Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming – Update
June 25, 2013
© O. R. Adams Jr. 2013
BACK TO ARTICLES
This is a follow up to my articles on this website, The Make-Believe World of Global Warming and New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming. From my studies, I have concluded that CO2 has little effect at all on global warming or global cooling, and that any small effect it may have is toward cooling instead of warming.
First, I think a short review of the propaganda put out by the "scientists" advocating "global warming" is in order. They made erroneous assumptions, and made computer models based on those assumptions in their promotion of man-made global warming, claiming that the primary culprit was CO2 put into the atmosphere from the use of hydrocarbon fuels (coal, gasoline, diesel, and natural gas) in the generation of electricity, for heating, and for our vehicles. They called these hydrocarbon fuels "fossil fuels," which is a common name; but from my studies, I believe the term "fossil fuels" is itself misleading. The most famous graph they developed and widely used in their propaganda was called the "hockey stick" graph, because of its sharp upward turn at the end.
"Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Dr. Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole.'" His "hockey stick" graph:
The `Hockey Stick'
Mann intentionally left out climate information of critical importance during that 1,000 year period, that was far more reliable than any of Mann's erroneous assumptions on which the graph was based. This more reliable information is shown by the following graph.
Global temperature since 900 AD
The global warming charlatans
intentionally left out the Medieval Warm period, which was a period much warmer
than the highest recent year, 1998. This more reliable information was known to
and previously used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with which Mann
was working. "This graph shows that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period
were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the
Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the
Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over
Europe and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound
impact on human society. For example, the colonization of Greenland by the
Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval
warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed,
while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost
fairs' being held on the river ice."
Using the hockey stick data, and their other erroneous assumptions, the IPCC also presented the following graphs of predicted future temperature changes:
The global warmers, led by Al Gore, used this information in the United States Congress, United Nations, and all over the world to alarm and falsely convince most of the people that catastrophic global warming was imminent. Obama and his administration have led the way in recent years. Trying to force these false and radical ideas on us and the world has been the biggest and most expensive fraud ever perpetrated on this country and the world.
And what has actually happened during the last more than 15 years covered by these global warmers erroneous data and erroneous predictions? The now known facts are quite the opposite of the global warmers' data and predictions.
Before getting into the newer information, I think a review of some historical climate information is in order.
I have found an unusual website that posts only factual climate information, without articles and conclusions on the controversial global warming subjects. It has voluminous information about our climate – past and present. It is Climate4you. The website is furnished by a scientist from Norway, Professor Ole Humlum He has been Professor of Physical Geography at the Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway, and Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Norway, since 2003. The information on the website that I will refer to below is from The Big Picture part of the website.
The following is some critical information from that source:
From time to time the planet has been affected for millions of years with relatively cold climate, each such period leading to a long succession of glacial and interglacial periods. During the last couple of millions of years, planet Earth has been in such a cold stage. The last (until now) ice age ended around 11,600 years ago, and we are for the time living in a so-called interglacial period, until the next ice age will begin some time into the future.
The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.
Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). [] The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
The diagram above (Fig.2) shows a reconstruction of global temperature based on
ice core analysis from the Antarctica. The present interglacial period (the
Holocene) is seen to the right (red square). The preceding four interglacials
are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with
much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen
to be warmer (1-3°C) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is
about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about
10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600
According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2°C colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.
The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.
Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.
I consider the above information to be of critical importance to the present controversies on climate change. It shows a broad picture of climate change in the world, and how insignificant the actions of man, with our use of hydrocarbon fuels, have been. We see that in the last 420,000 years, there have been 4 periods when it was warmer than it is today, and in all of those times there was no use of hydrocarbon fuels, whatsoever, or any CO2 from them. Moreover, we get a clear picture showing that CO2 has little if any effect on climate change. The last two graphs, above, are particularly significant. For the last 3,000 years, there has been a definite downward trend in global temperature, with a definite upward trend in CO2. This would indicate that if CO2 has any effect, it would be a cooling effect. This is the exact opposite of what the "global warmers" tell us. It is certain that CO2 is not any driver of significant global warming as those alarmists would have us believe.
