Whether It Is Warming or Climate Change, It Cannot Be the CO2
by Dr. Tim Ball
by Dr. Tim Ball: Ghost
of Kyoto: Government Control By Any Means
Japanese Research Institute published a satellite map of sources
of CO2 emissions. It was virtually ignored by the mainstream media,
but that has become an inverse measure of its significance to the
climate debate. It showed a pattern that most would not expect because
of the misleading information presented by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) amplified by most media. Producers
of the research illustrate the problem.
of the research institute, Yasuhiro Sasano, says he hopes the
map will help display how much each region needs to reduce its
CO2 emissions in the future.”
This is only
a politically correct comment because the map illustrates the exact
opposite, CO2 emission reduction is not required where the IPCC
recommend. John O’Sullivan correctly drew attention to this dilemma,
however, the results are logical if known science is applied.
Figure 1: Red is for high CO2 emission: Green (absorbers) no emissions:
White is low or neutral emissions.
in the article is not surprising if you know anything about CO2
and don’t buy the ‘official’ nonsense. The oceans
are the main control of atmospheric CO2 as one of the atmospheric
gases in constant flux between the water and the atmosphere. The
ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 is a function of its temperature –
cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The boundary between
the warm polar water and warm tropical water is very clearly defined
in most parts of the world and the map generally reflects this pattern.
The map is only surprising if you believe that humans are the primary
source of CO2.
I was criticized
for participating in the book Slaying
the Sky Dragon but did so because they were tackling a question
that few, including most of the skeptics, ignore; the actual role
of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. As a climatologist I know all the variables
must fit together and interact with each other. The evidence for
CO2 as a greenhouse gas simply doesn’t fit. The Slayers had serious
problems with the physics and it was essential to put that information
into the debate. The map makes it time to revisit why, besides the
physics, CO2 doesn’t fit.
There are several
misconceptions about CO2, most created because proponents tried
to prove the hypothesis rather than the normal scientific practice
of disproof. It helped them if the misinformation created unfounded
fears. An early IPCC claim said atmospheric residency time of CO2
was at least 100 years. Done, ostensibly, for the political point
that even if we stopped production immediately the damage was done.
We now know the actual time is at most 5 to 6 years.
The major assumption
of the hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.
After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., Antarctic ice core records
were presented as evidence. Just four years later proof that the
major assumption of the hypothesis was wrong appeared. Somehow it
was shuffled aside, probably because of the diversionary claim that
the lag was between 80 and 800 years. It doesn’t matter, it still
contradicts the basic assumption. Temperature change before CO2
change is the case in every record for any period or duration is
studiously ignored by proponent and skeptic. A shorter record showing
the relationship is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Lag Time for Short Record 1958 to 2009
It is logical
to assume that if CO2 change follows temperature change in every
record then CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas.
is the claim that CO2 is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere
and levels don’t vary much over time. The measuring techniques developed
by Keeling for the Mauna Loa site were patented and is the standard
measuring technique for the world. It is a questionable technique
including the ‘adjustments’ made to the readings. Ernst
Georg Beck demonstrated the problems (Figure 3) and the lengths
taken to blend the ice core record to the 19th. Century data to
the Mauna Loa record. He also shows a lag of five years eliminated
by the 70 year smoothing applied to the ice core data that eliminates
or masks most diagnostic information.
Figure 3 Diagram and Caption by Ernst Beck
confirms the findings that compares ice core CO2 levels with stomata
measures. Figure 4 shows 2000 years of record from 6500 to 8500
years BP. Similarities of stomata readings with Beck’s record include
higher atmospheric levels and much greater variability.
The map and
the accompanying article create a distortion in its speculation
about the amount of human produced CO2 as a fraction of natural
production. According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers,
humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is
within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two
natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very
crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines
like, “Forests soak up more CO2 than thought” and “Old-growth forests
absorb CO2 too: study” keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9
gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground
bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according
to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across
the planet and it doesn’t even show on the world map. The pattern
confirms this because it reflects natural sources.
Figure 4 With Original Caption and Source
skeptics, want to confront the problem that temperature increase
precedes CO2 increase in absolute contradiction to the major assumption
of the AGW hypothesis. It is increasingly obvious that CO2 is not
a greenhouse gas and the only group challenging that scientifically
are the Slayers, which is why I joined them. Science must be about
skepticism, otherwise the science is settled, but then it isn’t
Tim Ball [send him mail]
is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor
at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background
in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International
Climate Science Coalition, Friends
of Science, and the Frontier
Centre for Public Policy.
© 2011 Tim