Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

 CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C

 To Global Temps Since 1850

---

A Swiss scientist known to have published hundreds of scientific papers in physics journals has authored a new paper that casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas influencing Earth’s temperatures.

This paper has been added to a growing volume of peer-reviewed scientific papers that seriously question estimates of a high climate sensitivity to significant increases in CO2 concentrations.

60 Scientific Papers With Low (<1°C) CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates

The link above contains a compilation of over 60 scientific papers with “extremely low” (numerically ranging from 0.02°C to <1°C) estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to a 100% increase in CO2 concentrations (i.e., an increase from 285 ppm to 570 ppm).

Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  

A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius.  Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C.

---

Reinhart, 2017

Abstract

Over 200,000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T [temperature increase of] < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K.

CO2 ‘Very Weak’, IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’

Based on all these facts, we conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.

[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. The main problem is probably caused by the lack of considering the occupation probabilities of the energy levels.

Temperature Changes In Response To Large CO2 Concentrations (800 ppm – 4,000 ppm)

We have calculated ∆Fmax and ∆Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.

A doubling [to 800 ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400 ppm] results in ∆T [temperature change] < 0.24 K.

The tenfold value of [the present CO2 concentration, or 4,000 ppm] yields ∆T [temperature change] < 0.80 K.

At pre-industrial times, we had cco2 = 285 ppm. The resulting temperature increase [since pre-industrial] according to Eq. (11) only amounts to ∆T < 0.12 K.

Solar Activity Correlates With Temperature, Non-Positive Feedbacks

Lu [and co-authors, 2013] establishes a correlation of ∆T with solar activity, cosmic rays and ozone reactions with fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. According to his result, CO2 only plays a minor role in the temperature evolution since pre-industrial times. Our calculation is compatible with his finding.

There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.

Conclusion

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2. We find that the increase of CO2 only might become dangerous, if the concentrations are considerably greater than 4000 ppm. At present rates of increase this would take more than 200 years. Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity. The climate change must have a very different origin and the scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry.

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

July 17, 2017 at 05:20AM

Green Dreams: No Kids, No Cars, No Meat, No Flying!

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

No kids, no cars, no meat, no flying! And even that won’t save you from man-made climate change

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau really wants to save the planet from man-made global warming, he should tell Canadians to stop having kids, don’t drive, don’t fly and don’t eat meat.

Those are the four most efficient ways of reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change in the developed world.

By contrast, the “solutions” pushed by Canadian governments and educators, such as recycling and switching to energy efficient lightbulbs, while they may be “feel good” exercises, are insignificant.

This as reported by University of British Columbia PhD student Seth Wynes and Prof. Kimberly Nicholas of Sweden’s Lund University, in their paper, “The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions” published last week in the journal, Environmental Research Letters.

The biggest saving by far comes from having no children, or fewer of them.

Every unborn child would save the average Canadian family 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, compared to 0.213 tonnes by recycling.

Going carless saves 2.4 tonnes, compared to 0.1 tonnes by replacing incandescent lightbulbs with energy efficient ones.

Avoiding one transatlantic flight per year saves 1.6 tonnes of emissions, compared to 0.247 tonnes by washing clothes in cold water.

And switching to a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of emissions, compared to 0.21 tonnes by hanging your clothes out to dry instead of using a dryer.

Despite this, Wynes and Nicholas report, “we find that 10 high school science textbooks from Canada (covering seven provinces, with 80% of the population) largely fail to mention these actions — they account for 4% of their recommended actions — instead focusing on incremental changes with much smaller potential emissions reductions.”

Further, “government resources on climate change from the EU, USA, Canada, and Australia also focus recommendations on lower-impact actions.”

Thankfully, the researchers don’t recommend our governments force Canadians to have smaller families, although this is a common refrain among radical environmentalists, whose love for humanity is surpassed only by their hatred of people, save for themselves of course.

In that context, consider China’s “basic dictatorship” (which Trudeau says he admires), which only abandoned in 2015 the infamous “one-child policy” it imposed in 1979.

But that didn’t stop China from taking credit at international meetings on climate change for decades, arguing its one-child policy had prevented 300 million births, the equivalent of the U.S. population, and saved 1.3 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, based on global average per capita emissions of 4.2 tonnes.