Now let us look at more recent global temperatures. Starting in 1979, we have had satellites that could measure the troposphere temperatures for us. The troposphere is the part our atmosphere nearest the Earth's surface, and which has the most effect on us. Another thing I would like to mention is that the global temperature graphs usually show the changes from a zero line. The zero line is the average of a chosen recent period of temperatures. It makes a much more meaningful graph. The actual average changes in temperature are very small in comparison to the total degrees of temperature, and changes in the average actual temperature would not be very meaningful because they would appear so minuscule on a plot of actual average temperature.
You will see the words anomaly and anomalies used in some of the graphs. These mean the deviations from the average temperature for the period of time adopted as the standard. Those who wish to go deeper into the basic data, may go to the named sources.
The following are three graphs of global temperature changes, with explanations, from Climate4you:
Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The cooling and warming periods directly influenced by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the 1998 El Niño, respectively, are clearly visible. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: April 2013. Last diagram update: 10 May 2013.
Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The thin line represents the monthly values, while the thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. An introduction to the dataset has been published by Brohan et al. (2005). Lower down the present page you will find a graph showing the entire series since 1850. Base period: 1961-1990. Last month shown: March 2013. Last diagram update: 10 May 2013. [For more information on HadCRUT 3 and HadCRUT 4.]
Climate4you has much more information and many more graphs in addition to the above, but I believe that the above is sufficient to show the basic information we need to know about climate change.
Many have drawn trend lines for the data on global temperature changes from 1998 to 2013, a period of a little over 15 years, that show a slight downward trend in global temperature for the past 15 years. That could well be because the peak for 1998 was so high. In any event, it is quite clear that the data show a definite downward trend during the past ten years, from 2003. And during all of this time the CO2 was steadily increasing. This is the exact opposite of what the global warming alarmists (charlatans masquerading as scientists) were telling us to try to get us to get behind the elimination of hydrocarbons (oil, gas and coal) as fuels for our vehicles and utilities. Their ideas were designed to promote the less efficient, and in many cases unworkable, systems of generating electricity by wind and solar methods, and using it for our fuel purposes. The radical environmentalists were always joining in the clamor, even though science has clearly developed methods by which hydrocarbons may safely be used for all of these things and maintain good air quality. It is also clear that the world, and the United States, have an abundance of hydrocarbon fuel sources, including crude oil. All we need to do is develop and use our hydrocarbons. They are by far our best and most efficient fuel sources. Another thing the charlatans have done is falsely try to make us believe, by their "Peak" oil theories, that the world was in danger of running out of oil. The truth is our known oil reserves have been increasing, while we have been using them.
It is quite clear that CO2 is not driving any global warming; and certainly not any catastrophic global warming in the near future, which is the propaganda we have been force-fed; and that we have not even had any global warming for at least the past ten years. There is another interesting thing. When I look at the temperature changes for the past 420,000 years, the place we are at now indicates we might be at a point where in the not too distant future there may be a precipitous cooling period. People may be sorely wishing for some of this "global warming." Take a close look at the 420,00 year history of the climate.
Although the facts should be rather clear to anyone who sufficiently studies the data, I will refer to a few recent articles and some further corroboration.
The following are excerpts from a well-referenced recent article, CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report, May 1, 2013, from Climate Depot (another website that furnishes comprehensive scientific information on climate change):
Renowned Climatologist: ‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.’
'Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a 'CO2 famine' and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels.' …
The level of carbon dioxide,
a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has
come very close to reaching the “symbolic” 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold
in the atmosphere. Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level “A
sad milestone. A call to action.”
New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to “a tiny
bit of arsenic or cobra venom” and warned that rising CO2 means “the fate of the
earth hangs in the balance.” The New Yorker Magazine declared “Everything we use
that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t.” And a UK Guardian editorial declared “Swift political action can avert a
carbon dioxide crisis.” [I wonder whether the people that write such garbage are
really just ignorant "dupes," or whether they intentionally want to harm our
country. It is puzzling. They are like the celebrities (David Letterman
and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) that
were wailing in 2008 and 2009 that New York City and Washington,
D.C., might never have snow again, and that their children might not ever
have the pleasure of playing in the snow. Since then both places have had record and
near record snows, and a lot of it.]
But despite the man-made global warming fear movement’s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400 ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature.
Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a “CO2 famine” and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.
Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: “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.”
“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,” Happer and Schmidt wrote.
Princeton’s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 ‘famine.’ Happer explained to Congress: ”Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind…’CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning,” Happer added.
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2
famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the
Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of.
Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite
higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. “Earth was just fine in
those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew
fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close
to where we started,” Happer explained.
UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explains the crux of the entire global warming debate and rebuts the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote in 2008. It is not simply, the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.
Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this point slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org conceded. …
Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer and engineer, wrote on August 24, 2009: “There have been ice ages when the levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere have been many times higher than today’s.” Hoffman, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics, co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth. …
‘Temperature drives CO2’
Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, former chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, spoke out in 2007 against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by Gore and others. Giegengack noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” (LINK) “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa,” Giegengack explained. “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2,” he added. (LINK) ”The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It’s the temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the temperature,” he added. (LINK)
Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller: ‘The Recent Temperature and CO2 Disconnect’ – Even going back ten centuries, there have been total disconnects between temperature and the CO2 impact, or lack thereof. From 1000AD to 1800, over a period of relatively stable CO2 values that bounced around the 280ppm level, temperatures plummeted in the Little Ice Age (LIA) and then rebounded over a century later. CO2 values neither led nor followed the temperature declines and recoveries…CO2 seems to have had little impact in EITHER direction on the observed temperatures over that 10k year period…If CO2 is to be considered a major driver of temperatures, it is doing a counterintuitive dance around the numbers.’ [Emphasis added.]
Other scientists agree:
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. '' [Emphasis added.] …
[This article goes on and on with similar scientific information.]
You may note that there seems to be a lot of confusion among scientists about how much CO2 there was in the world in its known history. This is because many of the scientists relied on ice core analyses. It appears that these are probably not as reliable for determining atmospheric CO2 content as plant fossils, which is relatively new.
Monte Hieb is a Mining Engineer in West Virginia, who developed a keen interest in plant fossils. He maintains a website, Plant Fossils of West Virginia. He also researched and gathered information on the website about determining historical CO2 from plant fossils. The website states:
Plant fossils obtained from sedimentary rocks and peat deposits are a relatively new tool being used to unravel Earth's carbon dioxide (CO2) history. Tiny pores on plant leaves and needles called stomata regulate carbon dioxide absorption and water vapor release. Stomata numbers decrease during times of high atmospheric CO2, and increase when atmospheric CO2 is low. …
Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth's past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.
As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record.
Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
I think that this last graph is quite interesting. Over millions of years, it shows that in the past the global temperature has been much higher than it is now, and that CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher. It also indicates no correlation between the two.
On the internet, I found much criticism from global warmers of Hieb and his data saying that he did not have the credentials of a climatologist. Others, considering the recent work of global warming "scientists," said that as a mining engineer he was "over qualified." Hieb's information is well referenced to reliable sources. He obviously knows how to do research, which is about all I can say for my own credentials in this area.
I found further corroboration on the website of Anthony Watts, a well-known meteorologist and "skeptic" of man-made global warming, who has done considerable research and work on the issue, and maintains a website with reliable information on the subject. The following is from the article, CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata, by geoscientist, David Middleton:
GEOCARB [Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2] provides a continuous long-term record of atmospheric CO2 changes; but it is a very low-frequency record…
[Please note that Watts' graph has similar information to Hieb's, but Watts' reads from present (0) to 600 million years before present, and Hieb's reads the opposite direction. Also, Hieb's reference is to Berner, GoCarb III, and the Watts or Middleton graph shows information from that source, and from Stomato and Veizer, as well, which adds other contrasting information.]
The lack of a long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature is very apparent when GEOCARB is compared to Veizer’s d18O-derived Phanerozoic temperature reconstruction. As can be seen in the figure above, plant stomata indicate a much greater range of CO2 variability; but are in general agreement with the lower frequency GEOCARB model.
Middleton also states what he considers the pros and cons of each:
Ice cores and GEOCARB provide continuous long-term records; while plant stomata records are discontinuous and limited to fossil stomata that can be accurately aged and calibrated to extant plant taxa. GEOCARB yields a very low frequency record, ice cores have better resolution and stomata can yield very high frequency data. Modern CO2 levels are unspectacular according to GEOCARB, unprecedented according to the ice cores and not anomalous according to plant stomata. So which method provides the most accurate reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2? …
§ Ice core data provide a low-frequency estimate of atmospheric CO2 variations of the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene. However, the ice cores seriously underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels.
§ GEOCARB shows that ice cores underestimate the long-term average Pleistocene CO2 level by 36ppmv.
