January 24, 2022

Climate Change News

Saving The Planet

Is carbon dioxide an existential threat?

Bending the first time from 280 ppm to 560 ppm causes a warming of ° Bending a second time from 560 ppm to 1,120 ppm causes an additional heating of ° C for a total of 3…

Governments, higher courts, and many international institutions seem pleased to declare that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are an imminent existential threat: a red light for humanity.

When pressured for a coherent scientific explanation, they may refer to the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or try to stifle any sober debate by dismissing investigators as deniers (I prefer to use the word “heretic”). ).

With the energy crisis unfolding in Europe caused by the rapid elimination of carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels, combined with rising simultaneous demand in Asia for these same fossil fuels, it seems obvious that carbon dioxide emissions they will not go down significantly at any time.

Our governments, higher courts and institutions have long since stopped passing the role to the IPCC and given their constituents the opportunity for a comprehensive, open and multidisciplinary scientific debate on the alleged existential threat of carbon dioxide.

The last full IPCC report was published in 2014. A significant opinion expressed was that they were confident that human activity caused at least 50% of the global temperature rise between 1950 and 2012.

It is generally accepted that from the early twentieth century to 2012, the average global temperature increased by about 0.8 ° C of which approximately 0.64 ° C occurred between 1950 and 2012.

The 2014 IPCC report concluded that at least half of the increase from 1950 to 2012 was caused by humans (about 0.3 ° C) while remaining silent about the cause of the greater equilibrium. between 1900 and 1950 (up to 0.5 ° C). This implies that natural factors had a greater influence on global warming than human factors.

Anthropology, which takes data from many other scientific disciplines, confirms many natural events of climate change. About 14,500 years ago, the last glacial period (the last glacial age on Earth) began to end with 12 ° C of global warming for several hundred years.

This was followed by 3,000 years of highly fluctuating temperatures, which dragged the world into ice age temperatures. Three thousand years later, the Earth warmed to 10 ° C for about half a century.

From then until today, the Earth has been noticeably warmer than it is now for at least 90% of the time, with peaks in temperature changes of up to 5 ° C.

During the period of Roman warming from 500 BC to 535 AD, people wore togas and grew grapes in Scotland, and grew olives in the Rhine region of Germany.

The Vikings used an ice-free pass in Norway that was later covered in ice, and in Canada, there was a thick forest that grew 130 km north of the current tree line. All of these are confirmations that the Earth was warmer than it is today.

Then came the Dark Ages (535 to 900 AD), or actually the Cold and Dark Ages because ice was reported in the Black Sea and Nile, and glaciers expanded into North America. A global drop of 1 ° C may have caused crop failures and famines in Europe and weakened the population to be susceptible to bubonic plague.

The next event of climate change was the warm medieval period from 900 to 1300 AD, when agriculture expanded into northern Europe. The Vikings established farms in Greenland and visited a place they called Vineland (now called Canada) because of the grapes that grew there. The grapes also grew in England.

The Little Ice Age occurred between 1300 and 1850 AD, which was probably a few degrees colder than the 20th century. The forests of northern Canada that began to grow during the Roman warming period burned and it was too cold to grow again. And then it warmed up again.

Climate change is real, natural, and has occurred frequently in past centuries without human emissions of carbon dioxide or natural variations of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But carbon dioxide can also cause limited global warming.

To understand the limitations of carbon dioxide in global warming, we must first look at some basic thermodynamics. The major media outlets, even NASA, simplify it to the point of nonsense by describing our climate as a greenhouse.

The Earth is not a greenhouse

The solid roof of a greenhouse traps heat by blocking the normal escape of evaporated water and convection currents (think of a throne cloud), but it allows energy as infrared radiation (think of a toaster). escape.

Greenhouse gases do not form a solid roof around the Earth; unlike a greenhouse roof, they allow convection and evaporation heat to escape and capture and recycle some of the infrared radiation to Earth.

Carbon dioxide from greenhouse gases only absorbs specific wavelengths from the Earth’s infrared radiation (which have a limited supply). This energy is re-emitted in all directions, including outer space (think of a light bulb), which puts a practical limit on global warming due to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.

To understand this practical limit of global warming, we need to look at some basic physics below. The observed data show that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 50% since the 1880 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), and once the mathematical project has doubled an increase in temperature of 1, 5 ° C. (Note that in 2021 we are at about 410 ppm with an increase of about 1.0 ° C.)

From these data, classical scientists and the IPCC agree that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be duplicate for each unit of 1.5 ° C temperature rise. If carbon dioxide were the only engine of climate change (which it is not), each doubling of carbon dioxide would result in a 1.5 ° C rise in temperature.

The progression would be as follows:

  • Bending the first time from 280 ppm to 560 ppm causes a warming of 1.5 ° C.
  • Bending a second time from 560 ppm to 1,120 ppm causes an additional heating of 1.5 ° C for a total of 3 ° C
  • Bending a third time from 1,120 ppm to 2240 ppm causes an additional heating of 1.5 ° C for a total of 4.5 ° C

An IPCC scenario predicts a 4.5 ° C temperature increase for the year 2100. Observed data indicate that 2,240 ppm CO2 would be needed. The current increase in CO2 concentration is about 2.3 ppm per year, so reaching 2,240 ppm and a warming of 4.5 ° C would take many centuries. This is math.

At some point, the addition of carbon dioxide will contribute to a global warming effect that is too small for matter..

This is definitely demonstrated by the observation that over the last 540 million years we have had up to 12 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is today without uncontrolled global warming.

And if the 2014 IPCC opinion is correct that carbon dioxide contributed to a smaller fraction of the total global warming experienced since 1900, then the temperature rise for each doubling of the concentration would be below 1.5 ° C, which further undermines its own prediction of 4.5. Temperature rise in ºC in 2100.

The contributions of other sciences are inexplicably ignored. Here are some examples:

  • Horticulture tells us that carbon dioxide is a plant fertilizer, not a pollutant. Real greenhouses achieve 40% greater plant growth when the concentration of carbon dioxide increases from 410 ppm to 1,500-2,000 ppm.
  • Chemistry tells us that carbon dioxide cannot convert oceans into acids. This is because the oceans contain salt which prevents this from happening through a chemical process called damping. It would take 330 times the acid to make the same pH change in neutral seawater as in neutral freshwater.
  • Biology tells us that because ocean life evolved with higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, it is not affected by current increases.

The fossil fuel-free energy crisis in Europe and the fossil fuel bustle in Asia should be a wake-up call for all nations.

Our governments, higher courts, and institutions cannot overturn the laws of multidisciplinary classical science, nor can they rewrite the long history of humans who have survived more severe and natural climate change.

Instead of adopting opinions skewed by politics, they should recognize classical observational science as the ultimate court because it only seeks the truth. And the truth is that carbon dioxide is not an existential threat to humanity.


Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) is a professional engineer with a degree and a master’s degree, whose more than 40 years of career in the energy sector have taken him to more than 40 countries on five continents. He has recently published “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria”To explain in understandable terms the science of how global warming works both naturally and man-made.

Trackback from your site.

Sometimes we include links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission.

Source link