to try again and forgo 6 months of income and write the attempt properly, or to get a job and impair your chances of passing next attempt as well. Being told your 3 years of full time articleship experience “Does’t count as work experience”.Because of the structure of the course, having to pass a group to be truly done with a paper (as opposed to passing a paper to be done with it such as the case with ACCA) : you will have to write 4 papers again instead of the ones you failed(if you dont get a temporary exemption). For CPA, the entire qualification can be earned as long as you pass the 4 papers within a span of 18 months. Some organisations will even sponsor your CPA if you are interested. For CA, having your CA pending is a huge black mark against you and you will not be considered for jobs because of it. (Jobs will specify “CA drop outs only” for example)Even after qualifying, people will earn a lot better, but still will be underpaid given the hours they have to put into the industry (8–12 hours per day, no holidays during season). Whereas your foreign counterparts have stable balance between work and personal life. Same goes with your alternative finance career (eg CFA,CPA,MBA etc) counterparts(they deal with less uncertainty in terms of whether they will finish the course or not, and sometimes even better pay and industry opportunities).To conclude, the people I would consider recommending CA to are12th class students looking for options in finance ONLY AFTER explaining Audit, Financial Reporting, Taxation industry and the sacrifices they will have to make, and other routes for careers in finance. (I wouldn’t recommend someone to start the course after graduation unless they are interested in the core fields and they understand that they might not be earning for years in their early to mid 20s)Less financially capable and hard working students that have money as their limiting factor.(The course has comparatively less cost throughout the course, most of it will be for coaching. I have said that CA’s are underpaid, but it is in term of time and energy spent working, rather than the pay strictly speaking).(Big 4 does pay 6–9 Lakhs as starting salary for fresher CA’s, but have a terrible work life balance, but that would not matter to the aforementioned people, as in, it would be worth the time).People that wish to start their own practice in India as Chartered accountants.People that are deadset in Audit, FR, Tax careers (as CA’s is the main/only way into those fields).People that might not be able to work abroad. (CA qualification does give you an opening into many finance opportunities in India, but abroad your experience and competence matters more than a qualification does)I would not recommend CA toAnyone that wishes to work in those fields abroad. (For them, I would recommend getting into a good graduate college, work for a big MNC in that field, and then work and pursue the relevant international qualification)Anyone that is undecided in their career path. (Most people will fall here after their 12th board exams) This group of people are the reason CA/students stopped recommending CA to their juniors. It is a disservice to them by sending them down this path if they arent sure they want whats at the end of the tunnel. Its a significant portion of their youth they will have to give up. Many current CA/Students were also told by their seniors/elders that CA is worth it, yet the reality is many either give up after investing years of time and effort or they end up in a field that there were more sensible ways to enter into(Eg portfolio management, financial analyst etc could be done with B Com+CFA,MBA etc).Anyone that wishes to maintain a good work-life balance. (This is moreso an issue with Big 4 and less in other corporates)(For example if you worked in a mid sized firm for articleship/post qualification : then it might get unreasonably hectic only seasonally, rather than majority of the year in Big 4)Anyone that wants to build a career in a field that already has a course specialised towards it. Eg CFA/MBA might cater to investment banking, portfolio management, stock market jobs (CAs are sometimes employed in this, but its trending towards the specialised courses, as hiring CA’s for these is a remnant of decades old practices). Those courses are more focused towards the competencies required by the field, instead of the general understanding you have of it by the end of CA. (Portfolio management, for example, is a chapter in Final Financial management, where at the end, students would have learned a bunch of formulas and not understand a single thing that would make them employable in that field, which is an outcome of the “Jack of all trades” structure).Tip : Spend some time following MNC’s in job portals for different job roles in finance, and see the descriptions and qualifications required for it, and if it’s of any interest to you.Chartered Accountancy is a course that has its merits, but its demerits do exist and can be very glaringly obvious when you look at the big picture. It’s cons are often undersold by many.It’s a terrible course for anyone that isn’t 100 percent certain they want a career it’s core fields. CA students are not recommending this path for several reasons listed above. There are often better/more efficient ways to build a finance career. Many realise it’s not the path for them too late (already invested years into it, and will have terrible options if they don’t finish it)I am a CA Final student and have been for a while unfortunately.Just sharing my perspective and hope people make informed decisions when making an important life decision.Important P. S. : In an effort to increase number of students enrolling at Foundation (entry) level, the institute has allowed class 10 students to start registration(Previously it was minimum 12th standard minimum). This will lead to you seeing a lot of Class 11 and 12 courses including “CA Foundation with Commerce+Math” and the like. This is just an exploitative practice to milk money from students and parents that don't know better (They are providing 12th standard education degree plus COACHING for FOUNDATION and not CA Foundation certification itself. They may also not separate the fees for it, forcing you to take both instead of offering coaching ae a standalone product. Same practice is being done by Bcom+CA college programs, that don't have good/qualified faculties for CA subjects. Be advised about these unethical practices and inform others). For anyone that does wish to pursue CA, you can comfortably do it after 12th standard. Private coaching from different facuties and diff coaching institute/ICAI own coaching(in my experience) is optimal, rather than a random college offering the same as a package with graduation. (focus on your board exams, don't overload your plate at such a young age)After foundation, you can explore which faculties style of teaching you like by simply finding out various names and watching their videos on youtube (almost everyone will have sample/revision lectures online).I can be reached on LinkedIn if there’s anything specific you wish to know about my perspective.https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-fernandez-3a751419

MINUSCULE and VARIABLE.CO2 is a minute, vital and non-toxic invisible gas at 0.040% of the atmosphere that makes photosynthesis possible. Carbon dioxide is the name of a chemical compound consisting of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen to form one molecule of carbon dioxide as symbolized by ‘CO2’.The issue of the percentage of CO2 as only a trace gas is relevant to realize the PHYSICAL impossibility that this vital plant food has any climate effect. The minute amounts measured in ppm are sufficient to stimulate photosynthesis, but not to provide a covering of the planet that makes us too warm. Human emissions of CO2 at between 2 to 3% of natural are not causing any climate crisis except in the minds of politicians.“In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.”Jan. 25, 2018Also CO2 unlike the major permanent gases Nitrogen and Oxygen is variable with concentrations unevenly spread around globe and because of its density CO2 does not mix well with other gases. Key sources like volcanos and wildfires are unpredictable and uneven. Human industry is not a significant source of CO2 confirmed by the fact the recent Covid 19 lockdown of the world did not prevent increasing CO2.At standard temperature and pressure, the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.67 times that of air. Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres (520 kPa).WMy post provides a lot of detail about CO2 because of the world wide focus on the bad idea of reducing the gas on the false theory that it is making the climate too hot.CO2 plays a vital role at the micro level in photosynthesis for plants converting light energy into chemical energy. You need a magnifying glass to see the process and this fits with the fact the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are minute measured in ppm.CO2 is invisible undergoing a chemical reaction to convert light into energy for plants - 6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2O. It is dwarfed at 0.04% of the atmosphere by Nitrogen at 78.08% and Oxygen at 20.95% and is heavier than air and does not mix well with other gases.The attack by alarmists on CO2 is aimed at human emissions from fossil fuels. The infamous and fraudulent Paris Accord and other earlier climate conferences have all agreed that the priority must be for the whole world to reduce their human emission of CO2 to net zero by imposing carbon taxes. How is that working out?Canada is one of the world’s coldest countries (won the record for the coldest capital in the world in 2019) yet it is one of the few countries imposing carbon taxes to make the climate colder. Only raw politics could explain that lack of common sense leadership.CO2 and Global Warming: I’m still not convinced.Jiggerj Uncategorized February 15, 2021 2 MinutesEvery time I get curious about how CO2 is impacting the Earth’s climate, it seems I always find articles that agree upon one thing: The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is 0.04%. Now, you have to understand just what that number means. If we were to add 0.96 percent to the 0.04 it would total just one percent of a hundred percent. The graph below represents the atmosphere. There are one-hundred squares, so each square represents 1% of the whole. That little black line in the bottom right square is the amount of CO2 in the air. And, that teeny-tiny amount of carbon dioxide is keeping the Earth’s excess heat from seeping out into space? Hey, I’m no climatologist, but this surely offends my common sense.Image for postIf we were to turn this graph into a grate that covers a heating duct, and then have experts claim that the little black line is causing your house to heat up more than usual (into dangerous levels), you’d call him crazy (wouldn’t you?).This article CO2 Makes Up Just 0.04% of Earth's Atmosphere. Here's Why Its Impact Is So Massive states that “Scientists widely agree that Earth’s average surface temperature has already increased by about 2 F (1 C) since the 1880s,…” Two degrees? In 140 years of the most industrial time of smoke stacks and cars with zero emissions controls? Again, I’m no expert, but I find a 2 degree increase over that time period to be rather remarkable. It proves that our planet knows how to take care of itself quite well.What I find most odd is the fact that it is well known that plant life NEEDS carbon dioxide in the air — it’s the stuff that forests grow on. So, the question that we and our scientists should be asking is, What would happen to all of Earth’s vegetation if we accidentally decreased the CO2 levels to zero, or close to zero? Would plant life diminish? Completely die off? Now, THAT’S a scary thought.What’s missing in this whole climate change debate is the answer to how massive amounts of ice has been melting for the last 2.6 million years without any human interference, and how that particular process is separate from what we’re seeing now? How does a few hundred years of human industrialization get blamed for a process that started even before homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens?Image for postI know I’m wrong, but after hearing the numbers involved, what I would expect the scientific community to be shouting is:All this government hot air and expensive trips around the world signifying nothing.DRAMATIC EVIDENCE FROM THE COVID LOCKDOWN THAT HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS ARE LARGELY IRRELEVANTThe recent global lockdown under the Covid 19 pandemic has failed to slow down the rise in CO, yet the alarmists and their followers thought it would. What point is there in meeting the Paris Accord modest targets when a full lockdown of industry has no effect?May 2020 Mauna Loa data shows CO2 levels are increasing over last year. Why? Because human emissions are not that significant source of CO2. Dr Timothy Ball thinks they are misrepresented by as much as 4 X too high in order to keep up the fear mongering by alarmists about fossil fuels.The pandemic caused less city pollution but more CO2 and this is relevant to the unfounded fears of the alleged climate crisis.There are so many natural sources of CO2 ignored by alarmists that dwarf our human emissions. A coal-seam fire is a natural burning of an outcrop or underground coal seam. ... Due to fine thermal insulation and the avoidance of rain/snow extinguishment by the crust, underground coal-seam fires are the most persistent fires on Earth and can burn for thousands of years, like Burning Mountain in Australia.Coal-seam fire - WikipediaThis is more evidence that there is no man made global warming or another way to look at it the Paris Accord goal to make the climate colder by reducing human emissions of CO2 would not happen even if the world continued in the virus like lockdown for years.This means the goals of the Paris Accord are as pseudoscience as Nobel laureate Dr Ivar Giaever confirms.Ivar Giaever - Smashes The Global Warming/Climate Change HoaxNobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.I just read a short math analysis in Quora of how much Co2 in the atmosphere by Keith White. I offer his answer as an introduction to my post.How much has CO2 increased since the Industrial Revolution?Keith WhiteYes CO2 has increased since about 1750 - but overall CO2 levels are among the lowest that they have ever been in Earths History.And historically, increased CO2 generally precedes a fall in temperatures.They have been said to have risen from about 280ppm to around 400ppm in the last 250 years. The bigger question is - especially regarding very small temperature and CO2 changes - how accurate we the measurement instruments 200 years ago?I have worked in Labs where there was up to 1.5 degrees C difference across mercury thermometers… I cannot imagine that temperatures taken a hundred plus years ago were even that accurate…But there 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. No argument there.There are about 750 gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year – the majority of it from natural sources.Now there are several figures for human created CO2 - depending on who you believe - it is somewhere between 6 gigatons and 40 gigatons - but either way it remains insignificant.So get your calculators out team…If it is 6 gigatons then that is 0.8% of all CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are human created (6 Gigatons divided by 750 gigatons) 0.8% of 0.04% is 0.00032% of the atmosphere - that is the CO2 emitted by humans in total annually - expressed as a portion of the total atmosphere. TINY!Now I am prepared to give the CAGW Alarmists a fair go here - and if it is 40 gigatons, then that is 5.33% of all CO2 emitted comes from human causes - 5% of 0.04% is still only 0.0021% of all CO2 that is in the atmosphere comes from human causes…It is simple math and no matter how you slice and dice it - it remains infinitesimal!OUTLINE OF KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED IN MY POSTHow does the carbon cycle and its history put CO2 in perspective?\How is the minute amount of CO2 sufficient for the chemical reaction of photosynthesis but impossible for the physics of a greenhouse cover?What is the detailed composition of all gases in the atmosphere in comparison with CO2?Why is CO2 described as the miracle gas?What impact is the patchy concentration of CO2 around the globe?Why is CO2 not a greenhouse gas?What is the correlation between CO2 and temperature?What is the role and benefit of CO2 to photosynthesis and plant life?Is there too much or too little CO2 in the atmosphere?What do studies show is the role of clouds in the control of temperatures?