Carbon Dioxide

Why CO2 is not the cause of climate change

kaykiser

Does Carbon Dioxide cause climate change?

a) Carbon dioxide is a minor player in any further warming. It is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere but only absorbs infrared (heat) in a very narrow wavelength range. The CO2 wavelength range is outside the range of most of the solar radiance that penetrates our atmosphere. It falls roughly inside the wavelength range of temperatures re-radiated when solar radiation heats the earth’s surface. The atmospheric CO2 already absorbs almost all of the radiation that it can in that range. Most of the warming effect of CO2 has already occurred in the past and is one of the reasons our planet is not a frozen wasteland. Any increase in CO2 will have a very minor effect. With CO2 absorption near saturation, almost all of the re-radiated heat in that wavelength range is already being trapped, so it can have little or no effect on future increases in temperature or supposed forcing of water vapor. With CO2 essentially eliminated as a source, any increases in temperature must be from some other sources.

Absorption of gases – note narrow CO2 bands & broad water bands.

‎ http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

Source: Robert A. Rohde (Dragons flight at English Wikipedia) – This figure was created by Robert A. Rohde from published data and is part of the Global Warming Art project. http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/stud…

This figure requires a bit of explaining. The top spectrum shows the wavelengths at which the atmosphere transmits light and heat as well as the “black body” idealized curves for no absorption. It is a little misleading because the data is not based on actual solar and earth data. It is based on two experimental heat sources, one centered at 5525 K (5252o C or 9485o F), the approximate temperature of solar radiation, and one centered in the range of 210 to 310 K (-63o C to 36.8o C or -82oF to 98o F), the approximate temperature range of re-radiated heat from the earth. In reality solar radiation power, (Watts/m2/micron), shown in red, is six million times as strong as the power of re-radiated heat from the earth, shown in blue.

The other spectra are absorption[1] spectra. The top one shows the relative percent absorption by total atmospheric gases at various wavelengths, (note that this spectrum is practically the inverse of the transmission spectrum above it), and the spectra below that show the absorption wavelength ranges of individual atmospheric gases, but not the relative strength of that absorption in reality. As experimental, not real atmospheric, data they can only tell us the wavelength ranges of the absorption, not their relative strengths.

Note that CO2 absorbs in the 15 micron range[2], which is within both the range of re-radiated heat and the strong absorption by water vapor of which the CO2 peak forms a mere shoulder. This is used to claim forcing of water vapor by CO2, without regard to the near-saturation level of CO2. Lesser CO2 peaks in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron ranges also only contribute in a minor way, the first is completely covered by a water vapor absorption peak and the second forms a shoulder in another water vapor peak. These minor peaks occur in a region where both solar radiation and re-radiation are minimized. Methane and nitrous oxide are also shown to be minor players, having narrow absorption ranges and low concentrations. Note too that ozone blocks most of the ultraviolet light from the sun.

b.) Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas/liquid in the form of vapor, high and low altitude clouds, rain and snow, which both absorb and reflect sunlight and re-radiated heat from the surface. Water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, being concentrated near the earth, but strongly absorbs heat in a wide range of wavelengths. More heat means more water vapor evaporating from the oceans. Sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? Contrary to what is assumed by climate modelers, who use this to claim forcing by CO2, the extra vapor doesn’t remain as vapor. It quickly forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect in-coming sunlight and heat into space. Any re-radiated heat from the surface that may be trapped by clouds is a small fraction compared to the in-coming solar radiation, so blocking solar radiance has a net cooling effect that overwhelms any increases in trapped re-radiation. High altitude clouds tend to trap heat from being re-radiated into space, but have little effect because the increases in cloud cover due to warming are mostly in low altitude clouds.

[1] Transmission and Absorption are inversely related by the formula A = 1/log T.

[2] The horizontal axis is a log scale in microns so that the 1 to 10 range is in units of 1 and the 10 to 70 range is in tens.

NOTE: Republished from July 22, 2015 Post (media link broken and here restored)

Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life, Big Bang cosmology or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

Carbon Dioxide is plant food and increases growth rates

kaykiser

Animals exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and breathe Oxygen (O2), while plants use CO2 and exhale O2. Professional greenhouses often add extra CO2 to increase growth rates. Increased plant growth removes much of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Between pre-industrial and present times, studies show an average of 15% increase in plant growth rates, with some species increased many times that, e.g. young pine trees. Increased plant growth rates and wider distribution of arable (farmable) land due to warming as well as improved farming practices can solve the so-called overpopulation problem. If much of the data used in the climate models are based on proxy data from tree rings, and growth has been increased by CO2, does that mean that the data is artificially skewed toward “warmer” results? Hmmm.

