Chuck Todd Bans 'Climate Deniers' from Climate Change Special

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[Bob434]

The increase in CO2 is not due to humans, therefore alarmism and all the money spent on it has no basis.

Anthony Cox

 

This is a key issue: whether humans are responsible for all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. If they are not then it does not matter if alarmists believe that CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, which it is not because the increase is natural. Human CO2 is a very small % of the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, The % of human CO2 going into the atmosphere is shown by Figure 7.3, AR4, 3.67% (218.2 GT divided by 8 GT):

Figure 7.3 AR4:

Of the total CO2 emissions 98.5% are reabsorbed:

EIA, Table 3 2004:

The reabsorption of CO2 does not distinguish between human and natural CO2, so the human contribution to the increase is 3.67% of 1.5%. This amount, the human contribution has not changed in 150 years. The human contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is called the airborne fraction. The AF has not changed:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

This paper by Knorr finds 40% of human emissions remains in the atmosphere. This is NOT sufficient to explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:

 

In this graph by Ian Hill based on Knorr’s paper, the yellow line shows the AF of human CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. It is below the level of growth of CO2 shown by the green line. Human emissions cannot be the cause of all of the increase in CO2

[palmer]

yet we know localized areas were hotter, some were cooler- we saw the hysteria whenever localized temps such as in germany, Russia etc were ‘higher than normal’ and causing deaths, while other parts of the world were colder ‘than average’

That's natural variation. The fake news tries to pin warming (and even cooling) on global warming when in fact the warming and cooling is natural. The point is that the only way to know if there is "global" warming is to get a global temperature. Like I said the surface measurements are contaminated by urbanization. Like you pointed out the satellite record has undergone necessary adjustments as orbits decay, satellites are swapped out, etc. There is really is no good way to measure global warming, especially not using local measurements.

As for downward radiation, it is instant. Warm air rises, but radiation is photons and they go in whatever direction they start out in. Those photons will hit air on their way down, warm that air, and that air will rise, but that air is warmer than it would have been without the IR photons. That air will rise at a few 10's of miles an hour as photons whizz downward at 186,000 miles per second.

The bottom line is the atmosphere is warmer due to greenhouse gases including the manmade ones, but quantity is small. As I pointed out: 80,000 TW from the sun (averaged across the planet) and 867 from manmade CO2.

[palmer]

The increase in CO2 is not due to humans, therefore alarmism and all the money spent on it has no basis. (Anthony Cox)

There is lots of evidence that Anthony Cox is wrong about that.

Yes, your first link is correct that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and that the sun controls climate. They say "Nevertheless, the anthropogenic addition of CO2 since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is believed to have enhanced the global energy balance by approximately 1.5 W m−2" so multiplying by the area of the earth gives 765 TW or less than 1/100 of the power of sunlight (80,000 TW) It's small, but not zero, which is my main point.

Your second link (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/) is wrong. They say 3% of CO2 emissions are manmade. They leave out the fact that 100% of CO2 absorption is natural. Therefore all of the observed rise is manmade. Their conclusion should be 3% of the observed rise (wrong it is 100%), not "1/400th of a percetage point" (even more wrong). Bottom line, their presentation is not decipherable and not supported by anything the EIA has ever written.

On the other hand, the Knorr paper in your next link is quite clearly written. His conclusion is clear, that only about 40% of the manmade emissions remain in the atmosphere and that is not changing as some others have hypothesized. That means the CO2 increase is not going to suddenly accelerate due to natural uptake slowing. The adapted chart:

shows about as clearly possible that the observed rise in CO2 is due to manmade emissions. If natural processes were not absorbing manmade CO2, then the two lines would match up. But nature is absorbing our extra CO2 and as Knorr points out, that absorption is highly variable based on factors like ENSO and volcanic aerosols.

The paper and graph certainly point to a large amount of natural variability in CO2 uptake. But they also point out that the observed increase over the longer run is manmade.

[Bob434]

[[765 TW or less than 1/100 of the power of sunlight (80,000 TW) It’s small, but not zero, which is my main point.]]