“The amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere varies substantially from place to place, from season to season, and as the weather conditions change. Typically, the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere where we live and most weather happens) contains 1 to 4% water vapor. When atmospheric scientists discuss gas concentrations, they usually subtract out the changing value for water vapor and compare the amounts of various gases in a perfectly dry sample of air. Carbon dioxide, therefore, makes up 400 parts per million by volume of dry air.“How does 400 ppmv for carbon dioxide compare to other gases in Earth's atmosphere? The following diagram shows the amounts of the other major gases in our atmosphere.nitrogen (N2) 78%oxygen (O2) 21%argon (Ar) almost 1%carbon dioxide (CO2) 400 ppmv (0.04%)everything else (neon, helium, methane, krypton, hydrogen,...) less than 28 ppmv total”Ref. Carbon Dioxide 400 ppm Atmospheric Concentration DiagramsThe irony of life on earth is that the role of carbon now demonized by climate alarmists has been everything, including our very existence that has depended on carbon dioxide transforming for 2 billion years into the vital and permanent oxygen we breathe.The Carbon CycleCarbon is the backbone of life on Earth. We are made of carbon, we eat carbon, and our civilizations—our economies, our homes, our means of transport—are built on carbon. We need carbonCarbon is both the foundation of all life on Earth, and the source of the majority of energy consumed by human civilization. [Photographs ©2007 MorBCN (top) and ©2009 sarahluv (lower).]Forged in the heart of aging stars, carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe. Most of Earth’s carbon—about 65,500 billion metric tons—is stored in rocks. The rest is in the ocean, atmosphere, plants, soil, and fossil fuels.Carbon flows between each reservoir in an exchange called the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon in the other reservoirs.The Carbon CycleHISTORY OF THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHEREThis graph gives a picture of the composition of earth's atmosphere over the last 4.5 billion years.The important thing to notice is that there was a lot of carbon dioxide (25%) and water vapour (25%) a long time ago in the eary's atmosphere. There was a little bit of methane and the rest was nitrogen.We only got oxygen in our atmosphere 2 billion years ago, and as I understand it this was because the carbon dioxide in the air, combined with water, lightning and - literally - God knows what else, to form rudimentary plant life in water. That life photosynthesized carbon dioxide and produced oxygen in the air, and deposited carbon into water and the ground as by-products (plant litter, soil.... these later metamorphosed into coal and oil).Thinking about Air CompositionComposition of the atmosphere todayThe atmosphere is made up of different gases, water vapour and dust particles.The composition of the atmosphere is not static and it changes according to the time and place.Gases of the atmosphereA Atmosfera da TerraCo2 as too small a contribution at 2% of greenhouse gases to matter and human emissions less again at only 0.177% of total GHG. [Back radiation is false physics but even if true there are too few Co2 molecules to matter.]If there is anything to the GHG it is water vapour alone at 95%.Atmospheric Composition and Vertical StructureThomas W. Schlatter4.3 Water Vapor“Because the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is temperature limited, and winds can easily transport vapor thousands of kilometers, this gas is highly variable in space and time. Its concentration is 0-4% by volume. Almost all water vapor in the atmosphere is confined to the troposphere, where clouds and storms occur. Low temperatures at the top of the troposphere (-50 to -70o C) assure that condensation will remove all but trace amounts of vapor before it can reach the stratosphere, the layer of atmosphere immediately above the troposphere. The principal source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans, mostly in the tropics where the temperature is relatively high. Evaporation from lakes and soils, and transpiration from plants are other important sources of vapor. Precipitation removes water vapor from the atmosphere. Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas, that is, it absorbs little incoming solar radiation (visible wavelengths), but absorbs significant outgoing longwave radiation (infrared wavelengths). “http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532.2310&rep=rep1&type=pdfEarth’s AtmosphereWhich Gases Make Up Earth’s Atmosphere?Composition of the AtmosphereEarth’s relatively thin atmosphere primarily consists of a mixture of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%) gases. The remaining 1% contains several inactive gases (i.e., argon, neon, helium, hydrogen, and xenon) and several other gases that vary in concentration (i.e., water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons).Ref. THE POST HOC FALLACY AND SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF CO2“Humanity’s role in climate change has its own mythos, but is a post hoc fallacy. Everyone is familiar with Post hoc ergo propter hoc logic (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this"). This is a false premise that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." The climate is changing and mankind is burning fossil fuels, ergo burning fossil fuels causes global warming. The argument is embellished with the role carbon dioxide plays in climate change.Since burning hydrocarbons yields CO2, then CO2 must be the causative agent for global warming. STEM subjects are not the forte of most people, so this linear reasoning seems very compelling. Given the polluting nature of oil spills and smog producing vehicles spoiling the urban landscape, environmentalist get to kill multiple industries with a single hypothesis. It was a match made in activist heaven. Gee whiz today seems hotter than this day last year, it must be those soccer moms in Plano, Texas driving their kids to practice.Since specific gravity is the ratio between the density (mass per unit volume) of an actual gas and the density of air - specific gravity has no dimension. The density of air at NTP is 1.205 kg/m3.″.Here are a few facts to remember:The specific gravity of any gas is the weight of that gas compared with air. Carbon dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. CO2 has the same weight as propane. [The specific gravity of propane vapor is 1.50; air is 1. W.]This means that propane vapor weighs one and one-half times more than air.If you have used propane, you know it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide can actually sink into the ground like a puddle of water.Does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools by the same amount once the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite.The effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is fleeting and inconsequential. Note that during the most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, the atmosphere actually cooled.CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas constituting 400 parts per million. This trace gas cannot be responsible for climate changeREF. JOHN FLAVIN ENGINEER AND QUORA WRITER.Without doubt photosynthesis is the most important role of Co2 and we contribute to this vital process with every breath.CO2 is invisible undergoing this chemical reaction to convert light into energy for plants - 6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2O. It is dwarfed by Nitrogen at 78.08% and Oxygen at 20.95% and is heavier than air does not mix well with other gases. The reason only a minute amount works in photosynethesis is because CO2 is part of a chemical reaction. Think of the fact small amounts of salt change the taste of food or minute amounts of arsenic poison will kill you again because of the chemical reaction. However there is no alleged chemical reaction for the unfounded claim that tiny amounts of CO2 impact the climate like the cover of a greenhouse.JUST LIKE A PINCH OF SALTA much more accurate metaphor for CO2 is the well known “a pinch of salt makes everything taste better.” The minute amount of salt like Co2 has a chemical reaction with food making it more sugary and less bitter. A pinch of salt is too little to warm our food and CO2 is too little to warm the planet.Energy: The Driver of ClimateThe 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). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.REF. Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideThe demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.SUSTAINABILITYScientists: CO2 the ‘miracle molecule’ key to feeding, saving the worldby Paul Bedard| February 25, 2019 09:04 AMIf you like to eat, then you should be cheering global warming.That's the claim in a new scientific report that counters global warming fanatics like former Vice President Al Gore and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and offers proof that CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is nature's Miracle-Gro.In what some are calling the counter to the liberals' "Green New Deal," the new report provided to Secrets said that instead of fighting over the stalemated global warming debate, the world should take advantage of increased CO2 levels by growing plants and food that thrive on it.“Fortunately, carbon dioxide, a non-polluting gas that is created when fossil fuels are converted into energy, has proved to be a powerful plant food,” said the report from the CO2 Coalition of scientists who reject claims it will end the world in 12 years.That group has produced President Trump's new leader of an advisory committee looking into climate change, William Happer, an NSC senior director and a physicist who headed the CO2 Coalition.The benefits are easy to explain, said the white paper’s principal researcher, Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and a member of the CO2 Coalition.He said plants thrive when there is more CO2, which is why growers pump it into greenhouses.“The modern rise in atmospheric CO2 is proving to be a powerful ally in staving off regional food shortages that are projected to occur just a few decades from now. The unique characteristics of this miracle molecule are helping to raise crop yields per unit of land area, per unit of nutrients applied, and per unit of water used,” said the report titled, What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security.Its release this week comes as the White House is trying to shift the climate change debate to one that looks at how to take advantage of the slightly warming temperatures.Idso’s report tackled the apocalyptic warnings of global warming computer models, noting, for example, that despite a slight rise in temperatures over the past century, cities have not flooded.His report has a de facto bottom line which his that CO2 is here to stay so deal with it and use it to the advantage of mankind.And he challenged other reports that suggested CO2 will hurt the nutrition in plants.“The researchers themselves acknowledge that plant breeding, fertilizers, and new growing methods can reverse any nutritional decline. However, they unrealistically decided to freeze wealth, diets, and agricultural methods at today’s levels in their computer model’s predictions of the future. That is what generated these dramatic but unfounded claims about ‘millions being harmed,'” said Idso.His is certainly a contrarian view to the climate change alarmism in the Democrats' "Green New Deal," but Idso warned that their calls to rid fossil fuels will end up starving the world.“A continuation of the current upward trend in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration is essential for securing future food security. Any efforts to slow it because of the risks of predicted climate changes must also consider the risks of limiting its benefits to agricultural, nature and humanity,” said the report.Scientists: CO2 the ‘miracle molecule’ key to , saving the worldThe astonishing story of a simple chemical that made life on Earth possible and continues its work today. Tiny amounts of this miracle molecule not only make life on Earth possible, but rising atmospheric CO2 levels also spur forest and crop growth, help plants survive heat and drought, and feed the world.THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONIf carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change measured in ppm produce such large effects?It cannot.“The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates.”Ref. Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global WarmingChapter 9 - Greenhouse Gases 2016, Pages 163-173D.J.EasterbrookThose denying natural variation to explain climate change argue that the balance of CO2 in and out is because of human emissions. They say only a tiny amount of human increase knocks the carbon cycle balance off and this makes humans responsible for the increase. This is impossible due to the imprecise reality of measuring invisible CO2. See SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN May 24, 2006. But we don’t know the balance between natural and man-made CO2, only that the rise is composed of both and in particular the measurements of emissions from volcano and wildfire are impossible to be precise to make this claim.Natural SourcesMost Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural SourcesBy P Gosselin on2. March 2013Share this...The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture?By Ed CarylWe know, from ice measurements, measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow Alaska, and the South Pole, that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing in our atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. We also know that temperatures have been increasing in that same time interval, as the earth warms up from the “Little Ice Age.” The proponents of the theory that man’s production of CO2 has resulted in this temperature increase, use that idea to predict future temperature increases based on our continuing to use fossil fuels and continuing to force an increase in atmospheric CO2. But, is the increase in CO2 due to man; or is the increase in CO2 natural, due to rising temperatures caused by natural means?The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?Figure 1: From NOAA and the IPCC, here.In June, 2011, Dr. Murry Salby gave a presentation at a IUGG meeting in Melbourne, Australia. This presentation was mentioned later on Judith Curry’s blog, and some others. DirkH brought this presentation to my attention recently in comments on NTZ, and I tracked down the YouTube version. In that presentation, Dr. Salby plotted the changes in CO2 and changes in global temperature and soil moisture. The soil moisture data is behind a paywall, but the monthly global temperature and sea surface temperature sets are easily and freely available from WoodForTrees. The annual carbon fossil carbon release figures are also available, covering nearly the same period as the Mauna Loa CO2 numbers.The differential changes in CO2 are calculated on a two-year centered average of the monthly figures, then taking the monthly differential on that average. This gives a somewhat smoothed number, removing the annual cycles, yet preserving the timing.Figure 2: Monthly change in CO2 at three measuring stations.Figure 3: Magnified view of Figure 2.Figure 3 is a magnified view of Figure 2, the interval from 1990 to 2000, showing the effect of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in June 1992 and the El Niños of 1995 and 1998. The sharp cooling from the volcanic eruption appears before June 1992 because of the centered averaging to remove the noise and the annual variation.Changes in CO2 seem muted at the South Pole, and the Barrow station is noisy as well as having a somewhat short record. Effects at the equator appear delayed at the stations closer to the poles. For those reasons, we will use the Mauna Loa record. It seems evident from Figures 2 and 3 that temperature influences CO2. But is it the global land and ocean temperature, or just the sea-surface temperature that is most important? Figure 4 is a plot of global surface temperature and monthly CO2 change:Most Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural SourcesGreenhouse gas theory shows only 2% of the atmosphere is covered and CO2 is not a GHG. Impossible to matter. See Dr. Tim Ball research.