CO2 Has Maxed Out For 2014

A milestone passed in May – we reached the maximum level of CO2 for the year and it is now declining, which it will do for the rest of the year. In fact, it was the highest level measured for anytime in the last 800,000 years. The CO2 level increases during the winter when plants are dormant and that increase continues through the spring as plants become more active. The level will typically reach its maximum sometime around May then start declining as plants reach full vigor. The level will begin to rise again in the fall as the plants start to become dormant. This seasonal fluctuation is due mainly to land plants and is larger in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. Measurements taken on Antarctica exhibit only a small seasonal fluctuation. The measurements are so precise that it has been possible to show spring is coming earlier every year. This is the plot of measurements for the last two years, ending on July 19, 2014:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png
Source: SIO Keeling Curve

Last year (2013) the maximum monthly average came in just below 400 ppm and the highest weekly average was just a little over that level. That landmark level will be reached earlier every year from now on and April 2014 was the first year where the measurements exceeded 400 ppm for the entire month. With May and June added to the list, we now have three of those months. This year, the highest monthly average was better than 402 ppm and the highest weekly average was about 402.4 ppm. That was the highest level in the last 800,000 years and approximately 43.6% higher than pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. This also continues a long-term trend where the level has increased by about 2 ppm per year.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
Source: SIO Keeling Curve
Advertisements

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Henry’s Pool Tables

It is not clear how to make a submission?
Anyway, here it is. Just follow the links indicated and you will find all my results

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

it contains clear the proof that there is no man made global warming (see final graph at the bottom of all results). All warming and cooling is natural.

Henry Pool
henrypool7@gmail.com
PO Box 912887
Silverton
0127
South Africa
cel +27836297690

I will be looking forward to hearing from you.

Response:

I have two major (very major) problems with your claim.

The first is the number of sample locations – 54. Compare that to the number of sites used by the four main climate centers – NASA GISS, Hadley Research Center, NOAA, and the Climatic Research Unit. They each use about 11,000 stations. Not convinced the analysis was correct, Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth Project developed an entirely different set of stations and this one numbered over 39,000.  Of note, the Berkeley Earth Project was hailed by deniers as legitimate research that would overturn global warming claims, until their research came out and confirmed the work of the other four centers.

Now, five centers are using tens of thousands of data points and they all come up with global warming, including one that started out to prove there is not such thing. You are not going to overturn their findings with just 54 data points.

And, the biggest issue I have with your claim is that it includes only the surface data. Why not the whole globe? Why is it that deniers keep insisting that 93% of global warming is not relevant? Where is the ocean data? Include the ocean data and increase your data set to at least a few thousand, then you might be able to make a claim. Of course, what you will find is that global warming is real and it is continuing.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Glaciation Cycle

$30,000 Challenge Submission – 12,500 Year Glaciation Cycle

I submitted my challenge on the second comment page. I have found that we are at the cusp of a 12,000 – 12,500 year cycle of glaciation. The mass of one ice cap decreases while the other one increases. This happens like clockwork every 12,000+ years and causes everything we are witnessing today. The last ones to witness this cycle were the mammoths and they weren’t driving cars or manafacturing gas grills . I made a pdf but I then converted it to a video for easier linking. Please submit my video to the challenge. Here are the links:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d50_1385847508

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izkPDASG7U

(Disclaimer: I believe mankind can and does influence the weather, but it’s not what we are witnessing right now. It’s much bigger and it’s out of our hands)

My proof hinges on this scenario:

Let’s say you have a giant boulder in a field and the farmers need to move it in order to plow. 15 really strong farmers and a few oxen start to move the boulder out of the way. One of the farmer’s very young sons runs up and starts to push on the boulder as it is slowly being moved. The farmers laugh and the local paper claims “LOCAL BOY MOVES BOULDER”. Now, it’s true that the boy was pushing on that rock and it is true that rock was moving. What isn’t true is that the boy was mostly responsible for moving that giant rock. In fact, he only played a small part.

That is the basis of my hypothesis.

Response:

I am not totally sure what your submission is about. The best I can come up with is that you are saying man made global warming isn’t real because there is a 12,500 year cycle to ice ages. By your very argument, AGW is real because, according to you, we are heading into a new ice age and your claim would require something to be making it warm up in opposition to this new ice age that is starting.

In any event, there is no credibility to your claim of a 12,500 year cycle of glaciation. The references you present certainly don’t fall under the category of scientific evidence to support your claim. You produced some documents that may, or may not, have been scientific reports, but they were from 1900, 1926, 1928 and 1951. The progress of science has been astounding since those dates and we now understand vastly more than they did back then. As an example, plate tectonics and continental drift were just beginning to appear on the scene in the 1950s.  The other documents you produced were a mixture of New Age hookum and some religious texts. Not what I would consider to be anything credible (nor would any other scientist).

