GLOBAL WARMING ,IS CO2 THE VILLIAN; UPDATE
In 1975 a PhD. in atmospheric science and climate specialist
for NASA gave a guest lecture at the university where I was an undergraduate.
His discussion on the subject, one analogy in particular has stayed with me all
these years. He painted a mental image for us of a 10,000 seat football stadium
where the seats represented the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. He said
before you get too concerned about CO2, realize that only three of those seats
would be CO2 by volume. If instead we consider the greenhouse gases by their
effective contribution and not volume then he said the CO2 would only occupy one
seat. Virtually all of the seats in that stadium would represent water vapor.
The scientific and pseudo scientific community publish
articles citing empirical data from one study or another to add gravity to the
argument they are making. A careful reading of the way that the data is
presented in each paper is usually instructive. Take for instance the papers
that state 99.4% of the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is CO2.
This statement is true if you ignore the contribution of water vapor. No less
authority than the U.S. Department of Energy published a chart in October of
2000 showing that 99.438% of the greenhouse gas is CO2. Of the 368,400 parts
per billion (PPB) CO2 in the atmosphere they could only credit 11.880 PPB to be
manmade additions. The rest of the CO2 existed before mankind started burning
fossil fuels or got there through natural activity such as volcanic eruptions. 3.2%
of the total atmospheric CO2 is all they could blame on mankind through our
entire history but more importantly the chart states that the figures do not
include water vapor. You see this exception over and over in the literature
because it helps to color the narrative showing CO2 as a bad actor. If you
include water vapor in the study CO2 only contributes 3.62% to the greenhouse
effect. So 3.2% (mans contribution) of 3.62% of the total greenhouse effect can
fairly be blamed on mankind burning fossil fuels. One tenth of one percent (0.001)
is the fault of man. Another piece of empirical data used over and over states
quite accurately that throughout history the periods of highest average climate
temperatures are also the times when the CO2 levels were the highest. The
question of cause or effect is pertinent here. Is the climate average
temperature high because of the elevated CO2 level or is the CO2 level elevated
because of the high temperatures? Look up a graph for yourself that plots the
earth’s temperature over time including a plot of CO2 levels. I can save you
some time, the temperature rise pre-dates the increase in CO2 levels
consistently by about 1000 years. It does seem that increased temperature
causes the elevated CO2 levels and not the opposite, at the very least we can
deduce that the CO2 could not have caused any temperature rise which proceeded
it by many years.
I have been asked over and over to support my original post
since I first included it in my blog. The graph below shows the 100,000 year
warming cycle coinciding with orbital cycles that keep us closer to the sun.
The second major point of my first post was that all of the hype about CO2
comes from studies that intentionally omit the dominant effect of water vapor
as a green house gas. The charts and graphs that follow show the effects of CO2
relative to water vapor and mans portion of the CO2.
TABLE
1.
The
Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
(all concentrations expressed in
parts per billion)
|
Pre-industrial
baseline
|
Natural
additions
|
Man-made
additions
|
Total
(ppb) Concentration
|
Percent
of Total
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
288,000
|
68,520
|
11,880
(2)
|
368,400
|
99.438%
|
Methane (CH4)
|
848
|
577
|
320
|
1,745
|
0.471%
|
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
|
285
|
12
|
15
|
312
|
0.084%
|
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
|
25
|
0
|
2
|
27
|
0.007%
|
Total
|
289,158
|
69,109
|
12,217
|
370,484
|
100.00%
|
TABLE 2.
Atmospheric
Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
Multiplier (GWP)
|
Pre-industrial
baseline(new)
|
Natural additions
(new)
|
Man-made additions
(new)
|
Tot. Relative Contribution
|
Percent of Total
(new)
|
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
1
|
288,000
|
68,520
|
11,880
|
368,400
|
72.369%
|
Methane (CH4)
|
21 (3)
|
17,808
|
12,117
|
6,720
|
36,645
|
7.199%
|
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
|
310 (3)
|
88,350
|
3,599
|
4,771
|
96,720
|
19.000%
|
2,500
|
0
|
4,791
|
7,291
|
1.432%
|
||
Total
|
396,658
|
84,236
|
28,162
|
509,056
|
100.000%
|
NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.
3. Table 3, shows what
happens when the effect of water vapor is
factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a
relative % of the total greenhouse effect.
TABLE
3.
Role
of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
Based on concentrations (ppb)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics
|
Percent
of Total
|
Percent
of Total --adjusted for water vapor
|
Water vapor
|
-----
|
95.000%
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
72.369%
|
3.618%
|
Methane (CH4)
|
7.100%
|
0.360%
|
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
|
19.000%
|
0.950%
|
CFC's (and other misc. gases)
|
1.432%
|
0.072%
|
Total
|
100.000%
|
100.000%
|
Total atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect--
a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!
Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural
sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among
climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain
governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just
ignored altogether.
Conceding that it might be "a
little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the
practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics
|
%
of Greenhouse Effect
|
%
Natural
|
%
Man-made
|
Water vapor
|
95.000%
|
94.999%
|
0.001%
|
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
|
3.618%
|
3.502%
|
0.117%
|
Methane (CH4)
|
0.360%
|
0.294%
|
0.066%
|
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
|
0.950%
|
0.903%
|
0.047%
|
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
|
0.072%
|
0.025%
|
0.047%
|
Total
|
100.00%
|
99.72
|
0.28%
|
In April of 2012
forty nine former scientists, engineers and astronauts from NASA sent a joint
letter to the current NASA administrator. The letter objected to NASA and the
Goddard Institute for Space Studies extreme advocacy of the theory that CO2 is
causing global warming. The scientists included these points.
1)
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause
of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective
assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public
statements.”
2)
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that
man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate
change are not substantiated.”
3)
“We request that NASA refrain from including
unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and web sites on this
subject.”
So if the CO2 isn’t a major contributor to the heating up
the planet what is? Sampling of the ice cores shows that the earth has
undergone cycles of warming every 100,000 years. A study of the earth’s orbital
dynamics (spending more time closer to the sun) explains the variation
including the 100,000 year frequency of ice ages. The time line of 100,000 year
cycles shows that we are due for a warming trend. Random variations tend to
coincide with volcanic eruptions that put ash in the atmosphere or the level of
solar activity.
It seems imprudent to take drastic measures aimed at
reducing CO2 emissions when their impact is virtually negligible on the
environment. Remember that if mankind had never burned any fossil fuel the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would only be lower by 0.1%. The
financial impact on industry and the economy on the other hand is anything but
negligible. It is left to us to investigate what motivates the “climate change”
alarmists who slant the scientific data in their effort to foment a crisis.
Could it be that the lure of nearly unlimited research grants and speaking fees
are having a corrupting influence on some who are so inclined?
The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide
reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2
emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a
devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce
your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to
zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.
Such drastic measures, even if
imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human
greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural
variability of Earth's climate system!
While the greenhouse reductions
would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of
living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of
measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any
statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto
Protocol.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
The majority of the graphic information presented here comes
from an article titled “Water vapor rules the greenhouse system” by Monte Heib
March 2, 2007 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The fact that man made CO2 in the environment has little to nothing
to do with global warming does not fit the progressives preferred narrative so
they skew the data by leaving out the contribution of water vapor. The practice
is blatant fraud and it is aimed at gaining control over the industrial
production and not about saving the environment.