“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because, when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1). To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.Figure 1In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000 years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase:In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.”No scientific justification for the greenhouse effect....the CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction of people who like to use big computers, without physical fundamentals. [2]Gerhard GerlichI urge close attention to the the research of German professors Gerlich and Tsheuschner published in the International Journal of Modern Physics - “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS” -Gerhard GerlichInternational Journal of Modern Physics BVol. 23, No. 03, pp. 275-364 (2009)Review PaperNo AccessFALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICSGERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNERhttps://doi.org/10.1142/S021797920904984XCited by:19Vol. 23, No. 03AbstractThe atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICSEntropy and the second law - Boston University PhysicsVol. 23, No. 03Home | Boston University Physics › ~duffy › SecondlawDec 12, 1999 — The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of ... There is a strong connection between probability and entropy.Entropy and the second lawThe second law of thermodynamics states that entropy is always increasing in every natural thermodynamic process. Entropy is the level of disorder or randomness in the system.The second law revisitedThe second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature, having profound implications. In essence, it says this:The second law - The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.One implication of the second law is that heat flows spontaneously from a hotter region to a cooler region, but will not flow spontaneously the other way. This applies to anything that flows: it will naturally flow downhill rather than uphill.If you watched a film forwards and backwards, you would almost certainly be able to tell which way was which because of the way things happen. A pendulum will gradually lose energy and come to a stop, but it doesn't pick up energy spontaneously; an ice cube melts to form a puddle, but a puddle never spontaneously transforms itself into an ice cube; a glass falling off a table might shatter when it hits the ground, but the pieces will never spontaneously jump back together to form the glass again. Many processes are irreversible, and any irreversible process increases the level of disorder. One of the most important implications of the second law is that it indicates which way time goes - time naturally flows in a way that increases disorder.The second law also predicts the end of the universe: it implies that the universe will end in a "heat death" in which everything is at the same temperature. This is the ultimate level of disorder; if everything is at the same temperature, no work can be done, and all the energy will end up as the random motion of atoms and molecules.Entropy and the second lawInternational Journal of Modern Physics BVol. 24, No. 10, pp. 1333-1359 (2010)Research PapersNo Access“REPLY TO "COMMENT ON 'FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS' BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN"GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNERhttps://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979210055573Cited by:2“AbstractIt is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.”REPLY TO "COMMENT ON 'FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS' BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN" | International Journal of Modern Physics BMY Academia post adds more detail in support of the Gerhard Gerlich research -Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with greenhouses -“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” demolishes the 'madness' as human Co2 is near zero %.Hertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”Nikolov and Zeller, 2017“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”Arrhenius, Svante; Prof.In 1902, the father of global warming predicted that burning coal would make the Earth boil.Simple Physics – Settled ScienceHint to Coal Consumers“A Swedish professor, Svend Arrhenius, has evolved a new theory of the extinction of the human race.He holds that the combustion of coal by civilized man is gradually warming the atmosphere so that the course of a few cycles of 10,000 years the earth will be baked in a temperature close to boiling point.He bases his theory on the accumulation of carbonic dioxide in the atmosphere, which acts as a glass in concentrating and refracting the heat of the sun.”Conventional greenhouse at night with panels providing convection to keep heat from escaping.Arrhenius got it wrong convection not back radiation contrary to physics laws explains how greenhouses keep warm at night. The old man’s theory was debunked by the famous American scientist Dr. R.W. Wood; sadly for political reasons Arrhenius’ theory has been resurrected in the late 1900s by the UN to demonize fossil fuels without any observational experiments that would contradict the lab experiments of Wood.Robert W. WoodAmerican physicistDescriptionDescriptionRobert Williams Wood was an American physicist and inventor who made pivotal contributions to the field of optics. He pioneered infrared and ultraviolet photography. WikipediaUsing a scientific procedure, R.W. Wood tested the conjectures advanced by S. Arrehnius, replacing the windows glasses of the greenhouse by halite (transparent to the infra-red rays). He realized that the temperature inside of the greenhouse was roughly the same. He concluded that the so called back-warming (IPCC nomenclature), i.e., the emission of infra red rays from the glass windows backward the greenhouse, was not the most likely explanation for the temperature increasing inside the greenhouse. As a matter of fact, the halite being transparent to the infrared ray could not prevent them from leaving the greenhouse. Subsequently, he advanced the hypothesis that the incident sunrays on the windows of the greenhouse (in ordinary glass or in halite) were absorbed by the dark surfaces inside the greenhouse (mainly the bottom), which became hot. The temperature increase of such surfaces was transmitted by simple contact of such surfaces to the air, which immediately started to rise in the greenhouse as cold air was replaced by it, through the well-known convection mechanism. The continuation of such a mechanism increases the temperature inside the greenhouse, keeping always a temperature gradient between the bottom and the top of the greenhouse in accordance with the thermodynamic laws.The warming up of a garden greenhouse is not due to the blockage, and re-emission of the infrared rays by the glass windows, but probably just due to a simple and slow convection inside the greenhouse, i.e., within a closed system. Do not forget that for the "Alarmists", the CO2 is supposed to play the same role in the atmosphere as the ordinary window glass in a garden or plantation greenhouse.Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global WarmingNoted geologist says Earth needs more, not less, carbon dioxide to feed plant life.By Paul Bedard, Staff Writer Oct. 7, 2009, at 4:15 p.m.More3 Cheers for Carbon DioxideMoreBY PAUL BEDARD, Washington WhispersA noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels."I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.Not only is CO2 only a trace gas measured in ppm it is also not spread evenly around the earth’s atmosphere. THE EVIDENCE OF PATCHY DISTRIBUTION DEBUNKS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GREENHOUSE TRAPPING HEAT. 3. CO2 is not evenly distributed.Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others. For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas. The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations. This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically.The first space-based instrument to independently measure atmospheric carbon dioxide day and night, and under both clear and cloudy conditions over the entire globe, was the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Read more about this world CO2 map. The OCO-2 satellite, launched in 2014, also makes global measurements of carbon dioxide, and it does so at even lower altitudes in the atmosphere than AIRS.REF. 6 things to know about carbon dioxide | EarthSky.orgThe above graph from NASA shows the patchy concentration of CO2 that means the alleged greenhouse has many holes in it that would fail to trap the sun’s heat.Dr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe ReloadedA cooling consensusA cooling consensus“As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting thatIn the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity.But his attempt to minimise the political relevance of this is unconvincing. He writes:The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. As this paper has maintained:If ... temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warmingthere would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range ofwarming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.COMMENTSDanramJun 21st 2013, 19:19“At just 400 parts per million, CO2 accounts for only 4/100ths of 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. (400 / 1,000,000 = 0.0004 = 0.04%)The amount of the actual increase in CO2 content over the past 150 years ... about 100 parts per million ... accounts for only about 1/100th of 1 percent.Now ... Does it really make any sense to believe that a 1/100th of 1 percent change in the planet's atmosphere can, in and of itself, cause the planet to warm?Then we have the issue of natural inhibitory feedback mechanisms being almost totally ignored. If atmospheric CO2 rises and the climate gets warmer and wetter, as has been predicted, then we will see accelerated plant growth. Plants love CO2. It's what they breathe, after all. More plants will, in turn, remove more CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby restoring the natural equilibrium.Changes in planetary temperatures are caused by fluctuations in the energy output of the sun, changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, changes in the Earth's angle of rotation on its axis, and long-term changes in the topography of the Earth's surface. Compared to these drivers of climate change, mankind's buring of fossil fuels for a mere 150 years is laughable in its insignificance.Man-made global warming is, quite simply, a massive hoax. It always has been. Thankfully, a majority of people are now finally waking up to that fact.”bampbsJun 20th 2013, 18:46I have no ideological reasons for my opinion, but I have doubted the accuracy of AGW. Our ignorance of how the climate works is profound, and there is a tendency when in doubt about something, to put it in the warming column. The process of "normalizing" older temperature records strikes me as unreliable; I have confidence only in satellite data, especially because the Southern Hemisphere is then sufficiently covered. The models are crude and the GCM grid size is large. And the "consensus" has kept scientists who are skeptical from speaking up, though that has been changing as predictions have been well above observations.A cooling consensusVariable GasesThe so called "variable gases" are those present in small and variable amounts. These include carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, water vapor, and particulates among others. Even though they represent a tiny portion of the atmosphere as a whole, they exert a great control over our environment.Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide(CO2) makes up only .036% of the atmosphere by volume. Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthetic processes of plants. Huge quantities of carbon are stored in plant tissue, deposits of coal, peat, oil, and gas. Carbon dioxide is taken in by plants and during photosynthesis is combined with water and energy to form oxygen and carbohydrates. The stored carbohydrates are used to fuel plant respiration and growth. Carbon is also stored in limestone rocks that have formed by the compaction of carbonate-rich shells of ocean life. Because vegetation takes in so much carbon dioxide, we often refer to plants as a "sink" for it.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varies throughout the year, decreasing slightly during the summer as plants leaf out, and then increases during the winter as plants go dormant and photosynthesis decreases. The zigzag pattern of carbon dioxide measurements taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii in Figure 3.1 below illustrates this seasonality.Figure 3.2 Temporal Variation of Carbon DioxideClick image to enlargeSource: NOAA ESRLThe seasonal changes in the geography of uptake and release of carbon dioxide during 2004 is shown in Figure 3.3 by NOAA's CarbonTracker. The black and white dots are locations where CO2 data is collected. A computer model based on this data and a knowledge of surface sources and sinks generates the patterns for the entire globe. Again, the large season to season variation is due to plant life. Blue colors over the northern hemisphere during July in the midlatitudes result from forests and crops soaking up large quantities of CO2. Intense red areas of CO2 release during July, August, and September in the southern hemisphere is largely due to biomass burning. Some burning is natural, such as the dry savanna grasses ignited by lightning strikes. Most is due to people burning fields in preparation for planting, or burning of forests for new agricultural land.NASA GoddardAn ultra-high-resolution NASA computer model has given scientists a stunning new look at how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere travels around the globe.This video is public domain and can be downloaded at: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?11719Figure 3.3 NOAA's Carbon TrackerCourtesy NOAA Earth System Research Laboratoryhttps://www.earthonlinemedia.com/ebooks/tpe_3e/atmosphere/atmospheric_composition.htmlThe carbon tracker simulation shows huge gaps in areas of the earth not covered by any Co2 and this makes the hypothesis of a greenhouse blanket holding in heat impossible. For this reason and many others the best research finds CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not have any real climate effect.The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that global monthly CO2 levels reached 400 ppm. The size in parts per million is so small that there is no effect on the climate. CO2 2015=400ppm. While this may seem to be a large increase because it is measured in ppm it is still insignificant at only an additional 1/10000.CO2 1750=280ppmIncrease: 120ppmCO2 2015=400ppm=0.000400=ca 4/10,000CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/10,000Increase: 120ppm=0.000120=ca 1/10,000It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph. The yellow molecule is Co2 at 1 in 2500 and 5 times this for the added human emission?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).Carbon dioxide emitted by man soon falls to the ground. Being heavier than air it can only reach the high atmosphere when blasted there by volcanoes. Boyles law confirms.Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.REFERENCESThink about it this Co2 is not 1%, not 0.1 % and not even half of 0.1 %.THE ALARMIST IGNORE THE MINUTE PROPORTION OF HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ATMOSPHERIC GAS AS IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT THIS SMALL AMOUNT OF CO2 COULD POSSIBLY EFFECT THE CLIMATE!More Climate Deceptions and False IPCC ClaimsBY DR. TIM BALL · JUNE 5, 2011More Climate Deceptions and False IPCC ClaimsMore Climate Deceptions and False IPCC ClaimsOOOOOPS !!!Earth’s temperature started going up BEFORE human emissions were significant.And then for 30 years, while human CO2 emissions grew 500%, Earth’s temperature went DOWN.And the when Earth started warming again, it did so, only at the rate that it had naturally, back in the earlier part of the century.Hardly the “fingerprint” of human influence that some would claim.Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideThe demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPERMay 8, 2013 6:37 p.m. ETOf all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.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). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.My Two Favorite Questions for Global WarmistsDetails Written by Paul JacobsonSo, I find myself sitting around a patio table next Independence Day sipping on the perfect mimosa with some friends and a couple of folks I haven't met before. One of the new acquaintances brings up the subject of "climate change." I know from the term used that this one is probably a sorta believer but not a hard-core, unshakable advocate; were that so, he would have used the latest, hippest, most with-it name-change term "climate disruption." Now it's time for my Favorite Global Warmism Question #1:Did you know that there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas?The conversation around the table stops dead in its tracks. Everybody's looking quizzically at each other. No one is looking at me. After a few seconds, a dear friend of many years says, "C'mon, Flyoverpen, you must be kidding. Everybody knows greenhouse gasses exist." I cross my arms, put on a smug pursed-lip smile and repeat, "Nope, there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas."I then proceed to explain that the word "greenhouse" in that term is a misnomer. In a real-world earthbound greenhouse -- we all know what they look like even though there aren't many in existence anymore -- the sun's short-wave infrared light penetrates through the glass roof, warming up what's inside the greenhouse: air, plants, soil, etc.As the things inside the greenhouse absorb the short-wave infrared, they convert it into heat -- long-wave infrared. This long-wave infrared, instead of readily penetrating glass on the way out, is partially blocked; greenhouse glass is said to be opaque to long-wave infrared. Inside heat can escape from a greenhouse more readily if the temperature between inside and outside air increases. However, the mechanism -- convection -- by which the greenhouse cools under such circumstances is altogether different from what the sun does to heat up the greenhouse.And, of course, if that bratty neighbor kid pitches a rock at the greenhouse roof and breaks a glass pane, warm air escapes, by air convection, in a hurry. In other words, a real greenhouse does its job primarily by suppressing convection.Not so with the so-called "greenhouse" gasses, among them water vapor, methane (CH4) and, most controversially, carbon dioxide (CO2). In this case, long-wave infrared radiation radiating back from earth is absorbed by these gasses; some of it is then radiated out into space, and some is radiated back to earth, creating more warmth here. There is no phenomenon quite like this that we experience in everyday human life, which is probably why we don't have an apt word for it in common discourse. Maybe someday somebody smarter than I am will come up with such a word, one that really fits. Until then I'll keep using the term "greenhouse" gas but not without the irony quotes; take those quotes to mean "not really."Hey, I admit it: Question #1 is something of a semantic teaser. But now it's time for Favorite Global Warmism Question #2, and this one is really serious:How much actual CO2 is there in the atmosphere?Shoulders are shrugging all around the table, and folks are muttering, "I have no idea... not a clue... beats me," the way just about any normal citizen would respond to this question... except the other new acquaintance, whose arms are folded and whose face is bearing a smug pursed-lip smile. "That's one I happen to know: the actual CO2 in the atmosphere today is 379ppm." Aha! Now I strongly suspect that I have a global warmism true believer in front of me, so I'm gonna have to be careful. I respond, "You're absolutely right! And that number is virtually undisputed." And it so happens that number comes straight from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a notoriously pro-global-warmism U.N. entity.At this point, I'm going to depart from the fantasy conversation in order to play some games with that number. The IPCC, along with the rest of the global-warming "consensus," would just as soon nobody even be aware of that IPCC number; notice how global warmists never refer to it in their advocacy propaganda. However, if somebody has to know, best that the data be presented in the format of their choice. They wouldn't like one bit what I'm about to do with it.First, let's take a look at IPCC presentation of present-day CO2 (actual data from 2005) compared with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750):CO2 2005=379ppmCO2 1750=280ppmIncrease: 99ppmA normal citizen looking at these numbers would probably be thinking, "Hmm, those are pretty good size numbers, several hundred; the difference between them is substantial. But, uh, what does 'ppm' mean? Oh, yes, parts per million, I get it." But even following that cognitive eureka, the full import of the data is unlikely to really sink in: people can come close to conceiving a hundred in human experiential terms, but a million? That will always remain an abstraction. So far so good for the cause of global warmism: the truth is still very opaque if not completely disguised.To get closer to human experience, we need to play with the IPCC data format by presenting the numbers like this*:CO2 2005=379ppm=0.000379=ca 4/10,000CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/10,000Increase: 99ppm=0.000099=ca 1/10,000Whoa! You're trying to tell me a change of one part in ten* thousand threatens to plunge the earth into climate catastrophe? That CO2 is just a trace gas and a miniscule one at that. What kind of a super-mega gas is that CO2, anyway? This whole "climate disruption" thing is preposterous before it even gets out of the starting gate.OK, I've calmed down. Now I'll try to speak rationally.New scientific inquiries often as not entail a form of logic known as abduction, or abductive reasoning. Another name for this is "inference to the best explanation." Another way of putting it might be"make your best guess with the data you've got." Inquiries that rely on historical data often begin and end at the level of abduction if there's no possibility of acquiring new evidence.Abduction can also sometimes act as a hypothesis gateway, giving cause for acceptance, even if only provisional, of a hypothesis... or dismissal of a hypothesis as prima facie implausible. Global warmism manifestly deserves the second response. The poison pill is the sheer paucity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just in case you're still not convinced of the magnitude of that paucity, consider this image:While water vapor is known to be a less potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2, it utterly dwarfs puny little CO2 in terms of sheer quantity.This much we -- skeptics and advocates of global warmism alike -- agree on: CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas (the simplest high school science project can demonstrate that); atmospheric CO2 has increased during the industrial era due to human activity; this has added more heat energy to earth's atmosphere and surface than previously. However, this is not enough to break through the paucity-implausibility gateway. To accept the global warmist hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is leading to climate catastrophe, we need to know not just that industrial-era anthropogenic CO2 emissions are merely effectual; this variable must be shown to be determinative.This means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be examined in full context with numerous other climate variables such as solar activity, volcanism, magnetic field shifts, etc. An inquiry like this is certain to be dauntingly, perhaps overwhelmingly, complex if conducted like authentic, inductive science. Global warmism advocates have shamelessly evaded this monumental evidence burden -- and the burden is entirely on them -- by resorting to garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, even outright data fraud and deceitfulness.Global warmism remains the most colossal hoax ever perpetrated.*numbers correctedhttp://www.melaniemorgan.com/146-news/3448-my-two-favorite-questions-for-global-warmists.htmlPlants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppmAnthony Watts / May 9, 2015Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball is writing on behalf of the plants.The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that global monthly CO2 levels reached 400 ppm. They present this as threatening news, but it is good news for plants and animals. I was involved in a brief to the US Supreme Court opposing the EPA actions on CO2. I proposed we seek Power of Attorney (POA) for the plants. We would vote on behalf of the plants against any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current claimed 400 ppm and for any increase, at least to a level of 1200 ppm.Seeking POA sounds like an environmental stunt for the Sierra Club, or all those who claim to care about plants and animals. Why aren’t they doing it? Why aren’t they proclaiming the good news for the plants and animals they say they care about? The answer is because the facts they have selected for their political agenda on the environment and climate puts them in a completely contradictory position. They know CO2 is critical for plant growth, but only promote planting more trees to reduce atmospheric levels because they have chosen to label CO2 a pollutant. It doesn’t occur to them that increasing the CO2 level enhances plant growth. It creates a moral and philosophical conflict, as they want plants to succeed, but want to reduce the input that makes them successful. They can’t see the forest for the trees.All life on Earth exists because of CO2. It is essential to flora, which then produce oxygen essential to fauna. Gore and others claim current levels are the highest ever. Others modify that claim arguing it is the highest in 650,000 years. That figure is convenient because it sounds like a long time. The levels are based Antarctic ice core data, which are clearly created artificially low to achieve the slope necessary for the political agenda against post-industrial CO2.The longer geologic record produced by Scotese and Bernier (Figure 1) shows that for most of Earth’s history the level was well above the current level. The only time when levels were commensurate with today was from 315 million years ago (mya) to 270 mya, yet for over half of that period temperature was similar to today.Most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last 300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period was approximately 1200 ppm.Figure 12This suggests that most plants evolved with an optimum level of 1200 ppm.The work of Sherwood and Craig Idso supports this value as reported extensively in their research at their web site.During particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.The irony is this comes from a government planning a carbon tax to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In their “climate change solution,” they introduced a cap and trade designed to“set a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that can be emitted.”The phrase “greenhouse gas pollution” is false. CO2 is not a pollutant. However, once that assumption is made emotion rather than facts produce policy that contradicts reality.If someone had POA for the plants, they could speak against the insane claim of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that CO2 is a “harmful substance”. EPA even convinced the US Supreme Court, supposedly the wisest people in the land, of this falsity.Plants are delighted that CO2 levels are now 400 ppm and rising. They would also vote, with numbers well in excess of the human vote of approximately 6.5 billion, to oppose any legislation or attempts to reduce those levels. They also hope you enjoy the oxygen they provide for a life, not just a better life.Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppmCO2 was higher in the past"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."NO CORRELATION OF CO2 WITH TEMPERATURE OVER PAST MILLIONS OF YEARS.I submit the answer to this question is fundamental to overturning the greenhouse theory and the role of human emissions in climate change.CLOUDS NOT CO2 GOVERNS TEMPERATUIRESyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the “GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. They show the small amount of human Co2 means there is no man-made effect on the climate….In a separate study, Japanese scientists have also suggested a much more important role for low clouds cover caused by an increase in cosmic rays resulting form the weakening of the earths magnetic filed.Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan in their paper published this month in propose that the “umbrella effect” is the main factor behind climate change.“When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate.”“The Intergovernmental IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificantNO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGEJ. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMIAbstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the greenhouse gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature…If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practicehttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf)This means the references in my post about Co2 overturn the Paris Climate Accord. Here is current research that demolishes the Co2 theory partly because its percentage in the atmosphere is near zero. (Thanks for responding)Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures07/12/2019 / By Mike AdamsThe climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperaturesThis is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.Burn all the oil you want, in other words, and it’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun and other cosmic influences. All the fossil fuel consumption in the world barely contributes anything to actual global temperatures, the researchers confirmed.As they explain, the IPCC’s climate models are wildly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures:…the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.The entire “climate change” hoax is a fraudCarbon dioxide, in other words, isn’t the “pollutant” that climate change alarmists have long claimed it to be. CO2 won’t destroy the planet and barely has any effect on global temperatures (the IPCC’s estimate of its effect is, according to Finnish researchers, about one order of magnitude too large, or ten times the actual amount).In fact, NASA was forced to recently admit that carbon dioxide is re-greening the Earth on a massive scale by supporting the growth of rainforests, trees and grasslands. See these maps showing the increase in green plant life, thanks to rising CO2:Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperaturesCO2 has a specific heat capacity of 0.81 at 275K and water vapour of 1.89 with CO2 at 410 ppm and Water Vapour at 25,000 ppm. Their relative contribution to GHE is (410*.81)/((410*.81)+(25000*1.89)) which rounds to zero. CO2 is an insignificant so called Green House Gas GHG.At 412 ppm carbon dioxide is an invisible, non-toxic, trace gas in the atmosphere primarily known for its role as the essential plant food for photosynthesis. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates.Carbon dioxide has been wrongly maligned by the Alarmist climate movement. Take a few minutes with Dr. Patrick Moore former founder of Greenpeace to get the facts.Dr. Patrick Moore Co Founder of GreenpeaceThe Truth about Co2TRIVIAL WARMING EFFECTTHIS IS THE FAKE GREENHOUSE OF ALARMISM WITH NO PANELS COVERED WITH MINUTE AMOUNTS OF CO2.