You produced a figure about the ice caps about how one is growing while the other is shrinking. Well, one is in summer and the other is in winter, so we would expect to see them doing the opposite. You also cite the Younger Dryas and I am not sure why. If anything, that goes to show your claim is not valid because the Dryas occurred when a glacier melted and released a giant lake into the Atlantic Ocean. This occurred about 12,500 years ago, right when you claim the glaciers were suppose to be growing, not melting.

The geographic poles do not flip. The magnetic poles do, but not the geographic ones. The last full flip was a very peculiar one and happened about 41,000 years ago, The reason it is peculiar is that it lasted only a few hundred years before flipping back. Normally, they take thousands of years to occur. The last major flip was about 780,000 years ago. You showed a source referring to the Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion. An excursion is an event that disrupts the field, but is not a reversal. We can be pretty sure this was not a reversal because we can see the magnetic fields before and after the event were both pointing in the same direction. If it had been a flip they would have been pointing in different directions. 

So, your claim of a 12,500 year cycle of glaciation is not valid. I never did see a claim on how this proves man made global warming isn’t real, but as I said above, it actually would be proof of the reality of AGW.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Heat Capacity

On my blog, I wrote a piece entitled, “Flaws In The Global Warming Hypothesis.” There is a link to it, below, and I will summarize here the key points of the article, which refutes the hypothesis of the global warming hypothesis …

1. The Heat Capacity of CO2 (ie its ability to absorb heat) is actually lower than the Heat Capacity of Air. So, as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat actually decreases. This will create the opposite effect of what the alarmists suggest. This will cool the earth.

2. The Thermal Conductivity of CO2 is lower than the Thermal Conductivity of Air, which means that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more reflective of heat. This will increase the reflectivity of the atmosphere for heat travelling in both directions. Heat attempting to leave the earth will be reflected back towards the earth, which will create a warming effect. However, the heat coming from the sun and trying to enter the atmosphere will also be reflected away from the earth and back out into outer space, which will have a cooling impact. So, the change in reflectivity of the atmosphere, from rising CO2 levels, has two competing impacts on the temperature of the earth. One is a cooling impact. The other is a warming impact. These two impacts will cancel each other out, creating zero net impact on the temperature of the earth.

3. The ice core data are highly unreliable, due to questions about diffusion of CO2 through the ice cores, as well as alternative explanations for the observed data, which have not been adequately addressed.

Please follow the link below for the complete article that I wrote on this matter.

http://galationpress.blogspot.com/2012/04/global-warming-settled-science-or.html

Jonathan GalJuly 2, 2014 at 10:10 PM

PS: For your reference, I am a Biology graduate of Harvard College from the 1980s. I scored in the top decile of my MCAT’s, with a particularly strong score in Physics (top 2% in Physics). After receiving an A in my basic Physics class at Harvard, I was asked by the professor to pursue a PhD in Physics, a request that I declined.

Point #4: PV = nRT As the number of moles of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, then – all else being equal – the volume of the atmosphere will increase, not the Temperature. Why? Because the outer surface of the atmosphere faces the zero pressure environment of outer space. So, there is nothing for the gases of the atmosphere to “push against.”

If there were some sort of barrier (say, for example, a massive plastic sheet that surrounded the entire atmosphere and restricted its physical expansion), then the Volume would be fixed, and the increased number of moles of CO2 would cause both pressure and temperature to rise, according to the Ideal Gas Law. However, there is no physical boudary surrounding the atmosphere. Therefore, as the number of moles of CO2 increases, then the volume of the atmosphere expands without raising pressure or temperature.

In effect, the atmosphere has a massive, built-in “pressure release valve. 

Response:

Point 1:

Your first error was in comparing heat capacities as meaning they are comparable in other ways. The heat capacity of air is about 1 kJ/kgK and the heat capacity of CO2 (at the temps we are concerned with) is about .8 kJ/kgK. The difference is how they get heated. O2 and N2 are essentially transparent to IR radiation, but CO2 is a great absorber of IR. Once the CO2 molecule absorbs energy in the form of IR radiation, it can then either reemit that energy as a new photon of IR, or it can collide with another molecule. The absorption and reemission of IR photons does not directly affect the O2 and N2 molecules, only the collisions will. So, no, adding CO2 to the atmosphere and absorbing IR radiation does not result in a cooler atmosphere.