§ Modern satellite data show that atmospheric CO2 levels in Antarctica are 20 to 30ppmv less than lower latitudes.
§ Plant stomata data show that ice cores do not resolve past decadal and century scale CO2 variations that were of comparable amplitude and frequency to the rise since 1860.
Thus it is concluded that:
§ CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.
§ The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
§ The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
§ The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and
inconsequential. [Emphasis added.]
One thing is certain, since the world began using hydrocarbons for fuel in our modern times, man-made CO2 has been greatly increasing, with no noticeable effect on the climate, other than a possible slight cooling effect. Even that would be minuscule. The warmers found a period of time, from 1972 to 1998, when CO2 was rising and the temperature was also rising, and wrongfully concluded that the increasing CO2 was causing the rise in temperature. They may just as well have concluded that the increase in temperature was causing the CO2 to rise. It is a principle of statistics and science that mere correlation between two happenings does not prove that one is the cause of the other. There are many coincidences. I believe that neither controls or causes the other – that both are caused by the elements of nature that have caused climate change throughout Earth's history.
By now, it should be clear to anyone that all significant climate changes are controlled by nature and the universe – such things as the changing positions between the earth and the sun, actions on the sun such as sun spots, solar storms, and ocean currents. Human activity has little effect at all. One might think that the basic known facts would turn all science toward admitting that the information put out by the "global warmers" was at least misleading. But this is not the case – they are a die-hard bunch. They come up with such contradictory things as the global warming has caused a period of global cooling, and ideas that although the increased CO2 has not caused global warming in the last ten to fifteen years, it is gathering up for a period of increased global warming, none of which really makes any sense or has any sound basis. Although their predictions and ominous warnings were obviously wrong, they never admit it.
However, some recent articles indicate that the major proponents of man-made global warming are in a present state of confusion. Some of their gyrations and strained explanations of why things have not gone as predicted are so ridiculous they are laughable
Forbes magazine recently had two contradictory articles. In my opinion, Forbes, usually a very reputable financial magazine, should be ashamed of publishing the pro-global warming article, "Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data, by "scientist" Peter Gleick. I do not mean to imply that Gleick is not a scientist, but I do consider him a dishonest scientist; and I do not consider the Forbes article to be a fair and honest presentation. First, let us consider the term in the title, "cherry-picked." It is a term previously used by some of those who exposed the shenanigans of the "global warmers," relating to their picking of their proxies (ignoring such things as the data on the little ice-age and the medieval warming period), and placing their air temperature testing stations in places that would naturally be warmer than the average. The following examples are quoted from The make-Believe World of Global Warming:
Around 1990, NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
The thermometers were marched towards the tropics, the sea, and airports near bigger cities. These data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same stations that have been deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature base periods, further increasing the bias towards overstatement of warming by NOAA.
The world’s surface observing network had reached its golden era in the 1960s-1980s, with more than 6000 stations providing valuable climate information. Now, there are fewer than 1500.
We should also look at just how reputable Peter Gleick is. Forbes may be excused in not knowing how disreputable Gleick is, because it wasn't widely known when the article was published in 2012 about some of Gleick's fraudulent activities in an effort to discredit scientists who wrote articles against global warming, and in his efforts to promote global warming. Under false and fraudulent pretenses he obtained emails and data he wasn't entitled to from The Heartland Institute, an organization that gathered data and published articles against man-made global warming. He is also, with good basis, accused of forging a document, to further his efforts. I think the evidence warrants federal prosecution. We currently have a federal case going on in New Mexico against a person that unlawfully obtained emails of Governor Suzanna Martinez. But I predict Gleick will never be prosecuted because he is a global warmer favored by President Obama. Obama is currently up to his ears in scandals in his own administration.
Let us now look at Gleick's article in question here, and see how reliable it is. The heart of his article is the following:
Global temperature changes past 15 years.
But even these selections of time periods are cherry picking. What about the entire instrumental record going back 130 years – the period of time when scientists know that growing concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere have been piling up? Well, you look at the graph. The warming is unmistakable, despite the year-to-year ups-and-downs.
