the ‘war’ without end? … CO2

Oh dear, it can’t be true: The Global Warming War


The small increase in CO2 over recent years is showing to have promoted huge increases in greenery around the world.

What Climate Alarmists Don’t Want You Knowing About CO2

Man-made global warming is junk science. So say highly-qualified experts from the ‘hard’ sciences. Poorly trained government climate ‘experts’ for too long refused to share their half-baked theories and data about the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) with better qualified experts.

Below are typical well-known and established scientific facts that climate change alarmists would rather keep from you.

  • As part of the “Carbon Cycle”, through photosynthesis, atmospheric carbon dioxide is the sole source of the oxygen that we need to breathe (one molecule of CO2 produces one molecule of O2).
  • Similarly, through photosynthesis,our entire food supply (animal and vegetable) is dependent upon carbon dioxide.  Needless to say, carbon dioxide is essential to our survival.
  • In Calgary, Alberta, we accommodate “seasonal” temperature changes from, say, +30 C (summer) to -30 C (winter) for a 60 C temperature range, which is due to the Sun.  The +2 C “drift” in “average” global temperatures is attributed, by alarmists, to carbon dioxide (currently 400 ppm, parts-per-million, by volume in the atmosphere).
  • Carbon dioxide is a much poorer “green house gas” than water vapour (by a factor of ~160, see thermodynamic analysis: Stored.html).  Water vapour (at 1% or 10,000 ppm, by volume in the atmosphere) is particularly prevalent over the oceans that cover three-quarters of the surface of our planet.
  • A recent publication by NASA suggests that carbon dioxide actually contributes to “Global Cooling”: solar radiation global warming debunked.html
  • There are fossils of palm trees in the high Arctic and evidence of a previous Ice Age that had little to do with the activities of Man.
  • Meaningful, unbiased/objective, “hard” sources of global data regarding sources of carbon dioxide can be difficult to find in a format suitable for comparison purposes.
  • The site provides an excellent list of sources, but ignores the contribution of “natural” forest and grass fires.  A more complete list is as follows:

1. Respiration (plant and animal, unquantified)

2. Decay (plant and animal, unquantified)

3. Volcanic activity (>0.6 Gtonnes,

4. Forest & grass fires (unquantified)

5. Increase/decrease of carbon dioxide dissolved in ocean water (see analysis below).

“Man-made” Carbon Dioxide

6. Fossil fuel combustion (natural gas, petroleum, and coal: see IPCC estimates)

7. Cement production (calcination of limestone, may be included in 6.)

8. Wood combustion (deforestation and fuel wood, unquantified)

  • According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA-ESRL). the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory), showed an average annual increaseof 2.1 ppm (16 Gtonnes) per year for the past decade (2005-2014).  The average for the prior decade (1995-2004)was 1.9 ppm (15 Gtonnes) per year.  These numbers represent the “real” measured “net” result of all annual contributions (sources and sinks), listed or otherwise.
  • At a total atmospheric concentration of 400 ppm, a 2 ppm increase per year represents 0.5%  net increase per year, from all sources and sinks.
  • In the din of shrill, alarmist “Green” rhetoric, real science gets lost in the background and ignored by the media.
  • Al Gore, David Suzuki, the IPCC, etc., etc. have it exactly backwards, elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are more likely the result of global warming, not the cause.
  • The release of carbon dioxide (man-made) by combustion of hydrocarbons is negligible compared with the potential (and probably actual) release of carbon dioxide from warming oceans.
  • Cause and effect have been “converted” for ideological reasons or just plain ignorance.
  • Any form of “carbon tax”, or other related economically damaging policy, is “consequential” damage.
  • Of the three major “sinks” for carbon dioxide (photosynthesis, dissolving in water bodies, and natural sequestration), the oceans are the largest reservoir of dissolved carbon dioxide on the planet (40 to 60 times the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide, i.e., Nature’s own “carbon capture”).  This enormous carbon dioxide absorptive capacity of the oceans, in active exchange with the atmosphere, means that very little (approximately 1/40th to 1/60th) of any additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide (including “man-made”) accumulate in the air to contribute to any “Climate Change”.
  • Ocean organisms “sequester” some of the dissolved CO2 into seashells, corals, crustaceans, the White Cliffs of Dover, carbonates of the Western Sedimentary Basin and Rocky Mountains, and so on.  When ocean temperatures rise, CO2 is released into the atmosphere like a carbonated drink going “flat”.

The evidence:

1. Background: CO2 in sea water:

2.      (a) Atmospheric CO2 “lags” Global Warming:


3. It is well known (within established science) that the solubility of gases in water (including sea water) decreases with increasing water temperature.  The issue then is to determine the release (not rate) of carbon dioxide from sea water with increasing sea water temperatures (average).

The rates of release would be dependent upon the mixing efficiency of ocean currents, amongst other dynamic factors (atmospheric and otherwise).  The mechanism of point 3 is not to minimize the complexity of the “open system” dynamics, but an exercise of Occam’s Razor to simplify the analysis.  Refinements can be made later (if and when desired, for rigour).  All formulae are accessible so that math can be checked.

If Global Warming/Climate Change is not attributable to accumulating “man-made” atmospheric carbon dioxide, then no amount of effort directed to the “control” of man-made carbon dioxide will have any effect whatsoever.

Variable output from the Sun acting on atmospheric water vapour and clouds (condensed water vapour) has been identified as a much more likely explanation/driver for Climate Change (variations of “average” global temperatures), due to the enormous absorbed heat of vaporization (phase change) of the liquid water in dissipating clouds.  There is no corresponding thermodynamic explanation available to carbon dioxide (no phase change).


About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley)
This entry was posted in Climate, energy, Environment, science, weather and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to the ‘war’ without end? … CO2

  1. Pingback: the ‘war’ without end? … CO2 | pindanpost | Cranky Old Crow

  2. Nice. Not too many make the further link to energy/resource wars – no quotes required, it’s the real deal … and the value of propaganda as both a force multiplier and justification for consumption by the home front as well. And of course the IPCC … created for the express purpose of ginning up ‘science’…projects the propaganda as per the terms of its mandate to provide government policy parameters ; which does not include exploring the multiplicity of factors influencing planetary weather. Heck. if you say it’s about weather forecasting you will be pilloried as an ignoramus – regardless of the dictionary definition identifying climate as a mix of influences and weather effects averaged…because they naturally vary……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s