Point 2:

You are technically correct in your statement but apply the details incorrectly. Yes, CO2 in the atmosphere will slow down the flow of energy both ways. The fact is, almost no IR radiation from the Sun makes it to the ground. However, this is due mainly to water vapor and not CO2. Your mistake was in assuming the energy from the Sun is IR when the energy we receive from the Sun at ground level is actually mostly visible light, which is not absorbed by CO2. This visible light gets absorbed by the surface and then the surface emits it as IR. So, the preponderance of IR is going spaceward from the surface, not the other way.

Point 3:

Your complaints about the ice core are irrelevant to the question of man made global warming. I will be dealing with this issue in another submission, but right now I will only say that even if issues actually do exist with the ice cores (something I am not willing to say at this time), it does not affect the question of whether or not man made emissions are changing the climate of today.

Point 4:

Your argument using the Ideal Gas Law would be relevant only if the atmosphere was a closed system, which it is not. There is a constant stream of incoming energy from the Sun, so you cannot just apply the Gas Law without taking all of that incoming energy into consideration. As for a ‘barrrier’ to push against, it has gravity, which is what is responsible for keeping all planetary atmospheres in place and creating atmospheric pressure. But, yes, the atmosphere most certainly expands and contracts in accord with many things, including the temperature. This does not negate the fact that there is an incoming stream of energy from outside the atmosphere that you have completely ignored. Additionally, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 ppm, which translates to .04% of the atmosphere.

All four of your points are scientifically invalid.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Sea Ice

As this contest is a logical fallacy as science does not prove or disprove, it merely a collection of data that is analyzed and interpreted, but I need $10,000. And if a Physicist is dumb enough to put up his own money then I have enough resources to allot 13 minutes for an investment.

All global models that predict man made CO2 as the major contributing factor of global warming effects on a reduction of Arctic sea ice has not trended in with the projections for the last 15 years even though CO2 has slowly increased over that time. Logically the planet can’t be warming if there is less latent heat energy to keep water in liquid form, unless there is new evident that the rate of radiation that the earth emits has lessened or the earth has added a significant amount of surface area.

This is evidence establishes a “impossibility” has occurred, outside the given expectations of 100,000s of Computer simulated hours and based on the most popular global fluid dynamics, and yet it has happened. Given global climate models are shown to be flawed, and in some cases fraudulently produced with meeting expectations as a goal of the programing, and thus the basis of “man made global warming” is flawed by all accounts of standard modeling projection analyses.

If an engineer changes his building program to meet their ideal characteristics, and the subject fails, like a building or a bridge, typically an investigation will recriminate him for using faulty models. Why aren’t “climatologist” held to the same standard?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/imagine-45-days-after-predicted-irreversible-collapse-antarctic-sea-ice-?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Antarctic-Ice

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/imagine-45-days-after-predicted-irreversible-collapse-antarctic-sea-ice-?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Antarctic-Ice

Response:

You start off right away with a false statement. You say this challenge “is a logical fallacy as science does not prove or disprove, it merely a collection of data that is analyzed and interpreted”. You have clearly not paid any attention to what the challenge is about. Deniers make the claim that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. I am providing you a venue to do so. There is most certainly not any logical fallacy in that challenge. Your claim is just a lame attempt by deniers to avoid the issue.

You say Arctic sea ice has not trended down for the last 15 years. Here are plots showing the sea ice extent for the months of September (minimum) and March (maximum):

Source: NSIDC
Source: NSIDC

Both of these plots show the sea ice extent has been decreasing not only for the last 15 years, but since before 1980. So, your first point has been shown to be incorrect.

Next, your claim about computer models. This has become the favorite false argument deniers are making, and it is false for two reasons. First, climate change is not about models. Models are a tool we use, but so are many other things such as thermometers, satellites, ice cores, mud cores, tree rings, sonobouys, radar, etc. Climate change is about studying and understanding the real world events that are occurring as we speak. These real world events are not waiting for a computer model to tell them what to do. The second way this is a false argument is that models are much more accurate than deniers want people to believe. Here and here are just two examples of reports on this subject. There are many more if you will do your homework.

So, your second point is also incorrect.

So, your complete submission consists of the claim that Arctic sea ice is not decreasing and claims models are living up to someone’s demands. I have shown how both of those arguments are not valid.

You have not shown man made global warming is not happening.