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)What are the best arguments against human caused global warming?Richard Evans, CAGW-sceptic1) CO2 has a trivial warming effect. The measured radiative forcing at the surface from CO2 from 2000-2010 was 0.2 W/m2 from the 22ppmv increase (Feldman et al 2012), which works out at about 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv. However, because of the logarithmic nature of CO2, 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 in the atmosphere at the rate of about 2.5 ppmv/year. Therefore, the annual radiative forcing from CO2 would be about 0.025 W/m2, which would be enough to raise the global temperature at the surface by about 0.0046°C under the S-B law*1 (assuming none of it gets absorbed in the evaporation of seawater). Far from being catastrophic, such a trivial rate of warming would be lost in inaccuracies of the measurements.2) Nature is by far and away the biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2-emissions. Anthropogenic emissions currently stand at about 40 gigatonnes/year (IPCC AR5) while naturogenic CO2-emissions from all sources stand at 724 gigatonnes/year (IPCC AR5). Hence the anthropogenic contribution to annual CO2-emissions stand at about 5% while nature contributes 95%. However, the IPCC claim that naturogenic CO2-emissions and natural CO2 absorption are more or less in equilibrium and that anthropogenic CO2-emissions have a long life-time in the atmosphere — but this is based on the Bern Model which has an predicted life-time of hundreds of years (with equilibrium taking thousands of years) and contradicts measurements of the removal of anthropogenic nuclear 14CO2 from the atmosphere after the 1963 test-ban treaty. These measurements show a half-life for CO2 of around 10-12 years with equilibrium taking around 4 half-lives (40-48 years).5) 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 short atmospheric life-time for CO2 has been confirmed by the observations of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio. Some 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 the 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 about -29 (with values ranging from -20 to -44) and natural biogenic CO2 is similar with a δ13C of -26. The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has a δ13C of about -7 when in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans. The CO2 in the atmosphere (as of 2015) has a δ13C of -8.3. Thus, 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 from natural sources*3.6) Far from being environmentally deleterious, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere should be beneficial. CO2 is a colourless, odorless gas and is a vital requirement for all life on the planet and more CO2 would enhance the growth-rates of photosynthetic organisms in general. According to Donohue et al 2013: “Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green-foliage cover in warm, arid environments”. Hence more CO2 in the atmosphere means that more plant-life will grow which means that larger populations can be sustained. That’s a good thing.7) The demonstrable impotence of atmospheric CO2 as a driver of global warming is evidenced by the fact that from 1998-2012 the global surface temperature increased at the risible rate of 0.05°C per decade (Source: IPCC AR5) despite the fact that humans emitted a total of 30% of our cumulative emissions since 1850 (see graph here).QUORA REFERENCEClimate change happens over thousands of years, but man-mad Co2 is imperceptible in the earth’s temperatures. Earth’s temperature rises in the past have always preceded a rise in CO2 by a few hundred years according to peer reviewed research, not as Al Gore would have you believe, caused it.3) CAGW-alarmists often claim that the current rate of warming is unprecedented, thereby providing evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic in nature. But how true is this? Depending on the source, since 1850 the global surface temperature has increased by about 0.8°C to 1°C. Paleoclimatological data shows that Earth has experienced faster warming periods before. The graph here (from Don J. Easterbrook) shows various 100-year warming periods throughout Earth’s past compared to that of the warming period over the last 100-years and the natural warming rates are far greater than over the past 100-years. The “Younger Dryas Cold Period” for example warmed by 5°C over 30-40 years and as much as 8°C over 40 years which is eight times larger than the assumed 1°C of warming over the past 100-years.Richard Evans, CAGW-scepticCo2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE ITEasterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”In an El Nino year, Water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere can rise to 5% and CO2 from 0.039 to 0.042. Human made CO2 would remain about the same in that year. .Co2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose - or sugar.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minute epidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2OWater (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.Photosynthesis is the transformation of radiant energy to chemical energy.Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature's process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Radiant to ChemicalFigure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.The Role of Water VapourWater vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.In my view the answer to this question is very relevant to upsetting the scare mongering from Al Gore and other alarmists about unprecedented global warming. The facts are there are too few Co2 molecules to have any effect on the earth’s climate. The amount of Co2 today at just 400 ppm [parts per million.] Co2 today pales in comparison with the past when there was more than 5000 ppm which is > 10 X as much! [ Remember with every breath out we exhale > 35,000 ppm of Co2 into the atmosphere.]The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.GREENHOUSE GASES COMPOSITION“Here is a key graph of all Greenhouse gases that shows detailed percentages of where the source of C02 in the atmosphere and human emissions are miniscule at only 0.117%. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from other natural sources it is foolish to think humans make any difference. Even the most costly efforts to limit human Co2 emissions if they succeeded would have a very small-- undetectable-- effect on global climate.”http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.htmlIt may be a little hard to picture just how minute the fossil fuel emissions across the globe are. Please take 3 minutes to view this helpful Australian Rice video that helped Australia’s public decide to axe the futile carbon tax.AXE THE TAX AUSTRALIA THE RICE VIDEO 85880 32 CO2 1 HUMAN CO2It is hard to imagine, but essential to realize they have no effect on the climate, just how small the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are. CO2 so small drawn to scale it is invisible.Even adjusting for unproven heat retention make little difference in the composition of Co2 in the atmosphere.Ibid, page 75WHAT IS THE SCIENCE OF Co2 - is it a pollutant?"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemisthttp://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.htmlThe "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United StatesAvailable online 23 September 2016.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804588-6.00009-4AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.Dr. Patrick Moore has presented research showing the C02 in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial and that we are starved at only 400 ppm for photosynthesis. We need more as in the past the average has been > 1000 ppm.MORE CO2 MORE PLANT GROWTH AND WATER RETENTIONHarrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideThe demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.Photosynthesis is like magic allowing plants to make their own food with Co2.Benefits of more atmospheric CO2:1. Higher agricultural yields2. Richer biodiversity3. Faster growth rates of crops and forests4. More phytoplankton (responsible for marine photosynthesis)5. More diatoms, the “base” of the marine food chain6. More reef-building coral7. More and healthier crustaceans and mollusksBy HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPERMay 8, 2013 6:37 p.m. ETOf all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.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). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.Effects of increased CO2 on plants and cropsA 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO2concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO2 concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%. [70 [71]In addition to greenhouse studies, field and satellite measurements attempt to understand the effect of increased CO2 in more natural environments. In free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiments plants are grown in field plots and the CO2 concentration of the surrounding air is artificially elevated. These experiments generally use lower CO2 levels than the greenhouse studies. They show lower gains in growth than greenhouse studies, with the gains depending heavily on the species under study. A 2005 review of 12 experiments at 475-600 ppm showed an average gain of 17% in crop yield, with legumes typically showing a greater response than other species and C4 plants generally showing less. The review also stated that the experiments have their own limitations. The studied CO2 levels were lower, and most of the experiments were carried out in temperate regions.[72]Satellite measurements found increasing leaf area index for 25% to 50% of Earth's vegetated area Earth over the past 35 years, providing evidence for a positive CO2 fertilization effect.[73] [74] W.Evidence of the benefits of CO2 as plant food is the growing commercialization with new technology of CO2 greenhouse fertilization.Government Bulletins including the Ministry of Agriculture in Ontario encourage the use of CO2 fertilization - Carbon Dioxide In GreenhousesCarbon Dioxide (CO2)Photosynthesis is the process which involves a chemical reaction between water and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the presence of light to make food (sugars) for plants, and as a by-product, releases oxygen in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide currently comprises 0.04 percent (400 parts per million) of the atmospheric volume. It is a colorless and odorless minor gas in the atmosphere, but has an important role for sustaining life. Plants take in CO2through small cellular pores called stomata in the leaves during the day. During respiration (oxidation of stored sugars in plants producing energy and CO2) plants take in oxygen (O2) and give off CO2, which complements photosynthesis when plants take in CO2 and give off O2. The CO2 produced during respiration is always less than the amount of CO2taken in during photosynthesis. So, plants are always in a CO2deficient condition, which limits their potential growth.SupplementationIn general, CO2 supplementation is the process of adding more CO2in the greenhouse, which increases photosynthesis in a plant. Although benefits of high CO2 concentration have been recognized since the early 19th century, growth of the greenhouse industry and indoor gardening since the 1970s has dramatically increased the need for supplemental CO2. The greenhouse industry has advanced with new technologies and automation. With the development of improved lighting systems, environmental controls and balanced nutrients, the amount of CO2is the only limiting factor for maximum growth of plants. Thus, keeping the other growing conditions ideal, supplemental CO2 can provide improved plant growth. This is also called ‘CO2 enrichment’ or ‘CO2 fertilization.’AdvantagesIncrease in photosynthesis results in increased growth rates and biomass production.Plants have earlier maturity and more crops can be harvested annually. The decrease in time to maturity can help in saving heat and fertilization costs.In flower production, supplemental CO2 increases the number and size of flowers, which increase the sales value because of higher product quality.Supplemental CO2 provides additional heat (depending upon the method of supplementation) through burners, which will reduce heating cost in winter.It helps to reduce transpiration and increases water use efficiency, resulting in reduced water use during crop production.If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?16ThursdayJan 2020Posted by Waikanae watcher in Uncategorized≈ 1 Comment(NaturalNews) For only “pennies a day,” any greenhouse owner can produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. That’s the message on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada. “1,500 ppm [of carbon dioxide] can be achieved… these generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day,” the ad says.View it yourselfIf carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?carbon fertilizationNew Study: Rising CO2 Drives Post-1980s Greening…Which Cools The Earth And Offsets 29% Of Human EmissionsBy Kenneth Richard on6. August 2020About 70% of the Earth’s post-1980s vegetative greening trend has been driven by CO2 fertilization. More greening has offset or reversed 29% of recent anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Greening also has a net cooling effect on surface temperatures. Earlier this year we highlighted a study (Haverd et al., 2020) asserting rising CO2 and warming are the […]Posted in CO2 Greens the Earth, Warming/CO2 Benefiting Earth | 5 ResponsesEarth Is Greening Due To Rising CO2…A Growing Greening Sink Offsets 17 Years Of Equivalent CO2 Emissions By 2100By Kenneth Richard on19. March 2020A new study finds rising CO2 concentrations (and warming) have driven the rapid increase in Earth’s photosynthesis processes, or greening. CO2-induced planetary greening leads to an enormous expansion of Earth’s carbon sink. By 2100 this greening-sink effect will offset 17 years of equivalent human CO2 emissions. This easily supersedes the effect of Paris Agreement CO2 […]Posted in CO2 Greens the Earth, Warming/CO2 Benefiting Earth | 7 ResponsesNew Paper: CO2 Rise + Warming Are 91% Responsible For The Earth’s Accelerated Greening Trend Since 1990By Kenneth Richard on12. August 2019Satellite observations indicate the Earth has become much greener in recent decades. According to scientists, the overwhelming majority of the “significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China” since the early 1990s can be attributed to the combination of CO2 fertilization (56%) and climate change (35%). Image Source: O’Sullivan […]C02 Toxicity ResearchCarbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the inputs of photosynthesis and as such CO2plays an important role in increasing crop productivity (Hand 1993, Rijkdjik and Houter 1993). Optimal CO2 concentrations for the greenhouse atmosphere fall with the range of between 700 to 900 ppm (parts per million) (Romero-Aranda et al 1995, Tremblay and Gosselin 1998). Crop productivity depends not only on efficiency of interception of light but also on the efficiency with which light is converted to chemical energy in photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide enrichment to 1200 ppm increases the maximum conversion efficiency by a substantial amount (between 28 to 59%) (Wilson et al 1992). Photosynthetic efficiencies appear never to exceed about 22 % of the absorbed light energy in the 400 to 700 nm range, the maximum efficiency is obtained at relative low light intensities, not in brightest sunlight (Salisbury and Ross 1978). Considering the supply of light to available land area on which a crop is growing, the overall yield efficiencies are always much below 22% (Salisbury and Ross 1978).The use of CO2 in greenhouses can give light use efficiencies exceeding those of field crops (Wilson et al 1992). Glasshouse crops with CO2 enrichment achieve maximum efficiency of light energy utilization between 12-13% (Wilson et al 1992). The ability of plants to utilize CO2 is dependent upon the presence of light, for this reason it is only useful to supplement CO2during the daylight hours (Styer and Koranski 1997).CLIMATE HISTORY DISTORTED TO DEMONIZE CO2Climate alarmists focused on Co2 and a discarded theory of greenhouse heat trapping from Fourier and Arrhenius in the 19th century.Sadly the science relied on by the alarmists claiming a discernible human impact on global warming is bunk! Surprising that it is old and demolished science of the 1800s relied on by alarmists today for any connections between human emissions of CO2 and global warming. They wrongly rely on Joseph Fourier in 1824, John Tyndall in 1860, and by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.CHAPTER 5 :THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTThe alarmists fail to offer any modern references supportive of anthropogenic (i.e. man made causes.) This is the reason that 2000 IPCC scientists researching the very issue of human caused climate activity found none in their summary report in 1995 -Sadly the campaign against carbon dioxide by leading scientists has been dishonest from the beginning saying the end justified the shoddy means.“WE need to get some broad based support,to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest.“– Prof. Stephen Schneider,Stanford Professor of Climatology,lead author of many IPCC reportsI submit the shoddy history of how the IPCC ignored the summary report of their own Working Group 1 made up of 2000 scientists in 1995 and then changed the conclusion to fit their political needs with underdeveloped nations is at the heart of the giant science deception about human caused warming from CO2 plant food.The UN are guilty of misleading the public about human caused climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The twisted story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995 we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.11.1 IntroductionPresent shortcomings include Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demands international coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system we must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes,” was ignored.Sadly the IPCC politicians wrote the final report and changed the “Summary” removing completely any hint of doubt about human influence. The three statements by Working Group 1 ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”Also Dr. Kary Mullis Nobel Laureate is on record with his reasons for skepticism of human influence. .As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.Arrhenius theories forgotten and demolished.After the discoveries of Arrhenius and Chamberlin the topic was forgotten for a very long time. At that time it was thought than human influences were insignificant compared to natural forces, such as solar activity and ocean circulation. It was also believed that the oceans were such great carbon sinks that they would automatically cancel out our pollution. Water vapor was seen as a much more influential greenhouse gas.Arrhenius completely failed to accept that Tyndall had found that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide.He assumed that the ratio of carbon dioxide (K) to water vapour (W) in the earth’s atmosphere was K/W where K is 1.5 and W is 0.88, a ratio of 1.7.The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is now thought to be 0.039%. The average concentration of water vapour is not known, since it varies from place to place from 0 to 4%. If you take 2% as typical, the ratio of water vapour to carbon dioxide is about 50 to 1.So, about 98% of Arrhenius’ figures and calculations, even if soundly based, still apply to water vapour and not to carbon dioxide.Read more: https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz5Siv1QYQXDr. R W WOOD(1868 – 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He wrote a standard textbook on Physical Optics50.He presented a theory of the operation of a greenhouse in the Philosophical Magazine in 1909 (Vol. 17, pp. 319-320)51I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.Wood showed that internal convection warms the air which cannot escape to be cooled by the outside climate. He does not mention evaporation of water which also cools the surface. In common with Fourier and the others he does not mention what happens at night or when the sun is not present: when the whole frame cools by external convection combined with deposition of dew internally.UPDATE 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate ChangeBy Kenneth Richard on 8. June 2017“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017Allmendinger, 2017The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.The alarmists claim ignoring Dr. Wood the recent refutation of the GHG theory that human emissions of Co2 not the sun are now the control knob of the climate. This is not possible even to imagine let alone happen. It helps to gain perspective with a picture graph.There is too little CO2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.All the Co2 produced by us wild fires and volcanoes etc only amounts to 0.039% of the atmosphere.The greenhouse metaphor is unscientific and very misleading. Real greenhouses are beautiful structures based entirely on the complete glass covering.The reason there is no greenhouse effect on the earth is Co2 is only a trace gas too little to cover anything. There is no blanket of Co2 like glass panels trapping the heat from daylight and preventing it mixing with the colder air. A real greenhouse is ineffective the moment the glass panels are smashed for example by burglars as happened here in Scotland recently.This graph shows panels over the earth without any covering. This is reality.Water vapour is the primary Greenhouse Gases GHG dwarfing man-made Co2 at 0.117% that is near zero. How can such a small amount blanket the air and control the climate? It cannot.There would be 99.98% of the atmosphere free of any effect from man-made Co2.Here is another graphic that helps see how de minimus C02 is: “Over the past century, atmospheric CO2 has increased by one part per ten thousand. That is equivalent to packing an extra ten people into the Rose Bowl.”Visualizing Man-Made CO2 (Visualizing Man-Made CO2)It is beyond imagination that this minuscule amount of non-toxic life giving through photosynthesis gas is having any effect on the climate.If you live in Vancouver there is only one molecule of C02 from fossil fuels statistically from the city to Hope an hour away and that molecule is a climate control knob??? Jeff Juel (Jeff Juel), former Environmental EngineerThe Carbon Cycle – Human Industrial CO2 a Small PartPublished on 29 Feb 2016The yellow sphere represents 1 to 2,500 molecules which is the amount of CO2 amongst the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. TRY TO APPLY THIS MINUTE AMOUNT OF CO2 TO THE NEXT GRAPH OF A GREENHOUSE COVERING THE EARTH. Not possible to even imagine.Bad Data about Co2 human emissions overestimatedIt is essential to understand the complexity of measuring human made Co2 emissions and to realize at a detail level the trace amounts are indistinguishable from natural sources of Co2. The atmosphere contains approximately 800 Gt of Co2 with 95% coming from natural sources of vegetation, land and ocean and 4% form human fossil fuel emissions. Here is a vital graph sourced from the IPCC and it is only an a rough estimate and far from accurate -The amounts of Co2 are measured in Gt and obviously the are just estimates with a great deal of annual variability. Think about the key sources of volcanoes and wildfires and how easy it is to err.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.It also rebuts any theory of a tipping point in the balance of natural and human emission. Volcanos are a candidate as they are badly underestimated in the statistics.Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain HeatPublished onJanuary 30, 2017Written by John O'SullivanWe have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). But as President Trump looks to help dismantle the hoax there is much inconvenient science at hand to help his administration discredit this ‘theory’ beloved by climate alarmists.The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.As shown in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:“Proponents [of the greenhouse gas theory] point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in “Philosophical Transactions.” Tyndall’s experiments methodically measured with an electronic galvanometer, the relative heat absorption of various gases, gas vapors and even a few solids. He proved that they absorb heat in the order listed.Generally, the larger the gas molecule (compound gases), the more heat they absorb with the most heat absorbed by olefiant gas (ethylene). Although he does not mention carbon dioxide, it might absorb about a third of that amount. He discovered that that these gases absorb less heat as their pressure rises, so he measured at extreme low pressures.At one point, he generalizes that gas vapors, such as aqueous vapor, absorb roughly 13 times more than dry gases. Solids absorb even more heat. He notes that gases cool in proportion to the absorption with large molecule gases taking longer to cool. Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, “to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times” – which we attribute to global warming.”There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:“As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:“Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).As Moodey goes on to tell us:Charles Law precisely quantifies the volume expansion of gas when heated at each degree of temperature. Likewise, as gas cools its volume shrinks precisely the same. Our modern instruments measure instantaneous changes in volume and temperature. This does the same as John Tyndall’s instrument, except we can measure a slight change in volume with each degree of temperature. By my experience with this, I estimate that gases lose the absorbed temperature very rapidly when the heat source is removed.Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.Now back to some Geology:And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at >3,000 ppm, far higher (20 times) than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%. So where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic? Pure nonsense because even NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification. And more than 99% of earth’s FREE CO2 is already in the ocean waters.If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength. Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).As Professor Nahle found with his open air experiments:“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases. In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity/emissivity of the atmosphere.”Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled. In fact putting co2 into the air is saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.*****[1] Nahle, N., ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’ http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf[2] Lionel Guidi, et al x 64 names (2015) Plankton networks driving carbon export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature16942[3] ‘Marine barite: Recorder of variations in ocean export productivity‘ page 698, Fig 6).[4] Samson Reiny, ‘Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds,’ Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds (accessed online: January 30, 2017)Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn't rise up, trap and retain heat | PSI IntlA Fatal Flaw In Global Warming SciencePublished onSeptember 13, 2018Written by Edwin BerryBUSTED: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) simply assumes nature treats human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide differently. This assumption is wrong because it violates the Equivalence Principle.IPCC’s basic assumption infects climate models. IPCC’s Bern model, a 7-parameter curvefit to climate model output, predicts human carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, some of it forever. That conclusion is a result of IPCC’s basic assumption and it is wrong.Applying the Equivalence Principle, the Bern model predicts natural emissions will cause a runaway carbon dioxide level that contradicts data. Therefore, IPCC climate models are wrong.IPCC’s model cannot simulate the carbon-14 data.A Model, derived from the continuity equation with outflow proportional to level, accurately simulates the carbon-14 data with no arbitrary curve-fitting parameters.The Model shows constant carbon dioxide emissions, human or natural, do not add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Rather their inflows set equilibrium levels for atmospheric carbon dioxide.Using IPCC data, the Model shows present human emissions increase the level by 18 ppm and present natural emissions increase the level by 392 ppm to produce today’s total level of 410 ppm.Any climate change caused by increased CO2 is 96 percent from natural CO2 and only 4 percent from human CO2. The effect of human emissions is the same as if natural emissions had increased by the same amount and human emissions had remained zero.The critical scientific questions about climate change are about cause-and-effect:1. How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?2. How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?This paper focuses on the first question.Full paper available at: edberry.com/blogConclusions• PCC’s basic assumption, that nature treats human carbon dioxide emissions differently than it treats nature’s carbon dioxide emissions, is wrong because it violates the Equivalence Principle.• IPCC’s claim, that human carbon dioxide emissions will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and 15 percent will remain forever, is invalid.• IPCC’s claim that human emissions have caused all the rise in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1750, is invalid.• The Model has no arbitrary curve-fit parameters. Yet, it accurately simulates the carbon-14 data.• The Model shows human emissions add only 18 ppm and nature adds 392 ppm to produce today’s 410 ppm level of carbon dioxide.• If all human CO2 emissions were stopped, the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would fall by only 18 ppm.• The effect of human emissions is the same as if natural emissions had increased by the same amount and human emissions had remained zero.A fatal flaw in global warming science | PSI Intl“A perspective that follows is that even were human emissions to be reduced to zero, the difference would be lost among other uncertainties to the global carbon budget. What is presently missing from the public debate, then - and it is not provided by computer model outputs, either - is an appreciation of both the small scale (in context) of human emissions, and the range of uncertainty in the carbon budget.”What historians will definitely wonder about in futurecenturies is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewdand unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition ofpowerful special interests to convince nearly everyone inthe world that carbon dioxide from human industry was adangerous, planet-destroying toxin.It wlll be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in thehistory of the world - that carbon dioxide, the life of plants,was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.(Ed Ring,)“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.“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 0.01% 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.”By P. Gosselin May 26, 2018http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/26/right-tiny-0-01-of-atmosphere-and-0-01-of-earths-biomass-drive-near-100-of-climate/CO2 CORRELATION WITH TEMPERATUREC02 has been 11 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than today. With the long view of ice cores going back 600 million years there is no correlation of Co2 with temperature.Also looking over the past 2000 years of climate history you cannot find a correlation of temperature and Co2.The ice core data about Co2 impact over the 20th and 21st Centuries shows no correlation with temperature.If you break out human sourced Co2 from non- human the lack of correlation with temperature is obvious. The catastrophe claim of the alarmists is only limited to our trace amount of fossil fuel emissions of Co2.The current global warming trend started before 1700, yet human CO2 emissions were negligible before 1850. So the theory that humans started the recent global warming is absurd and obviously wrong.Have you ever seen a graph of human CO2 emissions versus temperature (the alleged cause and effect) anywhere in the media or from the climate establishment? Why not?Why do the climate establishment and mainstream media instead show us graphs of atmospheric CO2 levels versus temperature? Isn’t this misdirection to disguise the almost complete non-correlation between our emissions and the temperature?http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-5-co2-emissions-versus-temperature/Solar correlation with past temperatures is very strong.Dr. Ian Clark discusses the carbon cycle – how carbon dioxide is released and absorbed nature, and how the sun, temperature and water drive carbon dioxide release. Human emissions are very small by comparison; if all human industrial CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow the greater natural system would remain in equilibrium.Human CO2 Emissions are Wholly Beneficial - Dr Moore20,981 viewsCO2 IS HEAVIER THAN AIR - DENSITY of 44 grams per mole.Air contains 78% nitrogen weighing 14 grams per mole, 21% oxygen weighing 32 g/mol and 0.9% argon weighing 39 g/mol. Carbon dioxide has one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, and a molecular weight of 44 grams per mole. Hence, carbon dioxide has a higher density, or is heavier than air. Therefore it does not remain in the atmosphere for lengthy periods as claimed by alarmists.THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHEREThus far, in our assessment of the IPCC CO2 paradigm, we’ve dealt with what we saw as a lack of objectivity and failure to apply the more important questions. We now examine the position of AGW advocates, including the IPCC, that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere lasts for centuries. Some claim it accumulates for thousands of years and would make the Earth uninhabitable.The residence time of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., its turnover rate) refers to how long it takes for a CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks. The most authoritative study of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is that of Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [3].A variety of methods, and a variety of researchers, consistently find short residence times.“Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth’s interior.”http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf“CO2 EMISSIONS ARE WHOLLY BENEFICIAL” PATRICK MOORE14th October, 2015 Lecture by Dr Patrick Moore in London at the Global Warming Policy Foundation outlining why our CO2 emissions are wholly beneficial, and may have even prevented the end of life on Earth.Here is another view of the minuscule reality of C02 in answer to a QUORA question about how long would it take to find a C02 molecule?This sort of statistic can usually be obtained using the binomial distribution function which is available in MS Excel.The odds of picking a molecule at random and getting a CO2 are 410 in a million or one in 2,439. This is a 0.041 percent chance.Plugging these numbers into Excel and solving by trial and error doesn’t work. I think the probability is so minuscule, that the algorithm doesn’t work.I found an internet site that solves the binomial distribution function, but it has limits on the inputs.I determined that after 5 hours of picking molecules, you’d have about a 10% chance of getting one CO2 molecule.The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is something close to nothing.