Plant Growth Chart 1.png

 

Figure 1. Comparison of Plant Growth at Pre-industrial CO2 levels (295 ppm in pink), at 383 ppm and 600 ppm (in blue) in Dry Wheat, Wet Wheat, Oranges, Orange Trees and Young Pine Trees. Note Percent increases.
Source: Review Article: “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W.Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999)  Affiliations: (1) Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138; (2) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523

A. Critics created the “progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis,” which assumes that increased growth rates of trees would deplete poor soils of nitrogen, thus mediating the positive effects of increased CO2. This is a scenario based on theory, not reality, which stubbornly refuses to support the hypothesis. Many studies[1] show that, contrary to the hypothesis, although roots grow deeper and produce more fine hairs, soil and forest floor are enriched in nitrogen from biological sources, i.e. increased root mass and leaf litter supporting beneficial microbes in the soil.

B. One benefit of increased CO2 is that the stomata (openings) of leaves, which take in CO2 and emit water vapor and oxygen, are reduced, leading to less water loss, enhanced water use and improved tolerance to dryer conditions. At elevated CO2 levels, stomata do not need to be open as far to allow sufficient CO2 in for photosynthesis and, as a result, less water is lost through transpiration[2]. In controlled studies, an additional benefit of reduced stomata openings is a reduction of ozone damage.

C. The increased rate of growth of plants, from forests to sea algae, results in more of certain cooling aerosols being produced. These include Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) from soil and seas that become highly reflective sulfate in the stratosphere to reflect more solar radiation back into space, Iodo-compounds from sea algae that nucleate clouds to reflect more solar radiation back into space, dimethyl sulfide (DMS), from seas that nucleates clouds and other aerosols such as isoprene from trees with similar effects.

D.  Hormesis is a phenomenon, commonly seen in medicine and nutrition, where a low concentration or dose results in a positive effect, but a larger dose results in damage. For instance, some salt and water are necessary to good health, but beyond a certain point, ingesting more can be harmful or fatal. The effect of CO2 on plant life appears to be one such system. Increased CO2 obviously benefits plant life, but it is uncertain at what level CO2 might have a detrimental effect on growth. In professional greenhouses and experiments, even ten times the current level is still beneficial.

Hormesis Chart 1

Figure 2.  Illustration of how Carbon Dioxide is beneficial to plants through Hormesis. Horizontal Axis is Increasing CO2 level.

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/Earth’s Response to Increasing CO2: An Example of Hormesis? August 11th, 2014

As a matter of fact, CO2 below 400 ppm restricts growth, and below 150 ppm plants die en masse.  For a good summary of this, see post at http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/ by posted on 17. May 2013 :   Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth 

[1] Example: Phillips, R.P., Finzi, A.C. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2011. “Enhanced root exudation induces microbial feedbacks to N cycling in a pine forest under long-term CO2 fumigation”. Ecology Letters 14: 187-194.

[2] See review article of research papers: “Responses of agricultural crops to free-air CO2 enrichment” Kimball, B.A., Kobayashi, K. and Bindi, M., Advances in Agronomy 77: 293-368 2002.

This article was first published in August, 2015. Some revisions/links have been added. Information is from my book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy has Corrupted Science, published June 2016, available online from Amazon.com

Calculated Chaos: Renewable Energy Zealot’s Wind & Solar Plan for California Just Doesn’t Add Up

kaykiser

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

Mad Bill doesn’t just look like a zealot …

Facts, reason and logic have never troubled the true believers in our ‘inevitable transition’ to an all wind and sun powered future.

Trifling matters, like cost and reliability, are dismissed in an instant. The slaughter of millions of birds and bats, swept under the carpet. And the environmental havoc wreaked across countryside carpeted in thousands of toxic turbines and solar panels from horizon to horizon, is deemed to be all for the greater good.

They’re not called zealots, for nothing. As Robert Bryce details below.

A fully renewable California?
Los Angeles Times
Robert Bryce
21 August 2018

Back in 2012, the environmental organization 350.org and its leader, Bill McKibben, took a “Do the Math” tour across America to talk about “the terrifying math of the climate crisis.” Alas, it appears McKibben has since developed an allergy to simple arithmetic.

In a…

View original post 676 more words

Reality Bites: ‘Transition’ to All Wind & Solar Powered Future Pure Fantasy

kaykiser

 

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

Plenty of destructive ideas have been launched on the back of well-crafted propaganda campaigns. The wind and solar industries have used every trick in the PR book, turning pure fantasy into an all-too-real nightmare.

