Carbon delusions and limited models

The relentless war on carbon is justified by the false assumption that global temperature is controlled by human production of two carbon-bearing “Greenhouse Gases”. The scary forecasts of runaway heating are based on complex and circumscribed, carbon-centric, computerised Global Circulation Models built for the UN IPCC. These models omit many significant climate factors and rely heavily on dodgy temperature records and unproven assumptions about two natural trace gases in the atmosphere.

The models fail to explain Earth’s long history of changing climate and ignore the powerful role of interacting cycles in the solar system which determine how much solar energy is absorbed and reflected by Earth’s atmosphere, clouds and surface. Several ancient societies and some modern mavericks, without help from million dollar computers, recognised that the sun, moon and major planets produce cyclic changes in Earth’s climate.

The IPCC models misread the positive and negative temperature feedbacks from water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) and their accounting for natural processes in the carbon cycle is based on very incomplete knowledge and numerous unproven assumptions.

See: Errors in the IPCC Global Circulation Models:
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/media-release-evans-climate.pdf
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

The dreaded “greenhouse gases” (carbon dioxide and methane) are natural gases. Man did not create them — they occur naturally in comets and planets, and have been far more plentiful in previous atmospheres on Earth. They are abundant in the oceans and the atmosphere, and are buried in deposits of gas, oil, coal, shale, methane clathrates and vast beds of limestone. Land and sea plants absorb CO2 and micro-organisms absorb methane in the deep ocean.

Earth emits natural carbon-bearing gases in huge and largely unknown and unpredictable quantities. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and various hydrocarbons such as ethane, methane and propane bubble out of the ocean floor, seep out of swamps, bubble naturally out of rivers, are released in oil seeps, water wells and bores, and are sometimes delivered via water pipes into drinking water. They are also released whenever carbon-bearing rocks such as coal and shale are eroded naturally, catch fire or are disturbed by earthquakes, construction activities or mining. The vast offshore deposits of frozen methane are released naturally when geothermal heat or volcanic intrusions melt the ice containing the methane.

See: Widespread methane leakage from ocean floor off US coast:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223

Earth also entombs carbon in sediments and organic matter transported from the land by rivers and buried in swamps and deltas or swept from the land into the oceans by typhoons and tsunamis. These will eventually become limestone, shale and coal deposits, probably containing fossil evidence of a long-gone human era.

Recent measurements of the distribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the surface of the earth produced surprises — several of the heavy concentrations of carbon dioxide do not follow man’s heavy industry but occur over places like the Congo, Indonesia and the Amazon (possibly seasonal emanations from soil or forests).

See: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Distribution from the OCO2 Satellite:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=oco-2+data&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisnPqglu3LAhWGL6YKHcEmCoAQsAQIMg#imgrc=kRW3ayOOn1mbqM%3A

Earth’s crust is flexed daily by the gravity-driven Earth tide. This movement opens and shuts joints and pores in rocks and soil and allows earth gases to be squeezed towards the surface. The crust is also dragged, raised and lowered by sub-surface movements, which release more trapped gases.

Volcanic activity produces large but variable emissions of carbon dioxide, particularly if igneous rocks intrude on beds of coal, oil shale or limestone. The periodic massive outpourings of undersea basalts along the mid-ocean ridges cause large oceanic degassing.

Oceans and the biosphere are wild cards in the carbon cycle. Warming oceans, rotting vegetation, ruminants and termites all expel large and unmeasured quantities of carbon-bearing gases. Cooling oceans and growing animals and plants take up carbon compounds and, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and plants will take up more, thus providing a natural stabilising effect. Eucalypt forests extract carbon dioxide for growth, but also emit hydrocarbons from leaves, producing the blue haze on distant hills on hot days. Soil carbon comes and goes depending on weather, biological activity and farm management practices.

Where are the measurements of the production and consumption of atmospheric carbon compounds by the vast herds of antelopes and reindeer, cattle and sheep, or zebra and wildebeest? Who measures the effects of termites and locusts, droughts and floods, bushfires and biofuel plantations, bacteria and fungi, algae and krill, seaweeds and sardines, oceans and volcanoes, grasslands and forests, decomposing rocks, sedimentation and underground waters? What about the heat, CO2 generated and waste products buried by huge cities?

Earth’s total supply of carbon does not change, it just moves continually around the great carbon cycle residing temporarily as gases, liquids or solids in the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere and lithosphere.

Currently the supplies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are recovering gently from record lows. No one knows exactly where it is all coming from but limited measurements and extrapolations indicate that about 96% of the CO2 added annually to the atmosphere is from nature. The only part of the carbon cycle that is measured with reasonable accuracy is the remaining 4% of atmospheric CO2 produced through man’s recycling of coal, oil and gas.