130 years of global temperature changes
What if we look decade by decade in order to smooth out some of the year-to-year natural variability? OK, here you go. The last decade had less warming than the one before (because of these natural variations I’ve mentioned), but is it cooling? No. Instead we see a continuation of the bad news. …
Finally even this is cherry-picking, because it turns out that the heat imbalance of the planet is not only measured by rising surface temperatures. Scientists now know that a massive amount of the extra heating effect is also going into melting ice (in the Arctic and Greenland and mountain glaciers) and also heating the oceans, and that even when surface heating slows, ocean heating continues. This next figure based on data from a 2011 paper by Church et al. shows that most of the heat actually goes into the oceans, not into rising surface temperatures.
Total heating of the oceans, ice, and surface, showing that most heating is going into the oceans.
My comments on Gleick's article: I am suspicious of even the validity of the above data on the first two graphs, because they look so different than even that seen above from institutions that are known to favor global warming. Compare them to the graphs of the Hadley Centre, et al, above. It is interesting that Gleick's article did not give the source of the data for the first two graphs. As to the last graph I consider it something that Gleick has picked to try to make people falsely believe that there is some kind of catastrophic warming of the ocean caused by man-made CO2. (For more on the paper of Church, etal, from which the last graph came.) It has no relevance to surface and lower troposphere temperatures, which have previously been used in their arguments and assumptions. When these don't work for them, they try to switch to misleading information concerning the ocean. I consider Gleick just one more of the global warmer charlatans.
Now let's talk about Gleick's first two graph, and his "cherry-picking." If you accept the first one at face value, it shows a very slight warming in the last 15 years. It is quite different from the global warmers predictions and dire warnings. Look at the hockey stick graph, above, and the IPCC's 10 year prediction, from about 2002 to about 2013. Even from Gleick's graph, you can see how wrong the predictions and dire warnings were. He of course does not even mention that. Also, there appears to be a lot of disagreement even with Gleick's graph data, even among "global warmers."
An Article, Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008, written by four global warmers, Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann (This is not the Mann of "hockey stick" infamy.), and James H. Stock, on why there has been no global warming in this ten year period, contrary to the warmers dire predictions. The article states:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects. [Emphasis added.] …
Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important change in another pathway for anthropogenic climate change—a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in particular. Chinese coal consumption more than doubles in the 4 y from 2003 to 2007 … . …
The warmers in the article above admit the lack of global warming, but they never outright admit the truth – their models and the assumptions on which they were based, and their predictions, were all quite obviously wrong. Things didn't happen as they predicted. We have always had El Ninos and La Ninas, and this should have been considered in their models. Actually, I think this has little effect anyway. During an El Nino, it is warmer and drier in the northwest part of North America (Washington State and British Columbia, in particular); and it is colder and wetter in the southwest part of North America (Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado in particular). It is just the opposite during a La Nina. The warmers should have taken these things into consideration in their "models."
As to the burning of coal causing global cooling, which they now admit, this is just the opposite of what we were told. They told us that the worst culprit of all was the burning of coal. They never mention this in the article. And while the sulfur emissions were occurring – those were small in comparison to the emissions of CO2 by a ratio of about 2,249 to 13. "The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides." And they still falsely tell us that it is CO2 that causes global warming. I have never been able to find any valid research and tests that in anyway support that claim, although I have easily found an enormous amount that supports the premise that it does not, as shown by my other articles on this website referred to, above.
Another Forbes article, May 26, 2013, is To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here, which has specific information from a number of sources around the world. Quotes from it:
The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.
The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.
Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.
The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes. [Emphasis added.] …
The above Forbes article gives supporting information from countries around the world. The only complaint I have about it is the statement, "the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal." I consider it an unsupported assumption giving slight credence to claims made by the "global warmer'' scientists. I still believe that if CO2 has any effect on climate change, it would be a very slight cooling effect.
Man-made CO2 is in the air above the ground and the oceans, and any warming of the ocean from it would have to come from the warming of the lower atmosphere. If there is less warming in the lower atmosphere, there would be less warming of the ocean from that source. We will see that it has little, if anything to do with the "energy budget of the ocean." The Church, et al, information, that Gleick misused, was a " review of the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008." The abstract of the article notes that there has been "little surface warming over the last decade." This is the opposite of what Glieck is trying to make his readers believe, because if global warming was from something in the atmosphere, and it is also warming the ocean, there must have been less of it during the ten years ending in 2008.
There are many things against Gleick's argument on the supposed ocean warming having anything to do with global warming caused by CO2.