Where electricity was once an essential service, which governments went out of their way to insure was available to all-comers, heavily subsidised, weather dependent wind and solar have trashed that idea. Nowadays, governments of all persuasions have taken to educating the populous that they are ‘demand resources’ and subject to ‘demand management’. That is, unceremoniously chopping the power supply to households and businesses, whenever the sun sets or calm weather sets in.

Rocketing power prices have a more immediate and permanent effect – tens of thousands of Australian households can no longer afford electricity and have had their power cut off, completely: Australia’s Self-Inflicted Renewable Energy Crisis: 200,000 Families Can’t Afford Power

We guess that that constitutes…

View original post 1,052 more words

Insane $Trillion Cost Means Mega-Batteries Won’t Save Chaotically Delivered Wind & Solar — STOP THESE THINGS

Quote kaykiser

It didn’t take power punters long to work out that wind power will never amount to a meaningful power generation source. Graphs like the one above – depicting the entire output of every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid (1,800 of them with a capacity of just under 5,000MW, spread across four states, NSW, […]

via Insane $Trillion Cost Means Mega-Batteries Won’t Save Chaotically Delivered Wind & Solar — STOP THESE THINGS

Censorship and Corruption in science

kaykiser
Climate Change Science, aka Religion, is Corrupted by Censorship of Critical Scientists

I hope you will take the time to listen to this Youtube video in which Dr. Willie Soon gives evidence of scientific censorship.  He has been the target of intimidation, censorship and vicious lies because he uses real scientific data to refute alarmist claims by Climate Change Advocates in academia and scientific publishing. Even if you choose not to view the video, please read his conclusions below.

Conclusion #1:  The dark cloud of censorship and intimidation is sweeping across [the] climate science arena in full display now. Climate science, as we know it, is dangerously invaded and corrupted by scientism. The big bad bullies of censorship, those scientists, scientific institutions and funding agencies, continue to be calling [the] shots and making decisions in just about any matter that is important to science, and that has to be stopped.

Conclusion #2: Nearly all institutions are essentially populated and controlled by activists and alarmists, rather than curious scientists, that are firmly convinced of the great harms of CO2 without any need nor interest for scientific evidence.

The so-called “Deniers” are not the real science deniers. It is the “Warmists” among scientists, turned advocates, who refuse to look at any data/ information that does not agree with their fore-gone conclusions and with models that do not track reality. For example, they firmly refuse to consider any contribution from the Sun or Water Vapor and Clouds.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (emphasis added)

— The Club of Rome

 

Water Wars: Wind Turbine Construction Destroying Underground Water Supplies in Ontario

kaykiser

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

Pundits have predicted that the next major war will be sparked over water. In Ontario just such a battle is (pardon the pun) well underway.

A couple of weeks back STT reported on the destruction of underground water supplies in Chatham-Kent: Ontario: Water, Water Everywhere – But Thanks to Wind Turbines – Not A Drop to Drink

While that story has clocked up almost 4,000 hits, it seems we only just scratched the surface.

Locals are furious, not just at the fact that once pristine water supplies have been turned to toxic sludge, they are wild at the way wind power outfits and their pet consultants are lying about the cause.

The first story goes right to the heart of that piece of wind industry spin.

Debate Continues on Water Wells and Contamination
Ontario Farmer
Jeffrey Carter
20 February 2018

Geological engineer Maurice Dusseault wasn’t surprised to hear that Chatham-Kent water…

View original post 2,309 more words

Fact Factory: Smashing Big Wind Starts & Ends With Data & Detail

kaykiser

Very useful data and facts from stopthesethings.com blog about harm to birds, bats, etc. and the real cost and imaginary benefits of offshore wind turbines.

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

What the wind industry hates most are facts; facts about rocketing power prices, massive subsidies, chaotic intermittency, incessant noise and consequent harm to neighbour’s health, the destruction of birds and bats, the destruction of underground water supplies, turbines spontaneously combusting, disintegrating or throwing their blades to the four winds. We could go on.

On this occasion, however, we’ll hand over to our American cousins from the North American Platform Against Windpower, who deal with all of the above and more in a cracking and compendious letter to the Ohio Power Siting Board (and others) about plans to spear a clutch of massive Vestas 3.45 MW whirling wonders into the shores of Lake Erie, in Cleveland, Ohio.

In the Matter of the Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc., for a Certificate to Construct a Wind-Powered Electric Generation Facility in Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Case No. 16-1871-EL-BGN
Sherri Lange, Al…

View original post 6,085 more words

Are Wind and Solar the Future of Energy or a Utopian Pipe Dream?

kaykiser

Can Wind and Solar Provide Reliable, Consistent Power or is it a Utopian dream?

Is it possible for wind and solar power to be reliable and consistent? Let’s look at the facts.