See: Most of CO2 rise comes from natural sources:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.moKAPaHR.dpbs

We are asked to believe that we can use dubious estimates and forecasts of this minor component of the carbon cycle as the determining input for computer models to forecast future climate for decades ahead.

But to use these one-dimensional forecasts to justify disruptive energy policies is a costly delusion.

Viv Forbes,
Rosewood
Qld, Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

The author has qualifications in geology, physics, chemistry and maths and is a semi-retired geologist with long interest and experience in geologic history and the carbon cycle. He has spent his life in public service, exploration, financial analysis, mining and grazing and has minor interests in a small coking coal mine and breeding cattle and sheep.

22
Leave a Reply

avatar
22 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
AndyRichard C (NZ)Carbon Sense and Nonsense | Science MattersCarbon delusions and limited models - Principia Scientific Intl Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
trackback

[…] Read more at: www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz […]

trackback

[…] Instead of delusions about CO2 as the planet’s climate “control knob”, Viv Forbes provides us a wise, sane view how the carbon cycle works, and what we know and don’t about it. And rather than exaggerate the effects of humans recycling fossil fuels, he puts the carbon cycling sources and sinks into a sensable perspective. His recent article is entitled: Carbon Delusions and Limited Models […]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The IPCC models misread the positive and negative temperature feedbacks from water vapour (the main greenhouse gas)” The best performing IPCC model at surface (INMCM4) is an outlier in this respect. Less water vapour for feedback than any other model (among other items). >”Earth emits natural carbon-bearing gases in huge and largely unknown and unpredictable quantities.” And what Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient truth’ conveniently omits to disclose is that on a scale of 100s of thousands of years, temperature LEADS CO2 by 200 – 800 years in the ice-core data that he makes out to be the big “evidence” for the CO2 conjecture. The IPCC model paradigm is similarly back-to-front i.e. CO2 is an INPUT parameter to their models. Here’s what happens when CO2 is generated as an OUTPUT from the system in accordance with the correct temp-CO2 lead-lag sequence: ‘A TSI-Driven (solar) Climate Model’ February 8, 2016 by Jeff Patterson “The fidelity with which this model replicates the observed atmospheric CO2 concentration has significant implications for attributing the source of the rise in CO2 (and by inference the rise in global temperature) observed since 1880. There is no statistically significant signal of an… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”More on the criminalization of dissent from Daniel Greenfield” Good synopsis Andy, but it neglects the legal issues which are myriad. I expect some “unintended consequences” in that regard (see below) However, in the vein of “Gore’s Inconvenient Truth ecohoax flick” Greenfield says: The Big Green group of prosecutors was launched by Al Gore, whose Big Green investments have made him a very rich man. Gore is the chairman of Generation Investment Management, a UK investment management firm that focuses on environmental investments. Its funds are valued at $7.3 billion. Gore’s Inconvenient Truth ecohoax flick was financed by the head of the Capricorn Investment Group. Al Gore invests in Green Energy and then runs campaigns urging government Green investments. Now Gore has moved beyond that blatant conflict of interest to trying to criminalize rival industries. This may not end well for Al Gore. Re legal issues, (see also ‘Controversy and scandal’ thread): ‘Emails reveal NY AG Schneiderman. other AG’s colluding with Al Gore and greens to investigate climate skeptics’ http://junkscience.com/2016/04/emails-reveal-ny-ag-schneiderman-other-ags-colluding-with-al-gore-and-greens-to-investigate-climate-skeptics/ By colluding they have may have committed a federal crime: ‘Dear attorneys general, conspiring against free speech is a crime’ Glenn Harlan Reynolds,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

New York AG Tried To Cover Up Activist Involvement In Exxon Probe
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/new-york-ag-tried-to-cover-up-activist-involvement-in-exxon-probe.html

Left-wing activists spent years planning climate investigations
New York AG launches climate investigation, takes fire
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/left-wing-activists-spent-years-planning-climate-investigations.html

“Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

“So, way back in 1963, the entire oil industry knew exactly what we know today: The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/18/smoke-fumes-part-deux-exxon-knew-the-entire-theory-of-climatic-changes-by-co2-variations-is-questionable/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From “Smoke & Fumes”: In my [David Middleton] previous post on this subject [hotlink], we examined some of the documents which supposedly proved that ExxonMobil and the oil industry in general “had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago.” This is funny for at least two reasons: 1. Oil companies employ a lot of sedimentary geologists and two of the primary components of sedimentary geology are 1) paleogeography and 2) paleoclimatology. So the oil industry has “had the underlying knowledge of climate change” for a very long time. 2. ExxonMobil’s (Humble Oil back then) underlying knowledge of climate change was that “the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content [was becoming] very questionable.” # # # Much mirth in comments so far. for example: Sparky April 18, 2016 at 1:14 pm I’ve always thought that It is a kind of backhanded complement, that the Green Blob assume that Exxon’s scientists were so good back in the day that they could do with mere pen and paper, what it has taken massive funding,whole armies of scientists and super computers galore to achieve today ! Bob Tisdale… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘A Climategate-like bombshell: State Attorney Generals colluded with Green groups to punish political opponents’

by Chris Horner, April 18, 2016

[…]

