U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this. At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

what isn’t true about my statement? Nature and man combined are responsible for 0.04% of the total atmospheric CO2- your post did nothing to state otherwise- just to back up what I just said

[[So the question is where did the rest of the 120ppm rise come from? How come CO2 is still rising 2-3 ppm per year?]]

CO2 rises AFTER warming happens (as is even proven by your graph- and other graphs on internet- and research- CO2 does NOT cause rising temps- it’s quite the opposite- rising temps cause rising CO2

Man is still only reposnible for 0.0037% of the TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 levels- this isn’t soemthi9gn I’m making up- it’s a fact that can be verified In research papers- Man pumps out just 3.4% of 0.04% of the TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 levels- 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.0037% of the TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 levels- The rest MUST be naturally occurring- 99.9963% is naturally occurring- These figures are solid-

Nature and man combined are responsible for 0.04% of the total atmospheric CO2-

True.

CO2 rises AFTER warming happens (as is even proven by your graph- and other graphs on internet- and research- CO2 does NOT cause rising temps- it’s quite the opposite- rising temps cause rising CO2

Also true. And as my chart shows, the rise in CO2 is roughly 10ppm for each 1C rise in temperature. So with a natural rise of about 1C at most following the Little Ice Age, we should see, in the next 800 or so years, a natural rise of 10ppm in atmospheric CO2 as the oceans slowly warm and outgas.

Instead we have had a 120 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 and still have 2-3 ppm rise per year. To get that kind of rise we there would have to be a 10C rise in temperature in the last millennium and there was not. There would also have to be large ongoing rises in temperature and there is not. The alternative is there would have to be massive new volcanic CO2 sources that formed in the last 150-200 years and there is not.

The best explanation is the economic data showing large manmade CO2 production.

Man pumps out just 3.4% of 0.04% of the TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2

Not true at all. Man pumps out about 3.4% of the annual CO2 in the fall when the northern hemisphere leaves decay and release their stored CO2 in a matter of weeks. But then nature reabsorbs essentially the same amount in the spring and man does not. So you are comparing a one-way manmade CO2 source with a much larger, but two-way natural flux. There is not a single science paper that would support that comparison and I have read numerous in that field.

no man pumps out 3.4% of the total atmospheric CO2 level which is only 0.04%- common sense dictates that we find out how much 3.4% of 0.04% = and that figure comes out to just 0.0037% of the TOTAL AMOSPHERE- (I made a mistake in last post- I said “TOTAL AMOSPHERIC CO2 KLEVELS’)

AND, it’s even LESSS than I stated-

[[Humans are responsible for a whopping 3.7% of the 0.04%!

This means that humans have contributed 0.0015% to the atmosphere.]]

AND

[[1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2- concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.]]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=180645.0

the bottom line, as I nhte coverstation we’ve had before about this- man’s contribution is so insignificantly small that it can’t possibly be trapping heat in any significant amounts to affect global temperatures- only a very tiny fraction of the heat trapped by man’s 0.0015% contribution of CO2 to atmosphere makes it’s way back toward earth- and that tiny fraction is OVERWHELMED by the cooled temps on earth once it makes it’s way back down-

Let’s repeat that- only a very tiny fraction of the tiny amount of heat that gets trapped by the very tiny 0.0015% CO2 produced by man gets back radiated to earth-

What percentage would you say gets absorbed by man’s 0.0015% and back radiated In the right direction towards earth? 0.05%? 1%? 5%?

Any way you slice it- mans’ contribution of CO2 to the TOTAL AMOSPHERE is far too small and insignificant to be causing global climate change-

Climates change, as shown by the graphs of preindustrial temps prove out-

And another thing you ignored in our last discussion was the fact that man has contributed more CO2 over the past decade (even though it’s still only a very tiny fraction of the total atmosphere), yet temps remained flat- They should have steadily inclining- yet they didn’t-

This is yet another nail In the coffin for the alarmists- but the m ost powerful nail is the FACT that man produces so little CO2 to begin with, and an even more insignificant amount/percentage of that 0.0015% actually makes it’s way back to earth, that it can’t possibly be causing warming-

3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.

Those measurements come from individual locations. CO2 is very variable depending on location and time of day (along with season). If you go out at night in many natural settings, levels will be much higher than the day due to trees outgassing CO2. In cities the levels are all over the place. A lot of the measurements quote in the blog by Alex Jones, who is about the farthest person from science that I can imagine, come mostly from Jaworowski who is a scientific outlier (and not formally trained in the applicable sciences).

In contrast the overwhelming scientific consensus is that CO2 has been lower in the last 50,000 years, possibly as many as millions of years although the data is more fuzzy.