Another article, Boiling Oceans? Warming of Oceans On Path To +0.16°C Increase Over Next 100 Years Say Experts, deals with the misleading look of the supposed steep increases of ocean energy, using the 24X1022 Joules scale, similar to the scale of the Church, et al, ocean graph used by Gleick. It states:
Remember how NASA's former climate "scientist" James Hansen predicted the oceans will be boiling because of CO2...the data & experts body slam that wild exaggeration (stupidity?) while breaking no sweat. …
… Bob points out a flagrant propaganda ploy used by establishment climate-alarmist scientists, and the IPCC, which is never challenged by the MSM press (to paraphrase): "OMG, the oceans have warmed by 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules!" Hey, that's a lot scary warming, no?
Well.....no, it's actually not a lot of warming. The 24X1022 Joules represent, in the scheme of things, a tiny warming of the oceans - a barely measurable total of +0.09C degrees over 55 years. Of course, the climate "scientists" who use this propaganda trick don't feel inclined to point out that the ludicrous figure with all those zeros is essentially a ludicrous tiny amount of global warming. …
And what have the oceans actually been doing?
An admission from one of the more prominent global warmers, NASA, itself, in September 21, 2006, contains information that is directly contrary to the ocean warming graph of Gleick, above:
The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. New research suggests global warming trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.
Take a close look at Gleick's ocean graph. Around 2002, there is a small dip, but for the three year period from 2003 to 2006, it shows a steep increase – directly contrary to NASA's statement, above.
And where does the energy in the ocean actually come from? "Where does this [ocean] energy actually originate? It is the Sun that heats the ocean surface and is being harnessed by OTEC." [Emphasis added.] This comes from an environmental website that promotes the use of non-hydrocarbon fuel. The particular device being described harnesses energy from the ocean.
The following is from the Global Energy Seminar, November, 3-6, 2012, Harvard Business School:
The ocean can produce two types of energy: thermal energy from the sun's heat, and mechanical energy from the tides and waves.
Oceans cover more than 70% of Earth's surface, making them the world's largest solar collectors. The sun's heat warms the surface water a lot more than the deep ocean water, and this temperature difference creates thermal energy. Just a small portion of the heat trapped in the ocean could power the world.
The Encyclopedia of the Earth, on Energy Balance of the Earth, states:
The Earth’s climate is a solar powered system. Globally, over the course of the year, the Earth system—land surfaces, oceans, and atmosphere—absorbs an average of about 240 watts of solar power per square meter (one watt is one joule of energy every second). The absorbed sunlight drives photosynthesis, fuels evaporation, melts snow and ice, and warms the Earth system. [Emphasis added.]
The Sun doesn’t heat the Earth evenly. Because the Earth is a sphere, the Sun heats equatorial regions more than polar regions. The atmosphere and ocean work non-stop to even out solar heating imbalances through evaporation of surface water, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean circulation. This coupled atmosphere and ocean circulation is known as Earth’s heat engine. [Emphasis added.]
Yet the warmers would falsely try to convince us that a significant amount of the ocean energy comes from global heating caused by man-made CO2. They of course can produce no tests and scientific research that supports such a harebrained idea.
Although most of the oceans' stored energy comes from the sun, which is by far the greatest power in the universe, there are other significant sources. There are sources of energy that go into the ocean from the hot bowels of the earth. The extent of these sources, and the energy and heat put into the ocean from them, is still not fully known, but it has to be immense. They are underwater volcanoes, geysers, and other "deep sea vents." The Science article, Geothermal Deep-ocean Vents, states:
Geothermal deep-ocean vents are undersea hot springs that occur in clusters along the mid-ocean ridges. Nutrients and energy supplied by vents support communities of deep-sea organisms found in no other environment.