In the end, it seems the only parties that may be breaking the law are those colluding AGs in their scheme to silence political opposition, while seeking funds for their preferred policy agenda. It is they who need to come clean.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE EMAILS [hotlink – see below]

Chris Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C. who obtained the email records for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. He is also a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/18/a-climategate-like-bombshell-state-attorney-generals-colluded-with-green-groups-to-punish-political-opponents/

AG collusion emails:

http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Master-VT-OAG-docs-of-note.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Al Gore and State Attorney Generals start another climate witch hunt (Update: schism develops)’ […] UPDATE: all is not well in Goreville Democratic Attorneys General Refuse to Join Rockefeller-Backed Climate Investigation 3:03pm EDT March 29, 2016 by Steve Everley steve@energyindepth.org , Dallas, Tex. A press conference today featuring Al Gore and more than a dozen state attorneys general was expected to reveal new state-level investigations of U.S. energy companies regarding climate change. But the vast majority of AGs standing on stage refused to join such an effort, signaling a lack of interest in wasting their own states’ resources. Last year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he had launched an investigation into fossil fuel companies regarding what the New York Times called “possible climate change lies.” The investigation was based entirely on a series of controversial articles written by researchers at the Columbia School of Journalism and InsideClimate News, which selectively pulled statements from company documents to suggest Exxon Mobil’s public policy advocacy was inconsistent with its own research. Unsurprisingly, environmental activists embraced the articles, and even began an online campaign – complete with the hash tag #ExxonKnew on Twitter –… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”AG collusion emails:”
http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Master-VT-OAG-docs-of-note.pdf

Take a look at page 21 pdf:

Climate Coalition of Attorneys General

Principles [abbrev.]
# Climate Change is Real
# Climate Change Pollution Is The Primary Driver
# People Are Being Harmed
# Immediate Action Is Necessary

Pledge [abbrev.]
[….yada yada……]
# Engage The Public
Raise public awareness regarding the impacts to public health, safety, our environment and our economy caused by climate change

# # #

Superficial ignorant misleading incorrect Leftist drivel.

These AGs are the criminals.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”AG collusion emails” page 21 pdf

Climate Coalition of Attorneys General

Principles

# Climate Change is Real
The evidence that global temperatures have been rising over the last century-plus is unequivocal.

# Climate Change Pollution Is The Primary Driver
Natural forces do not explain the observed global warming trend

# # #

This is completely at odds with IPCC anthro attribution which only begins at 1951 and only states “more than half” 1951 – 2010.

But in the 21st century the IPCC tacitly concedes (Chapter 9: Hiatus) natural forces have been the primary driver and that there has been no “Climate Change Pollution” driven warming (and that 97.37% of their models are junk – 111/114).

These AGs are stuck in a 20th century time warp with heads full of incorrect information.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘CEI Will Surmount Crimethink Persecution’

Kent Lassman • April 13, 2016

“Unfortunately, some who disagree with our ideas would prefer we succumb to heavy-handed intimidation. They have forgotten that the protections of the U.S. Constitution provide essential instruction on the role and scope of government—including the abusive use of state authority to limit speech and association.”

https://cei.org/blog/cei-will-surmount-crimethink-persecution

Andy
Guest
Andy

Sea levels could rise 1.1m by end of the century- Royal Society

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201797595/sea-levels-could-rise-1-point-1m-by-end-of-the-century-royal-society

I suppose if you keep repeating the lie, eventually people believe you

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lassman, CEI: Some of our critics view the subpoena as nothing more than a taste of CEI’s own medicine. After all, they argue, hasn’t CEI harassed scientists and professors for private emails and data? Unequivocally, the answer is NO. Like countless journalists, policy groups, and private citizens, CEI relies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other public records laws to encourage government accountability and transparency. There should be no controversy when private individuals seek information about the use of taxpayer funds by government employees. It is rhetorically convenient and intellectually lazy to overlook the fundamental differences between a subpoena from an attorney general, operating in concert with his peers from 17 states, and a private organization’s legitimate use of FOIA requests. Let’s be perfectly clear. The subpoena is based on an implied allegation of criminal wrongdoing; a FOIA request is not. CEI makes FOIA requests as a check on government overreach and misconduct. With this subpoena, Walker has abused his authority by punishing private activity protected by the U.S. Constitution. […] A reasonable person might ask, “What does CEI say about climate change that makes these people so nervous?” # #… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Sea levels could rise 1.1m by end of the century- Royal Society”

Then Radio NZ goes on – “A new report by leading New Zealand scientists is warning two thirds of New Zealanders are living in flood-prone areas, leaving them at the mercy of climate change.”