**The Greenhouse Effect is Dead - Ned Nikolov**There is no observable physical data to support the ‘thought experiment’ of AGW. Recent German scientists research relying on more than 100 scientific papers find the theory is only ‘meritless conjecture.’Demonizing C02 emissions from fossil fuels is not based on any physical observations like most science theories, rather is is only a ‘thought experiment.’ Physical data contradicts the theory by showing the c02 does only correlates is at all with warming temperatures after the fact. SeeLet’s begin with peer reviewed papers that demolish the shoddy science demonizing Co2 plant food emissions from fossil fuels.GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPERFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Henrik Svensmark: While the Sun Sleeps“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.A brilliant Danish scientist PROF HENRIK SVENSMARK explained this reality as follows:Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”Anthony Watts / September 10, 2009While the sun sleepsTranslation approved by Henrik SvensmarkWhile the Sun sleepsHenrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, CopenhagenThe star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactGreenhouse EffectBased On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. They conclude that this “thought experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations.”Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quantifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/opp2902Seeing is Believing289,504 viewsco2sciencePublished on 9 Apr 2010Isolated for 42 days in chambers of ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations, we periodically document the growth of cowpea plants (Vigna unguiculata) via time-lapse photography.Submarine crew are reported to be the major source of CO2 on board submarines (Crawl 2003). Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).Thus, CO2 at 4,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlike submariners.https://www.quora.com/At-what-CO2-percentage-would-our-atmosphere-become-toxic-to-humansGOVERNMENT ACTION IS TALK ONLY WITH NO IMPACTTHE CLIMATE IS COOLING WHY TRY TO MAKE IT COLDER?It is obvious that government action is terribly wasteful and useless assuming Co2 matters to the climate as renewables and carbon taxes are having zero impact on reality.Do we really want to go back in history to low levels of Co2 and low life expectancy? Now of course the above graph only shows correlation between increasing Co2 levels and increasing life expectancy. Obviously simple correlation does not prove causation. However as to causation the connection is that Co2 is essential to all plant and animal life on the planet through photosynthesis. Even the politically driven UN IPCC recognized that government plans to reduce Co2 levels could be disastrous to plants and have a devastating impact on life expectancy. As a result the PARIS ACCORD specifies in ARTICLE 2(b) that if reducing Co2 ‘threatens FOOD PRODUCTION’ the reductions and targets should be cancelled. Yes a full exemption is allowed for governments against action on lowering Co2 levels from human emission, THANKFULLY! The climate is getting colder as sunspots decline and yet the Paris Agreement hopes to make the climate even colder yet. WHY? This madness must stop.French scientists demolish the weak greenhouse gas theory of global warmingGreenhouse Gas TheoryPublished on September 12, 2018Written by Camille VeyresThe Co2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory can be demonstrated to be a fraud. A fresh analysis of the statistical trickery and misrepresentation of the physical properties of this benign trace atmospheric gas are examined herein.Summary:(1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the air in a consequence of the surface temperatures of the inter-tropical zone where most of the out-gassing takes place; it is a consequence (an integral over time) of past temperatures, and hence cannot cause the temperatures; 6% of the CO2 of the air is anthropogenic and 94% from natural out-gassing.(2) The so-called greenhouse effect exists only in vacuum and cannot exist in the atmosphere neither on Earth nor on Venus: a polytropic relation between pressure and temperature explains the surface temperatures; the Earth’s atmosphere is, due to its water vapor, extremely opaque to thermal infrared and cannot carry heat radiatively outside the water vapor window; the thermal infrared radiation of the troposphere (90% of that of the globe) is controlled by the water vapor content at say 300 mbar; changes of the carbon dioxide content of the air have no effect because water vapor is in control.Carbon cycle:Carbon dioxide is exchanged between oceans (39000 Gt-C), air (850 Gt-C) and vegetation and soils (2500 Gt-C) (figure 6-1 of IPCC-AR5-WG1). Cumulative anthropogenic emissions since 1751, 430 Gt-C, are about one percent of the total. Each year one fifth of the CO2 of the air is absorbed (discounting the daily respiration of the vegetation) by cold surface oceans (80 Gt-C/yr) and by plants (90 Gt-C/yr). From 1900 to 1999 the global terrestrial photosynthetic primary production increased by 30% [1] as did the absorption by oceans; IPCC figure 6-1 underestimate by a factor three the exchange of carbon between surface ocean and deep ocean.Fact 1: The partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in sea water is driven by the temperatures and increases by 3.6 times between the border of the ice pack (200 µatm) that sucks CO2 from the air (400 µatm) and the inter-tropical zone (600 µatm) which belches CO2 into the air.Frauds and obfuscations: Revelle’s 1965 report [2], Bolin’s papers of the 1960s and IPCC use two main tricks to exclude oceans from the carbon cycle and to conceal the effect of temperatures; with only air and vegetation (no soils!) left, half of fossil fuel stays forever in the atmosphere (the “airborne fraction”) and half in vegetation.Trick 1: They say there is almost no exchange of carbon between the surface ocean (900 Gt-C) and the deep ocean (Revelle 1965: no exchange; IPCC 1990: 35 and 37 Gt-C/yr; IPCC 2013: 90 and 101 GtC/yr).Trick 2: Revelle’s equation dpCO2/ pCO2 = {8 to 12} d DIC/DIC is said to describe a static “equilibrium” between air and surface ocean.Fact 2: Quote from [3]: at temperate latitudes the subduction of dissolved inorganic carbon DIC and to a lesser extent the sinking particles maintain CO2 under-saturation, and hence absorption of carbon dioxide from the air. In the tropical band and in the Southern Ocean Dissolved Inorganic Carbon is obducted back to the surface. The 275 Giga ton per year supply by obduction and the 265 gigaton per year removal by subduction are 3 to 5 times larger than previous estimates.Comments: Revelle’s equation or “buffer factor” applies in a bottle with sea water and air but cannot be used globally: ocean water is moving, has surface temperatures between -1.5°C and 33°C and the carbon of the surface ocean is renewed continuously by intertropical obduction and middle latitude subduction.Fact 3: the CO2 content of the air is a consequence of past intertropical temperatures, their time-integral. See figure above: the time derivative of the ppm in grey, a linear function of the intertropical UAH-MSU temperature anomaly AT(t) in yellow-green. Hence d[CO2] (t)/dt = 1.7 (AT(t) – (-0,8°C)). Unit root tests on time-series (Dickey Fuller) require the ppm curve to be derived once w.r.t. time before attempting a correlation with the temperatures.The autocorrelation functions of times series “AT(t)” and “increments at Mauna Loa” are completely different of that of “anthropogenic emissions”. Subtraction of linear trends from the time series of the Mauna Loa increments and of the anthropogenic emissions kills any fictious (common “trend”) correlation: R² = 0.014 [see professor Munshi’s papers].Hence the ppm are the integral over time of the temperature anomaly of the intertropical zone where outgassing takes place, a consequence of past temperatures; CO2 ppm cannot control the temperature.Fact 4: As one fifth of the CO2 content of the air is absorbed every year, the carbon content of the air y(t) is a solution of dy/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 or y(t) = 5 f(t) – 5 dy/dt, with f(t) input. This applies to both components, the natural and the anthropogenic (f(t) = 10 Gt-C/yr) parts of the carbon of the air.The anthropogenic component of the air is 5 yr x 10 Gt-C/yr – 5 yr 0,4 Gt-C/yr = 48 Gt-C = 23 ppm or 6%; the component from natural outgassing is 94%. The natural outgassing, since 1958, went up from 62 ppm/yr to almost 80 ppm/yr, while anthropogenic emissions went from 1 ppm/yr to 4.5 ppm/yr. Natural climate cycles drive the temperature that drive the natural outgassing, that provides today’s 94% of the CO2 of the air, and the total CO2 of the air drives the absorption, always (1/5) of it.Fact 5: 13C is 1000 ((13C/12C) /0,0112372 – 1), a linear function of the ratio of the number of atoms 13C and12C; the 13C of fossil fuels reflects the changing mix of coal, oil and gas; today, only 6% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: 6% (-30) + 94% (-7.1) = (-8.5) is the observed 13C.The naturally outgassed carbon (green curve) has the 13C signature of the ambient air some sixty years before; it displays some ups and downs because during El Niños, more carbon with a more negative 13 is released; the 13C of the CO2 in sea water is about 1.5 per mil below that of the air.Deceptions and frauds: see IPCC FAR (1990) page 14, § 1.2.5 and IPCC AR4 p 139.Deceptions and frauds: Bern and Hamburg impulse responses: A compartment model is a set of linear equations solved by Laplace transform; its impulse response is a weighted sum of exponential time decays, with, here, eight free parameters tuned to make the convolution of the impulse response with the time series of anthropogenic emissions look like a heavily massaged version of Maona Loa ppm, with a 100 years 1/e decay time.This is based on the A PRIORI hypothesis that all change of ppm is from fossil fuels. The impulse response for a “airborne fraction” of 50% of fossil fuels that remains forever in the air is half a Dirac! Those tales have been debunked by observations: the doubling of the production of coal between 2000 and 2010 with +40% on anthropogenic emissions had no visible change on the derivative or slope of the Mauna-Loa ppm (grey line on figure above) . In the 2013 IPCC reports, Bern formula disappeared from the WG1 report, but was still used by WG3.came from 400 Gt-C released by fossil fuels and 520 Gt-C released by the oceans. The non-linear transfer of carbon from oceans to vegetation and soils was properly discussed in 1956 by Eriksson & Welander, a decade before Revelle’ report.Fact 7: The deep ocean carbon turnover time seems to be one or two centuries (270 Gt-C / yr obducted and subducted divided by 38000 Gt-C or by part of it). 60 meters of ice divided by Antarctic precipitations of 5 mm per year is 10 000 years. On a slice of ice-core the paths between different bubbles in the slice and the surface, say 80 meters above, close at different times due to the progressive and random closing of the pores in the firn. The moving-average time smoothing over millennia removes all trace of the oceanic century-long carbon cycles in the deep ocean.Hence ice cores cannot record century long changes of carbon dioxide in the air; their records below 300 ppm are a consequence of the time averaging by the physics of the closing of the pores. More: splicing the heavily time averaged ice core data to Mauna Loa instantaneous data is a fraud.Water vapor and elementary atmospheric physics:Fact 8: The simple diabatic model d’Q= Ch dT and the barometric relation prove the polytropic relation T(P)/T(P0) = (P/P0) R/(Cp- Ch) in the troposphere and the equivalent gravitational g/(Cp- Ch) temperature lapse rate. On Earth 288 K = 223 K + 10 km x 6,5 K/km = 223 K (1 atm /0,26 atm)0,19 while on Venus 735 K = 230 K + 63 km x 8 K/km = 230 K (92 atm /0,1 atm)0,17Frauds and obfuscations: Radiative heat trapping? No! The tropospheric temperature is an effect of the pressure! A runaway greenhouse effect on Venus? No! It is a straight consequence of the mass of the air, one thousand tons per square meter and of the polytropic relation. There is almost no light from the Sun on the surface of Venus.The diabatic curve above in black is warmer than the green adiabatic; water vapor absorbs solar infrared and releases heat by condensation. The tropospheric water vapor and the clouds provide the bulk of the global thermal radiation almost 200 W/m²; the top or skin of water vapor that radiates from the troposphere toward the cosmos is fed by evaporation-condensation and by convection, not-at-all by radiation from the surface. Stratospheric CO2 and ozone radiate the heat of solar UV absorbed by stratospheric oxygen and ozone. Surface-to-cosmos: 22 W/m² [4] only escape absorption by water vapor and clouds.Frauds and obfuscations: the surface is a blackbody (No! Kiehl & Trenberth schemes overestimate by 10% the thermal radiation from the surface); solar heat is released by thermal infrared emission of the surface (No! Only some 22 W/m² of 160 W/m²); the back-radiation of the air warms the surface (No! A heat transfer by thermal infrared radiation between A and B is: (radiated by A and absorbed by B) minus (radiated by B and absorbed by A) with is about zero between surface and air)Fact 9: There exist a greenhouse effect, but only in vacuum! On the Moon, under the pane with Sun at the zenith, the surface temperature would increase by some 75°C. But on Earth, the turbulent air with water vapor is an excellent heat pipe that carries heat from the surface to the top layer of the tropospheric water vapor; as water vapor is quite opaque the radiative net balance is zero between surface (A) and air (B).Fact 10: A pellicle or skin of optical thickness 1.07 transmits 20% and absorbs 80% of the incoming thermal infrared; hence it produces about 80% of the thermal infrared radiated by the body. The water vapor window from 28 THz to 39 THz is often closed by clouds. For an optical thickness of 100 and 30 kg/m², a layer or skin of 300 grams of water vapor, 1 km thick near 9 km and 40 m thick near the surface is the source of 80% of the radiation from the atmosphere.The lower limit of the radiating layer or skin is pictured in blue for water vapor, red for today’s CO2 ppm, brown for doubled CO2. CO2 radiates from the stratosphere except near 18.4 THz and near 21.6 THz. Doubling the CO2 content of the air pushes the radiating pellicle upward around those two absorption lines from 350 mbar to say 250 mbar, from red to brown, hence a “higher and cooler” effect in the troposphere, that reduces the OLR by some 1.6 W/m² for a test-profile, less than one percent of the water vapor tropospheric OLR.The blue curve shows that between 200 mbar and 400 mbar water vapor radiates over about 40 THz, almost 40 times the band of tropospheric CO2 at the same altitude.Frauds and deceptions: There exist a radiative forcing of 2.5 W/m² from a decreasing OLR due to more CO2 in the air. 93% of it goes into the oceansComments: OLR observed from satellites increased since 1979 by 1.1 W/m²/decade; Ocean Heat Content increases by some 0.25 W/m² since the 1970s. Radiative forcing is like the new clothes of the Emperor, made from nothing: no chemical reaction, no nuclear reaction, only by quackery.Fact 11: The Water vapor content of the air near 300 millibar is dynamic, extremely variable and regulates the Outgoing Longwave Radiation of the globe; the relative humidity is there from 20% to 50%. It wipes out in hours or days any tropospheric effect of more CO2 in the air.[1] J. E. Campbell et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary productionNature volume 544, pages84–87 (06 April 2017) Nature[2] Climate & Capitalism...published by the White House Washington DC Nov. 1965[3] M. Levy et al. 2013, Physical pathways for carbon transfers between the surface mixed layer and the ocean interior, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 27, 1001–1012, doi:10.1002/gbc.20092[4] Costa S.M.S., Shine K.P. Outgoing Longwave Radiation due to Directly Transmitted SurfaceEmission J. Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 69, 2012 pp. 1865-1870The above content is compiled from the original presentation, ‘Eleven facts you must know to avoid being deceived by the AGW’ author, Camille Veyres, the Porto Climate Conference 2018 September 7 and 8, at Porto University (Porto, 2018)Now French Scientist Trashes Gr“Human CO2 only 0.01% of atmosphereThis paper has been updated in 2017.Now French Scientist Trashes Greenhouse Gas Theory | PSI IntlClimate Gate – Global Warming The Myth: CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our TimePosted on December 12, 2009 by mcauleysworldThe following article by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best., was published, after peer review, in March 2007. Dr. Jaworski was one of the first to point out the loss of scientific integrity in the field of global warming research.CO2 – The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our TimeBy: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, M.D., Ph. D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best.ERI Science March 16, 2007Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, one of our planets first climate change specialists, is a multidisciplinary scientist, now a senior advisor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-58, he measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. From 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers: in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the Peruvian Andes. He has published many papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements in ice cores. Two of his papers on climate appear on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine. www.21stcenturysciencetech.com. Dr Jaworski is one of the world’s preeminent scholars in the field of ice core analysis.IntroductionOn Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style to a crowd of politicians and media, accompanied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world. This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scientific report, which was not released until May 2007.In the words of the IPCC, the delay was needed so that, “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages was allowed to be in conflict with what the politicians (and bureaucrats) said beforehand in the summary! (In fact several of the original findings and conclusions made by the panel of investigating scientists were changed prior to the publication of the actual report – conclusions that were not in “lockstep” with the desired political conclusions were deleted from the report).This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s words about the delay, disclosing its lack of scientific integrity and independence. It is exactly the same modus operandi demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995, and 2001. ……The Four Basic IPCC LiesThe four basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” are:1).Carbon dioxide, an important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, increased markedly as a result of human activities and its atmospheric concentration of 379 ppmv (parts per million, by volume) in 2005 by far exceeding the natural range of 180 to 300 ppmv over the last 650,000 years.2. Since 1750, human activities warmed the climate.3. The warmth of the last half-century is unusual, is the highest in at least the past 1,300 years, and is “very likely” caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.4. Predictions are made that anthropogenic warming will continue for centuries and between 2090 and 2099 the global average surface temperature will increase 1.1°C to 6.4°C.Various scare stories of global catastrophes are prophesied to occur if man-made emissions are not curbed by drastic political decisions.The obvious beneficial effects of warming are downplayed. (Beneficial effects include larger crop yields, reducing the likelyhood of continued global famine).Except for the pronouncements concerning CO2, all these points are garlanded with qualifications such as “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely” and “unequivocal.”In fact, to the contrary, all 4 of these points are incorrect.The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice.This statement is a half-truth.It is true that CO2 is “an important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the “Summary for Policymakers.”Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea, human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gas, probably close to 0.12%. (12 hundredth’s of 1%).Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.The Truth About Ice CoresBecause carbon dioxide ice core records are regarded as a foundation of the man-made global warming hypothesis, let us dwell on them for a while.The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite (see review in Jaworowski et al. 1992b).Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values much higher than the current atmospheric concentrations. (Jaworowski et al. 1992b). These recent proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years (Siegenthaler et al. 2005) even during the six former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial!This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true, as shown below).It was never experimentally demonstrated that ice core records reliably represent the original atmospheric composition. Other proxies demonstrated that many millions of years ago CO2 levels in the atmosphere reached, at various times, 377, 450, and even 3,500 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001), and that during the past 10,000 years these levels were, as a rule, higher than 300 ppmv, fluctuating up to 348 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001, Wagner et al 1999, Wagner et al. 2002).The results of these last studies prove false the assertion of stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 ppmv to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. (Global warming alarmist claim this false level of atmospheric level of CO2 – it is the base level from which they claim an alarming increase has occurred).The results of the cited pre-1985 studies are strongly supported by direct CO2 measurements, carried out in the pre-industrial and 20th-Century atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps even 1,000 times higher than today. According to today’s climate models, the Earth would have been too hot for life at that time (Ohmoto et al. 2004).However, geologic evidence suggests there was not a Venus-style, “runaway warming.” Instead, life flourished then in the oceans and land, with such enormously high levels of this “gas of life,” from which our bodies and all living creatures are built (Godlewski 1873). Yet, Greens now call this gas a dangerous “pollutant.”The Hockey Stick CurvesOn the basis of assumption piled upon assumption, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled by combining distorted proxy ice core data and direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmophere.These measurements were created by illegitimately mixing proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.“…. falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports, including the “Summary for Policymakers” issued in 2007….”These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data an arbitrary rejection of the high readings from “old ice” and an arbritary rejection of low readings from “young ice”, simply because the data did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. (Yes, the study “excluded all data” that did not fit the preconceived and desired outcome – the data which tended to disprove the desired outcome was excluded from the report).Dr. Jaworski’s compelling report can be read in its entirety (with supporting graphs and references) here:http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdfHow Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?How does the air get hot? How does the air warm at all? Just consider this – 99% of the atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen which are both transparent to infrared radiation, both incoming and outgoing. Is this a scientific fact, agreed by both Warmists and Skeptics? Yes, it is.So how does the air get warm? How is it that the weather forecasters routinely broadcast the temperature in a given place and also project the highest temperature likely and the lowest also?So we are all agreed on two things. The first is that 99% of air is transparent to infrared radiation and second that there is a given but moving temperature in any certain location – say London or Paris, Singapore or Jakarta. But what is causing the warming? What actually effects the warming?There are three means of heat transference, namely radiation, conduction, and convection. We have already ruled out radiation since 99% of the atmosphere is transparent to this radiation.So, is it only the greenhouse gases that get hot? I don’t think that anybody considers that to be a possibility. It would be totally ridiculous to say that 1% of the air is hot and the 99% is cold.So if radiation is ruled out, then the only real possibility left is conduction. It cannot be convection since that is a means of cooling. Sure, there are what are called convection heaters, but is not that a misnomer?When one examines them more closely one finds that the air is heated by an electrical coil that is hot, so, in fact, the air is heated by conduction and convection occurs by itself or with the help of a fan.In the same way, a radiator does radiate a little when hot water passes through it, but the air is actually heated by touching, by conduction and radiation plays a minor part.Holding one’s hand close to a hot radiator and then touching the same radiator easily prove this. At three inches away the heat is barely felt.But the heat transferred to the hand when it is laid on the radiator is instant. To be absolutely certain of this, try putting a hand on a kettle of boiling water!In this way, we can see that the mantra of Hans Schreuder ‘Sun heats Earth and Earth heats Atmosphere’ is correct. The atmosphere does not heat the Earth – on the contrary, the atmosphere is a giant cooling system.The radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere and collides with the mass of the Earth, be it rocks, sands, prairies, forests, lakes, rivers and oceans.Over the whole surface of the Earth, there is this great unending heat exchange, by conduction. The heat everywhere is carried upwards and away by convection.As the molecules of the air are heated they burst out of their cage and the molecules spread out in a giant fan, getting farther and farther apart with altitude.Only in this way can we understand why, as we ascend a hill or a mountain, the air gets progressively colder, which is even more noticeable in aviation. As the air gets thinner, that is to say as the molecules get farther and farther apart, so the temperature drops.Yet it is true that some of the molecules of the greenhouse gases may indeed be hot. The Warmists argue that these hot molecules effectively warm other molecules and even radiate back down towards the surface of the Earth.This is where a great error occurs, even amongst certain physicists. They have overlooked one thing, namely that between the molecules at altitude there is ‘nothing’, there is space, and there is a vacuum.I have quite often written ‘One cannot heat “nothing” only for the built-in grammar check in Word to rule out what it senses as a double negative. But this concept is essential.The radiation from the Sun passes through outer space precisely because it is a vacuum. A vacuum cannot get hot for there is ‘nothing’ to get hot. Only ‘something’ like ‘mass’ can get hot and have a temperature.So we see that a spaceship, which does have mass, has to take enormous pains to keep cool when suspended in this vacuum.The Warmists argue that the average mean surface temperature has risen by 0.8º Celsius since 1900 or 0.8 degrees in over 100 years.They may well be right although they admit that they have to make thousands of calculations from weather stations, ships at sea, radiosonde balloons and satellites in space to arrive at their conclusions.Above all, we must remember that an ‘average’ temperature is not a temperature at all. If it were, then the Moon, with its extremes of temperature, would be a habitable place!Furthermore, they argue that this same average temperature would be some 10s of degrees less without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They might indeed make a case with water vapor impeding the exit of heat, as indeed it does.But what is interesting is that they show and acknowledge that the Sun is the main source of energy, of heat and light.When we examine these arguments seriously we can see they have got a lot right. The Earth and the oceans do indeed absorb solar energy.The intense heat in the dry Sahara does dissipate quickly as the Sun sets, while in Jakarta where the air is full of moisture the temperature declines slowly.However, slowly or quickly, they are conceding that the atmosphere is a great travellator for carrying heat away to outer space.The atmosphere does not warm the Earth – only the radiation from the Sun does that. And it is the surface of the Earth that both warms and cools the atmosphere.The Warmists also make a bizarre claim that the molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) radiate heat back to the Earths surface.A molecule is tiny, not visible to the naked eye. Just how far can a molecule radiate? Not very far, since it is governed by the Inverse Square Law.So indeed a molecule of carbon dioxide may indeed absorb infrared radiation, but neither carbon dioxide nor water vapor generates heat.It is important to realize that the Warmists do not claim that the greenhouse gases generate heat, only that these greenhouse gases prevent the escape of heat thus making the lower atmosphere warmer.So the science is agreed by both sides, that is to say, the data. The trouble is that while it is true that water vapor may well inhibit the exit of heat from the surface, it can clearly be shown that clouds break up and scatter incoming infrared radiation.So while nitrogen and oxygen are transparent, the greenhouse gases are opaque and therefore both inhibit the entry and the exit of infrared radiation. Ergo water vapor can clearly be observed as a coolant.When a cloud on a fine sunny day passes across the face of the Sun it cools. When raindrops fall the atmosphere cools. When ocean water evaporates, the sea may warm but the atmosphere above is cooled.The Warmist scientists are not so stupid as to claim that that the greenhouse gases ‘generate’ heat, but their claim effectively is that these same gases prevent ‘heat loss’ – called the greenhouse effect.But greenhouse or ordinary brick-built house is all the same – heat always seeks an equilibrium, which is actually never achieved. In my own house, since I hate the cold, I may have the central heating on for hours, until the temperature has risen to a comfortable degree.What is the difference? My boiler is generating heat. The moment it clocks off at 11 PM the heat disperses. Nothing can prevent this dispersion. The heat will pass through walls, through windows under doors seeking equilibrium with the outside temperature.Why then is equilibrium never achieved? For the very simple reason that the outside air masses are also seeking equilibrium and awaiting the radiation from the Sun.All sorts of other factors kick in. There are winds, there are weather fronts where one mass of warmer air may collide with a colder mass, there is the Coriolis effect, and there are rain and frost. So there is a continuous fight for equilibrium, which is never achieved.We live in a world of flux. Those who attempt to arrive at a global temperature are striving in vain. And those who attempt to blame mankind for upsetting the balance of nature by burning fossil fuels ignore at their peril the enormous cosmic influences, which affect the tides, the monsoons, and even the movements of the continents.Surely the Earth is warming and cooling, surely the climates everywhere are indeed changing and evolving, for in spite of wars and technological advances, the cosmic forces demand that mankind makes progress at an ever increasing speed.To return to my initial question: What heats the air? once we realize that only conduction can possibly heat the air, then all the talk of the greenhouse gases capturing the radiation from the Earth falls into place.So we may pose the question to ourselves? Is there any such thing as anthropological (man-made) global warming? Surprise, surprise!Yes, there is some man-made global warming, by means of the prevention of heat loss, through the greenhouse gases.But since the greenhouse gases are together in sum only 1% of the atmosphere, then only half of 1% can be attributed to mankind, as night follows day.And since nature produces 96% of carbon dioxide and only 4% is produced by man, the effect of mankind on the warming of the Earth can be reduced by a further 96%.So the Warmists may indeed claim 0.0048% of the warming and the Luke Warmers may agree, but dare I say it, the Slayers of the Sky Dragon are the only ones to have understood the whole picture.The quantities I have mentioned are so trifling as to be laughable. In any case, evaporation alone would negate any theoretical warming.How Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?