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Glass Jar Experiment

Unfortunately, your link didn’t work re: natural cycles.
I am restating my submission here per the scientific method.
Question: Does man made climate change exist?
Hypothesis: Man made climate change as such does not exist as an entity unto itself.Please see my entire argument above.
Experiment: I propose to choose one type of tree to conduct the experiment. I suggest to use very large clear glass jars that have a thermometer and CO2 analyzer within the jar. Choose a young small sapling that would fit the jar by having the jar placed over the sapling with the smaller, top part turned upside down to bury the top 1/3 part of the jar. This will allow for the sapling to grow and to be watered, albeit not within the jar system but around it. Take temperature and CO2 measurements at the same time each day for 30-60 days. Repeat at the same time with a piece of dead wood just laying on the ground (from the same type of tree), and with a jar placed in the ground without any tree. Also include a set of jars the same way, but with a piece of partially burned coal within each jar to mimic the greenhouse gases.Ideally, there should be a similar amount of soil and no other vegetation growing within the jar. All ground areas should get just as much water as the sapling. After 30-60 days, graph the measurements to see if the trends.
Results: (note: as I am disabled, I cannot conduct these experiments in the way they need to be conducted, however I have put alot of thought into it and expect to see differences. It would be ideal to repeat the set of experiments using first no water around the jars, then nearly soaking the area around the jars, thereby increasing the power of the experiment).
Conclusion: As I cannot perform the experiments myself, I cannot equivocally give a conclusion. Taking into account my lengthy argument above, I expect to see similar CO2 & temp (relative to the others) in the jars with the coal and the empty jar Next highest temps would be the dead wood, with the least amount of CO2 in the jar with the sapling. Though I am not sure what to expect with the set of jars set in waterlogged areas vs dry, I’d expect higher CO2 & temp levels in the dry set than the waterlogged set, with the average water set somewhere in between. What will be interesting is to see if the differences are statistically significant.
So please consider this my submission, together with my several paragraphs above.
Thank you.
I am again writing as a continuation of my earlier post. My original one was lost in cyberspace so I hope this one “takes.”
After carefully considering the wording of your challenge, I am afraid it is too vague for anyone to answer to your satisfaction as you have not provided clear definitions of “climate change” & “man made”. Therefore I believe most people have taken these terms to refer to global warming caused by effects of man made emissions over time. At least this is the understanding I am working under. Still, as I really could use the money and am interested in a good discussion of the topic, I continue with my response.
Employing the “scientific method” as much as possible, I am saying that climate change as such is not a (wholly) man made effect. By using the science of dendrochronology (the study of tree rings), with the understanding that trees provide varying beneficial effects for man & the earth. Trees provide shade, nutrition (for man, animal, insects, etc), protection against erosion, heat, severe rain, and other severe weather. Trees produce oxygen while metabolizing CO2. The wood they provide gives warmth through shelter and fire. They also provide information on growth & weather patterns via their rings. Rings tend to be thicker and further apart from others during “good” growth years, correlating with warm, moist weather. Thinner rings closer to each other reflect colder, drier weather.
As trees are found all over the planet, including those that grow surrounded by water, in Siberia, in the tropics, some living hundreds, even thousand of years, we have a good, reproducible record that is fairly easy to assess, record, and compare. This helps greatly as we can all agree natural weather patterns tend to be cyclic, and this helps to understand those cycles better to predict future ones.
(Continued below)
  1. Turning to weather reports – those have been recorded in a consistent way since about 1880. As this correlated with the Industrial Revolution occurring in many countries at this time, it is difficult to extrapolate detailed information prior to this due to lack of records. Though there are some time periods for which we know something about the weather, i.e. the Little Ice Age, it is often not enough to make definitive statements about that time period.
    Perhaps, the trends that are being discussed today are not being interpreted correctly. There appears to be a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but it is not a linear, or bell-shaped, nor any shape relationship.Still, there is a concern that the changes observed are strictly man made, due to “greenhouse emissions.” Though there many that believe there is a correlation between emissions and climate change, it is not an easy one to grasp or define.
    Maybe it’s the way people look at the various factors. For example, think about the following: You live next door to a small family – a lovely middle age couple with their young adult daughter. We know the dad’s height is 6 feet, mom’s height is 5’4″. What is the daughter’s height? Well, this is nearly impossible to answer. The law of averages would say she should be somewhere in between her parent’s height – so about 5’7″. However, we don’t know her true age (in order to suspect whether or not she is finished growing) or if she has any health problems that could affect her growth/height. Also, is everyone measured in their bare feet, or do the women have 4″ heels on? By the same token, we have some measurements dealing with the climate which seem to have a correlation, but comparisons show the relationships are not straightforward and it is extremely difficult to assess all potential contributing factors.
    It could be that at least some of what we are observing through these measurements are due to effects of which man is only partly to blame. Again, I will use trees as an example. Over the last 50 years or so, we have seen the detrimental effects man has experienced due to a significant reduction in the number of trees and forests. Keeping in mind all of the beneficial effects I listed above for trees (for which now I will just use the word “protection” to define), reducing their numbers would cause less protection from the elements, leading to even more detriment in a domino effect. Though many trees are removed by man, many are also destroyed in fires started by lightning, swept away by avalanches, ruined by disease, etc. Removal of 1 or 2 trees by whatever means would not be enough to effect a very noticeable change, removal of a critical number of them would allow for damage to viewed in a somewhat domino effect. Hurricanes often remind us of this. Damage is not only done by the winds, but by waterlogging, resulting in water damage with subsequent mold and mildew growth that can result in lots of clean up and restoration, possibly leading to illness due to stress, allergy, infection, etc.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Remembering that trees take in CO2, producing oxygen, perhaps the increased CO2/temperature effects are more from a reduction in tree population (planet wise) than from emissions. Just as the human body will show variations temperature, metabolics, respiration depending on stress, nutritional level, etc in an attempt to heal itself, the earth will show variations against time of whatever is being measured. As the atmosphere acts as a protective covering between the earth and space, it also acts as something of a sieve to minimize effects of those things that enter the atmosphere which could potentially be detrimental – i.e. it filters sunlight and burns up meteors and space debris. It would make sense that certain elements and gases that enter the atmosphere are also put through this sieve and the increased temperatures recorded could just be the earth’s attempt to rid itself of these elements/gases. This atmospheric “sieve” would be something like a secondary protection the earth itself has sensing that in the case of CO2 and trees, that once some certain amount of CO2 enters the atmosphere likely due to a reduction in trees for any reason, the excess CO2 will be burned up, allowing the earth to try to balance itself out.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Granted, my argument by virtue of what I propose would require testing I cannot do, I provide a logical argument for my position. It would help to have some clear definitions to this challenge as well. I notice that you do not use natural climate cycles as a valid argument, but I don’t understand why. By the same token, I don’t accept that these effects are fully man made as per my points above. I hope you will take all this into consideration for your challenge. I must say I agree with those who state the challenge needs to be better defined, with the help of an impartial 3rd party, especially as it involves a substantial reward. I am hopeful you will be fair in you judgement, as there was a similar challenge a few years back by “junkscience.com” albeit for a $500,000 US reward that was never awarded for a lack of a convincing argument for the 5 responses they said they received. I get that this is to help promote your new book, but please thoughtfully consider other points of view.Thank you.