Most deep-ocean vent action is powered by the heat of the same bodies of magma that drive sea-floor spreading. A vent forms when seawater seeps downward through cracks in the flanks of a mid-ocean ridge to depths of 1.25 mi (2 km), about halfway through the thickness of the oceanic crust, and is there heated to 75040°F (40050°C). This super-heated water then re-ascends to the center of the mid-ocean ridge and emerges as a fast jet at about 350°C. …
Deep-sea vents and their associated fauna were unknown until the late 1970s. …
An article of the Engineering Committee of Ocean Resources, Marine Geothermal Energy:
Beneath the world’s oceans there are 60,000 km of mid-oceanic ridges where tectonic plates are pulling apart. Wherever these have been explored hydrothermal vents (HTVs) have been found. It has been estimated that HTVs collectively dissipate tens of terrawatts of geothermal energy none of which is utilized by mankind. This must surely represent the world’s last great untapped resource. …
The NOAA article on ocean volcanos, The greatest number of the Earth's volcanoes occur on the ocean floor, states:
Volcanic eruptions occur only in certain places and do not occur randomly. This is because the Earth’s crust is broken into a series of slabs known as tectonic plates. These plates are rigid, but they “float” on a hotter, softer layer in the Earth's interior. As the plates move, they spread apart, collide, or slide past each other.
Sixty percent of all active volcanoes occur at the boundaries between tectonic plates. Most volcanoes are found along a belt, called the “Ring of Fire” that encircles the Pacific Ocean. Some volcanoes, like those that form the Hawaiian Islands, occur in the interior of plates at areas called “hot spots.”
Although most of the active volcanoes we see on land occur where plates collide, the greatest number of the Earth's volcanoes are hidden from view, occurring on the ocean floor along spreading ridges.
Another NOAA article, Deep Ocean Volcanoes, states:
Scientists believe that 80 percent of the volcanic eruptions on Earth take place in the ocean. Most of these volcanoes are thousands of feet deep, and difficult to find. But in May of 2009, scientists captured the deepest ocean eruption ever found.
Nearly 4000 feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean — in an area between Samoa, Fiji and Tonga - the West Mata volcano was discovered.
The explosions of molten rock were spectacular. This volcano was producing Boninite lavas — believed to be among the hottest erupting on Earth.
Scientists also witnessed molten lava flowing across the deep-ocean sea floor and spotted shrimp living near the volcano's most active areas.
This research allows us to closely examine how ocean islands and undersea volcanoes are born.
It may also shed light on how heat and matter transfer from the interior of the Earth to the surface, and how life adapts to some of the harshest conditions on our planet.
Finding West Mata was a huge break for scientists and for those interested in seeing what takes place in the deepest depths of our ocean.
The warmers' articles on the ocean never mention or take into consideration the enormous amount of energy and heat put into the ocean from the bowels of the earth. Neither do their "models."
The IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, because of their support for and work on global warming. Later information has turned the award into a joke. The IPCC's own records show that, contrary to their models and predictions, they were grievously wrong.
C3 Headlines is a conservative blog that has this recent article: IPCC's 'Gold Standard' Temperature Dataset Authenticates Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years. I consider the information presented to be well supported. Quotes from this article:
It is estimated some 440 gigtons of human CO2 emissions have been produced over the last 15 years, in contrast to the estimated 330+ [gig]tons during the previous 15-year period ending 1997.
Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened.
The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates. [The chart:]
As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated.
As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emissions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span.
This empirical evidence has become so convincing that the cooling deniers are even starting to eat that awful tasting, proverbial crow (here and here).
In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth.
It is criminal, for the few radicals that still do, to keep on fraudulently saying that man-made CO2 is causing global warming, and that it is something about which the world should be concerned. A lot of the propaganda is put out for money, government grants, energy subsidies, and such, and to protect and increase those sources. But I am convinced that a lot of it is done to harm America – to cut our ability to produce energy and goods, and to conduct war, down to that of the European countries.
 See the article on this website, Are Coal, Natural Gas and Crude Oil Really Fossil Fuels? And Is There any real Shortage of Oil?, http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Are%20Coal,%20Natural%20Gas,%20and%20Crude%20Oil%20Really%20Fossil%20Fuels%20and%20Is%20There%20Really%20Any%20Oil%20Shortage%20of%20Oil.htm
 The Make-Believe World of Global Warming, supra, Endnote 1.
 The project began in 1998. As of 2003, the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core . Also see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
 See the reference in Endnote 3, above.
 See The Make-Believe World of Global Warming, Endnote 1, above.
 Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American meteorologist (AMS seal holder, certification retired by AMS), president of IntelliWeather Inc., editor of the blog, Watts Up With That?, and founder of the Surface Stations Project, a volunteer initiative to document the siting quality of weather stations across the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
 The Case Against Peter Gleick, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/the-case-against-peter-gleick.php
BACK TO ARTICLES