WIND

Wind power needs a narrow range of wind speeds. Too slow and no power is generated. Too fast and turbines could be damaged, so they must be shut down. Output is intermittent and variable.

Each wind turbine needs several hundred pounds of rare earth elements for super magnets needed to generate electricity.

Cables from each turbine are needed to connect all of them to the grid, unlike thermal, hydro and nuclear plants where the energy is generated in one location.

Wind power requires vast areas to be cleared, to provide the level of output needed for any one area. Wind farms disrupt the ecology of the environment, and produce annoying or harmful low and infra sound.

A wind turbine can last 15 to 20 years with regular maintenance by trained technicians.

Wind turbines create a vacuum behind their blades that pull birds and bats in to be killed by the blades. The insect population, normally kept in check by birds and bats, would necessarily increase as would crop damage and diseases carried by insects.

 

SOLAR

Solar power needs full sun to deliver optimum output. Clouds, rain, fog, dust and night block sunlight. Photovoltaic solar cells need to be aimed directly at the sun, so tracking mechanisms are needed for optimum output. Without tracking, less power is generated. Output is intermittent and variable.

The sun yields up to 1 Kilowatt or power per meter. Solar cells yield 15 to 30% output when directly aimed at the sun, but power output declines with angle away from vertical. At higher latitudes maximum output can never be reached because the sun is never directly overhead. As cells age, they lose about 1% per year of capacity.

Rare earth elements are needed for high output solar cells. Heat reduces output so cooling may be required.

Cables from each solar panel are needed to connect all of them to the grid, unlike thermal, hydro and nuclear plants where the energy is generated in one location.

Solar power requires vast areas to be cleared and covered by solar arrays, to provide the level of output needed for any one area. Solar arrays disrupt the ecology of the environment.

Solar panels last 10 to 20 years with regular cleaning of surfaces and maintenance of tracking and cooling systems by trained technicians.

 

Backup Power:

Both solar and wind power have inconsistent, intermittant output that requires backup power in the form of fossil fuel thermal, geothermal, hydroelectric or nuclear plants. None of these sources can be switched on and off quickly on demand, and balancing output for consistency would be almost impossible. It would be necessary to run backup power plants constantly on standby, which is less efficient than running them consistently at optimum power.

 

Combined Wind and Solar

The sun is always shining somewhere in the world, so average output can be fairly consistent and constant.

The wind is always blowing at optimum speeds somewhere in the world, so average output can be fairly consistent and constant.

But for any one location or even one region, neither solar nor wind power are consistent and constant.  The only way solar and wind could come close to providing constant, reliable power is by linking wind and solar plants all over the world into one huge distributed worldwide grid that would even out power levels.

This system would require many billions of miles of electrical transmission cables but would suffer from significant power losses over distance, even at very high voltages, and require constant maintenance. It is doubtful that such a system could actually share a worldwide grid due to transmission loses.

Such a grid, if possible, would require one worldwide government to regulate and run the system. All national and political barriers would have to be eliminated. We are talking about a communist/socialist top down Utopia, which requires iron fisted control of every aspect of life from the top.

Conclusion:

A worldwide, distributed power grid is an unrealistic Communist/socialist Utopian dream that can never be accomplished in the real world.

Recommendation:

Since constant and consistent power can never be accomplished with Solar and Wind systems, these systems should be abandoned except for solar panels for very local uses on single homes or as a supplement for single businesses.

The cleanest and greenest sources of reliable electrical power are hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear. These systems can supply almost all of the power needed for a developing world. On the road to developing these sources in areas lacking infrastructure, it will be necessary to employ fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas until capacity is built up.  Natural gas is the cleanest of these three.  Without having to back up the intermittency of solar or wind, power plants can be run at optimum efficiency to minimize fuel consumption and maximize power output.

.

 

Why Coal Miners, Oil and Gas Producers Simply Love Wind Power

kaykiser

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

coalminevn Coal miners just love wind power.

****

The wind industry parades as an “alternative” energy source. Which begs the question: “alternative” to what?

The lunatics from the hard-green left (like “Greens” head-muppet, Christine Milne) continually whine that “coal is DEATH“; and wax lyrical about the fantasy of going “100% renewable” – all the while pocketing $millions in campaign funding from the party’s wind industry backers (see our post here).

muppets-miss-piggy Christine Milne, snacks out on the wind industry expense account.

****

Economic lunatics, like Milne are wedded to the delusion that there really is a choice between powering nations with hundreds of thousands of giant fans (carpeting every last square mile of other peoples’ back yards) and coal or gas fired plant, that comfortably fit on the back of a figurative “envelope”; and, as they’re usually placed in industrial zones, rarely trouble anyone.

The…

View original post 2,770 more words