    Response:

    To begin with, I’m not sure I see any argument that man made global warming is not real. You propose some kind of experiment and I don’t know what the relevance of the experiment is. What are you testing and how does it relate to the issue of man made global warming? Even if there was something to this experiment, you stated that you did not do it and you do not know what the results would be.

    The next thing I think you claim is that we don’t know where the CO2 is coming from . Yes, we do. Fossil fuel burning puts out CO2 with a different mix of isotopes than naturally occurring CO2. We can track those isotopes and are able to identify the extra CO2 in the atmosphere as coming from our fossil fuel burning.

    You stated you don’t understand why I don’t use natural cycles as a valid argument. In fact, I do allow natural cycles and cite them frequently. What I don’t allow is the false argument that the warm period we are observing today is just a natural cycle. The evidence shows that the natural cycle we are currently in is a cool cycle, not a warm one. So, natural cycles do not explain why we are experiencing a warming trend.

    I, again, deny any claim that the challenge is not well defined. It is very simple: You say you can prove man made global warming is not real and you can prove it. I am giving you a venue to do so. That is all there is to it. If you do not understand that claim then you either don’t make it, and this challenge is not for you, or you need to stop making the claim.

    You also state I am doing this to promote my book. Anyone that believes that doesn’t know anything about publishing books. 98% of all books written will sell fewer than 1000 copies. I don’t know what this figure is for science-oriented books, but I am sure it is significantly less. You write books because you want to, not because you think you’ll make money.

    You also compared my challenge to the JunkScience challenge. This challenge is actually in response to the JunkScience (what an appropriate name) challenge and precedes my book by several years. In fact, I was one of those five people that submitted to the JunkScience challenge and I started my challenge shortly after in response. I made my submission because I didn’t want him to be able to say no one could do it.

    Since you mention that challenge and criticized me about the judging, I want to point out that the JunkScience challenge also had the challenger as the sole judge. One big difference was that I have posted my responses to all challenges. JunkScience did not post any response other than to say no one won the challenge. Why not? What was he afraid of? Another big difference is that he charged a $15 submission fee, while I charge nothing.

    Now, tell me who is more credible?

    You did not prove man made global warming is not real.