What? Does SLR now encompass “flood-prone areas” ?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

MUST READ (yes MUST) Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery” Steve McIntyre, posted on Apr 19, 2016 In the past few weeks, I’ve been re-examining the long-standing dispute over the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. My interest was prompted in part by Gavin Schmidt’s recent attack on a graphic used by John Christy in numerous presentations (see recent discussion here by Judy Curry). Schmidt made the sort of offensive allegations that he makes far too often: @curryja use of Christy’s misleading graph instead is the sign of partisan not a scientist. YMMV. tweet; @curryja Hey, if you think it’s fine to hide uncertainties, error bars & exaggerate differences to make political points, go right ahead. tweet. As a result, Curry decided not to use Christy’s graphic in her recent presentation to a congressional committee. In today’s post, I’ll examine the validity (or lack) of Schmidt’s critique. Schmidt’s primary dispute, as best as I can understand it, was about Christy’s centering of model and observation data to achieve a common origin in 1979, the start of the satellite period, a technique which (obviously) shows a greater discrepancy at the end… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Mears altered the graph to show uncertainty at the behest of Thomas from Hot Topic (he posted his discussion with Mears in comments at HT).” Mears also brought the graph up to date. Thomas says: January 23, 2016 at 1:56 pm I would really like to also know why the RSS data set website: http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature Has not updated their temperature graphs on their home page since 2013!! It is a hoot is it not that they are now over two years behind. This is partly what allows dumb wits to cite the RSS data of the recent decades and claim that it shows “no warming”. While the data include the ElNino of 1998 they are so far blind to 2014 and 2015, which broke all records. Further: If you look at the RSS climate page: http://www.remss.com/research/climate Their most cited graphs show a thin black line for their “measurements” with zero error! While showing a wide yellow band for climate simulations. The truth is: the RSS measurements rely on a very complex model that converts radiation signals arriving at the chips of their satelites somehow into a “temperature” reading. The actual error bands in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I submitted a comment showing Thomas’ HT comments re Mears and RSS. It’s gone into the spam trap – too many links” Hopefully RT digs it out. Meantime, here’s the HT thread header: Thomas says: January 23, 2016 at 1:56 pm I would really like to also know why the RSS data set website: http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature Has not updated their temperature graphs on their home page since 2013!! It is a hoot is it not that they are now over two years behind. This is partly what allows dumb wits to cite the RSS data of the recent decades and claim that it shows “no warming”. While the data include the ElNino of 1998 they are so far blind to 2014 and 2015, which broke all records. Further: If you look at the RSS climate page: http://www.remss.com/research/climate Their most cited graphs show a thin black line for their “measurements” with zero error! While showing a wide yellow band for climate simulations. The truth is: the RSS measurements rely on a very complex model that converts radiation signals arriving at the chips of their satelites somehow into a “temperature” reading. The actual error bands in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Thanks RT, this (models vs obs, and ENSO-neutral obs) is the critical issue over the nest 5 years to 2020 IMO (apart from TOA energy balance).

There’s plenty of tricks being employed to cast the models in the best light possible but as time goes on, and the divergence increases, the trickery is becoming ever more desperate.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”There’s plenty of tricks being employed to cast the models in the best light possible but as time goes on, and the divergence increases, the trickery is becoming ever more desperate.”

For example, Schmidt and a recent Mann et al paper have taken to “adjusting” model output to compare to observations.

This is bogus and back-to-front (as is much climate science). The only valid apples-to-apples models-obs comparison is unadjusted model output to ENSO-neutral and MDV-neutral observations. This is because the models are ENSO-neutral and MDV-neutral (as I keep banging on about).

Be VERY careful about what you are REALLY looking at when a warmy puts a models vs obs graph in front of you. Rahmstorf Tweeted one such graph from Mann et al but there’s no way for a novice of telling what the respective series are because the information has been left off (natch). The only way to spot the “adjusted” series is by knowing exactly what the respective original profiles look like.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I think the RSNZ have finally “jumped the shark”

Sea level rise threat to NZ coasts

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301826/sea-level-rise-threat-to-nz-coasts

The kicker is this line

Not only would it be hotter and drier in some parts, but high CO2 levels would increase plant size in some cases, creating more material available to burn.

So they acknowledge that CO2 increases plant growth, but this is a bad thing because there is greater fire risk

Should we start chopping down all the trees?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Cartoons by Josh – My Horse Won!
comment image

Inspired by Steve MicIntyre’s post:

Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Post Navigation