For recent times (e.g. 10-20,000 years we have high resolution Greenland ice cores which can have annual resolution although a bunch of caveats explained here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/ice-cores.pdf But in figure 2 here: http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/download/16046/17961 is one of many consistent studies showing levels at 300 ppm or below in Greenland for the last 1000 years (and longer).

the FACT that man produces so little CO2 to begin with,

Not true. Man produces about 30 Gt of CO2 per year, easily determined by economic data (drilling and sales of oil, coal, gas, etc). In contrast nature produces net fluxes in the 10's of Mt. For example one of the most powerful volcanoes in the 20th century, Pinatubo, produced about 42 Mt of CO2. There are many smaller volcanoes producing CO2 worldwide, but it adds up to about 300 Mt per year, 100 times less than human production.

The other natural production amounts (ocean outgassing, plants decaying) are much larger than man's production. But as I show in the diagram above, they are two-way. The ocean outgasses in some locations and seasons and ingasses in others.

[[Those measurements come from individual locations.]]

you know this how? (and just for the record, 380 ppm is nowhere near ‘threatening’- but we’re discussing how you can know this wasn’t an average as compared to local measurements only?

[[come mostly from Jaworowski who is a scientific outlier]]

You make no attempt to disprove anything he says?

[[In contrast the overwhelming scientific consensus is that CO2 has been lower in the last 50,000 years,]]

Sure, WHEN you throw out the data that is presented n that site

[[For recent times (e.g. 10-20,000 years we have high resolution Greenland ice cores]]

Yep which were also manipulated by the alarmists to fit their hyped up alarmist scenario as explained In the posts o n that link I posted above

[[A lot of the measurements quote in the blog by Alex Jones, who is about the farthest person from science that I can imagine,]]

Again, you provide nothing to back up that claim that he is the ‘furthest from science you can imagine’? Are those charts false or something? Is his description and explanations not factual?

[[one of many consistent studies showing levels at 300 ppm or below in Greenland for the last 1000 years (and longer).]]

Yep- in localized spots- some areas were likely higher- if you’ll read through all the relevant posts in that link- You’ll see that while much of the world was ‘low’ there were high spots that measured quite a bit higher=- and I’m pretty sure they were talking world average- not just localized spots-

[[Not true. Man produces about 30 Gt of CO2 per year, easily determined by economic data]]

30 Gt is nothing compared to the volume of atmosphere- Nature supplies over 700 Gt

From that site I listed:

[[Total CO2 put out by humans every year:

27 gigatonnes.

Total CO2 put out by all other sources every year:

220 gigatonnes — Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes

220 gigatonnes — Respiration by vegetation

332 gigatonnes — The oceans

772 gigatonnes — TOTAL from all other sources.

27/772 = 3.5%]]

[[But as I show in the diagram above, they are two-way.]]

Answer me this- if man’s CO2 is different, and isn’t ‘two way’ then how does ANY of it make it back to earth? a

Also you keep ignoring the facts that man’s contribution is just 0.0015% of the TOTAL ATMOSPHERE,

You also have ignored the fact that only a very tiny amount of escaping heat gets absorbed by that 0.0015%

You also ignore the fact that of that tiny amount that does actually get absorbed, only a much tinier amount actually makes it’s way back to earth via back radiation- MOST escapes out of atmosphere-

I’ll ask again- what percentage of escaping heat gets absorbed by man’s 0.0015%? .05%? .10%? 1.0%? 5%? 10%?

let’s assume 10% which works out to 0.00015000000000000001% escaping heat being absorbed by atmospheric CO2

Next question- of that 0.00015000000000000001%, how much actually gets back radiated In the right direction to make it’s way back to earth? 0.0015%? .05%? .10%? 1.0%? 5%? 10%?

Let’s be generous and assume 50% actually makes it’s way back towards earth- that works out to just 0.00007500000000000001% of the heat escaping earth making it’s way via back radiation, towards earth

You see where I’m going with this? It is such a small amount that it’s safe to say nearly ZERO heat gets back radiated due to man’s production of CO2 which amounts to only 0.0015% of the total atmosphere

In our last discussion on this issue, you also ignored these facts- so I’m not really interested in getting into a long drawn out discussion about the issue if the figures presented simply get ignored because these figures are devastating to the claim that ‘man is almost entirely responsible for global climate change’ as was just announced by the ‘consensus of scientists’ that you keep touting-

30 Gt is nothing compared to the volume of atmosphere- Nature supplies over 700 Gt

30 Gt a year is a substantial addition to the existing 700 Gt.

Answer me this- if man’s CO2 is different, and isn’t ‘two way’ then how does ANY of it make it back to earth?