My main point is that it is so small that it can’t possibly be causing global climate change- 800TW compared to 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere? really that is like lighting a match in a stadium and then trying to claim it is causing ‘catastrophic global warming’ (or in this case, ‘catastrophic stadium warming’)

A lot of whast i read is over my head- i can follow some of it- but when they get into the geekscience babble, my mind has a hard time following it- I try to fidn stuff that is fairly consistant in their figures- and sometimes they cite things that are kinda wonky in addition to the correct figures- but a lot of what I’m reading indicates that the rise can’t be attributed entirely to man- but allowing that the rise is, for the sake of argument, it still doesn’t amount to hardlyu anything- and can’t possibly be causing global climate change- There are several powerful reasons why (Ie temps always rise first- then hundreds of years later, CO2 rises- Ice core samples, etc etc etc-)

The amount of CO2 produced by man ‘sounds large’ (Billions of tons) but comapred to an atmosphere of 6 quadrillion tons, it’s nothing- it’s like a pimple on an elephant really- hardly even noticeable-

[[They leave out the fact that 100% of CO2 absorption is natural.

only about 40% of the manmade emissions remain in the atmosphere]]

Two contradictory statements- if only 40% of anthro CO2 stays in atmosphere, then 60% must be absorbed, no?

one thing is for certain though- our discussion here isn’t going to change the fact that the world has bought into the lie that man is responsible for climate change- and we’ree headed towards massive oppressive regulations, taxes and fines for our production of CO2- no matter which way the lcimate goes, cooler or hotter, the scam artists ARE going to saddle us with heavy fines taxes and regulations, claiming man is causing it no matter what the climate does-

[Bob434]

for years i wrote a blog trying to inform folks about the lie of ‘man-caused climate change’ thinking The truth woudl prevail

After watching the world gobble up the idea that we’re horrible peopel and need to engage in ‘self-loathing penence-driven’ punishment for destroying the globe- I realized after a few years that the lie was mainstream, and the world had bought it hook line and sinker-

I had emailed Sen James Inhoffe, and marc morano (who now runs climatedepot.org) who at the time was involved in trying to get the truth out there to congress- and asked why congress was falling for the lie, and he basically told me it was because of money- and that it was fruitless to try to stop it because so many people were so heavily invested in the agenda- That was about the most honest answer I’ve seen from anyone in government- He was basically telling me “Get used to it- it’s not going anywhere- We’re stuck with the lie” essentially

Needless to say, I’m burned out on the subject- and i didn’t even get as deep into it as many folks who studied it for a living do, or websites like wattsupwithat who study the issue in depth- it must be very frustrating for the many scientists who study this stuff and don’t agree the IPCC agenda- but i give them kudos for trying- I just brushed up on the basics really- and still i was frustrated that the world was gobbling up the lie so eagerly-

The bible talks about a great delusion in the end times- people exchanging the truth for preferred lies- God will send them strong delusions so that they believe the l ies- I think this global scam might just be part of the great plan for the end times, because when it really takes off- governments will rule over the people with this agenda- and cripple them finacially, and make them dependent on the gov- things are already increasing in price due to regulations, taxes and fines due to climate regulations - but once it really takes hold, everything is going to skyrocket in price because practically everything requires carbon production to function- They’ve got us over a barrel, and they know it- It’s the goose that lays the golden eggs for them-

What i mean to say is, the discussions are interesting, but in the end- climate regulations are a reality, and our discussions won’t really amount to much because the world has bought into the lie- and there’s no changing their minds now-

[palmer]

Two contradictory statements- if only 40% of anthro CO2 stays in atmosphere, then 60% must be absorbed, no?

That is a fair point. The 60% of man's emissions that is claimed to be absorbed is in the noise of natural absorption. As we see from the chart, the natural absorption varies quite a bit from year to year due to El Nino (less absorption sometimes net gain) and volcanoes (more absorption due to cooling).

What is happening, contrary to much of the discussion including the alarmists and the 40%/60% claim, is that man's CO2 is not being absorbed out of man's current emissions. It is actually being absorbed from past emissions. So in reality out of the new amount each year, only a few percent are being absorbed by nature (with lots of variation). The other absorption is of past emissions.

The reason for that is that man's emissions have raised CO2 above the equilibrium with the ocean. So if we stop producing CO2, the totals in the atmosphere which includes all past emissions, will quickly drop (back to "normal" in a few decades). That's why it is utter nonsense for alarmists to claim that the CO2 will stay around for 100's or 1000's of years.

Of course they will then claim that the ocean is "acidifying", another misleading claim. The ocean's pH can vary daily by up to a unit pH of 7.8 to 8.7 Varies that much annually in other locations. In contrast the added manmade CO2 lowers the pH of the ocean by 0.02 pH units per decade. Way down in the noise.