Man's and nature's CO2 is not any different in any way. Nor is "new" CO2 different from "old" CO2. It is just CO2. There was a rough equilibrium at 280ppm. We have added 120ppm to that to reach 400 ppm. We are adding more so it is rising 2-3ppm per year. But the thing is, nature is absorbing about 1/20 or 1/30 of that "extra" CO2 (above the rough equilibrium) each year. That is going into the oceans.

Also you keep ignoring the facts that man’s contribution is just 0.0015% of the TOTAL ATMOSPHERE

That is not a fact at all. Without man we would be about 290 ppm (280 plus about 10 from the natural warming after the Little Ice Age). With man's contribution we are 400 ppm and rising. IOW mans's contribution is 0.012% (and rising).

Start with the 0.012% of the atmosphere and trap only 2% extra of the escaping heat, send 50% of that back (the 50% number is a constant). The total energy sent to space from the earth's surface is about 10^22 Joules. If 1% of that is sent back to earth that is 10^20 Joules sent back to earth. That is roughly the same as the energy consumed by mankind in all forms (fossil, nuclear, etc). A nontrivial amount of energy and I used conservative numbers.

The number is 0.012% and it takes 0.015% CO2 to prevent earth from being mainly frozen. Also, obviously, most plants would be dead at 0.015% or below (CO2 starvation).

We are in a geologically unique period on earth where CO2 could go low enough to wipe out life. Instead we have increased it from 0.028% to 0.04% and rising, thus preventing any slide into an ice age and plant death. it is a fact we should be celebrating.

you know this how?

I read Beck's 2007 paper "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" and a lot of the papers he referenced. That has all of the existing information about those old measurements, and they are all location and time specific. As far as Alex Jones goes, he has written no science papers whatsoever, just posts snippets from ones he likes and never looks any deeper.

Alex Jones claims the government makes tornadoes. There is no scientific evidence that is possible. He notes dangers of vaccines but doesn't provide the actual truth that they are dangerous at the 1 in one million level. He makes all sorts of other nonsense claims about science, technology, economics, etc. He also has much accurate but politically incorrect information on his website, e.g. people who get a disease right after getting the vaccine for the disease.

It is up to us as readers to sort out the facts from fiction on his website.

[[That is roughly the same as the energy consumed by mankind in all forms]]

Man isn’t the only source of heat- infact he isn’t even a big player I nthat regard- so yes it is a trivial amount- and the atmosphere- man’s contribution, is 0.0015% not 0.012%- and I highly doubt 50% of the heat escaping earth gets trapped- you seemed to have missed the part about how insignificant the total amount of CO2 is compared to the total atmosphere- only a very tiny fraction of escaping/rising heat is trapped because there simply isn’t enough CO2 to absorb any significant amount- and of that tiny amount trapped- only a tinier amount gets back radiated I n the right direction towards earth- and even then, man is ‘responsible’ for an even tinier fraction of that TOTAL amount of ‘back radiated’ heat because man’s contribution is so insignificantly small as to be near zero-

[[We have added 120ppm to that to reach 400 ppm.]]

Not according to the studies and charts I listed-

and I highly doubt 50% of the heat escaping earth gets trapped

That's not what I assumed. I assumed only 2% gets trapped. It is a physical constant that 50% is sent back to earth. It is just a hair less due to the curvature of the earth, maybe 49.9%

there simply isn’t enough CO2 to absorb any significant amount

There are enough CO2 molecules to intercept every outgoing IR photon with the right wavelength in 50 meters: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/attachment.php?aid=250 That is the major reasons that skeptics like Nahle point out that CO2 is saturated and adding more CO2 has a diminishing effect.

[[We have added 120ppm to that to reach 400 ppm.]]
Not according to the studies and charts I listed-

Here's an analysis from the 80's: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00008.x/abstract:

Emissions of fossil carbon during the 1980s averaged 5.5 Gt y−1. During the same period, the atmosphere gained 3.2 Gt C y−1 and the oceans are believed to have absorbed 2.0 Gt C y−1. The regrowing forests of the Northern Hemisphere may have absorbed 0.5 Gt C y−1 during this period. Meanwhile, tropical deforestation is thought to have released an average 1.6 Gt C y−1 over the 1980s. While the fluxes among the four pools should balance, the average 198Ds values lead to a ‘missing sink’ of 1.4 Gt C y−1

It is well understood that man's output is responsible for the atmospheric growth. The only remaining question and uncertainty is why there isn't more CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs a lot, the forests absorb about 1/4 of what the oceans absorb, but there is an almost equal amount as the oceans absorb that just disappears.

But the fact that man is the cause of all of the increase in the atmosphere and all of the ocean's absorption is not in question. If you have a specific science link or paper that says otherwise please post it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.