The Wynes, Nicholas study is useful because it spells out the fundamental lifestyle and societal changes we would have to make, just to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets Trudeau has committed us to under the Paris climate agreement.

Ironically, even if we achieved our targets, and every other nation on Earth did the same, all it would do is doom the world to catastrophic global warming by the end of this century, according to the climate science.

But this is the fantasy world we live in when it comes to “fighting” climate change.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 17, 2017 at 05:02AM

Trump To Steer UN Global Warming Funds To Coal, Gas Projects

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

The Trump administration will use its position as a donor to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to steer money towards coal-fired power plants and natural gas infrastructure, according to an unnamed White House official.

President Donald Trump will do his best to use the Obama administration’s $1 billion donation to the GCF to “advance American-energy interests globally,” the official told Bloomberg.

Trump will build on his G20 pledge to “work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently,” and has already begun rolling back Obama-era restrictions on international financing of coal plants.

Trump pledged to eliminate funding for UN global warming programs, but his administration still has a seat at the negotiating table, thanks to the $1 billion the Obama administration handed the GCF before leaving office.

The GCF was set up in 2010 for rich countries to deposit money that would be used to fund green energy and global warming mitigation projects in poor countries. President Barack Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund, but only gave $1 billion.

The GCF became a major focus in the negotiations of the Paris climate accord, and would play a role in the $100 billion per year pledge for climate funding rich countries made to poor ones.

Trump announced that he would withdraw from the Paris accord in early June, but his administration will work to make sure that taxpayer dollars already handed over to the UN help advance U.S. interests.

Environmentalists were outraged at the news, and the Sierra Club’s John Coequyt said that Trump’s plan is like “taking the fire department’s budget and using it to pour gasoline on the blaze.”

Trump’s energy policy centers around U.S. “energy dominance,” rather than fighting global warming. The president called the Paris accord a plan to redistribute wealth from the U.S. to economic competitors, like China, who would not be bound to reduce emissions and could get money from the UN.

“This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,” Trump said in early June when announcing his intention to withdraw from the agreement.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 17, 2017 at 05:02AM

Fear Is The Business Model That Has Made Al Gore Rich

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

“I feel so scared” he wails, before vision of solicitous uncle Al patting his hand in an attempt to soothe away his fears of the apocalypse.

Scaremongering is what Gore does best, and fear is the business model that has made him rich, though his every apocalyptic scenario has failed to materialise.

In Australia last week to spruik his upcoming movie An Inconvenient Sequel, the former US vice president tried it on again, claiming Mother Nature was “screaming” and the world would ­descend into “political disruption and chaos and diseases, stronger storms and more ­destructive floods” unless we buy his snake oil.

Silly Labor premiers bought that snake oil last week, pledging alongside the grinning Gore that Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and South Australia would embrace renewables to produce zero net emissions by 2050.

They haven’t learned the lesson from SA’s extreme green experiment with renewable energy that has produced nothing but crippling blackouts and the highest electricity prices in the world.

Any normal person with such a woeful record of accuracy as Gore would be ashamed to show his face. Eleven years after his Inconvenient Truth movie scared little kids witless, his warnings of climate armageddon have come to nothing.

“Unless we take drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years,” he told us then. Wrong. In fact the world has just been through almost 20 years in which there has been a hiatus in global warming, even as carbon dioxide has increased: an “inconvenient pause” as some wags put it.

Around the world people are waking up to the fact that their leaders have been crying wolf, while their electricity bills go through the roof.

Australia’s prosperity is built on the reams of cheap, abundant fossil fuel under our feet, and yet green zealots have forced us into an energy crisis.

But when Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly last week pointed out the logical fact that Australians will die because of high power bills, he was slammed as a “scaremonger” by the very people who worship at Al Gore’s feet.

Yes, cold kills, and electricity prices have doubled in the past decade, as uncertainty plagues the energy sector, and cheap coal-fired power is priced out of the market by government subsidies for unreliable renewable energy production.

The states, which bear much of the blame, continue with the fantasy that you can replace coal with wind and solar while simultaneously banning the development of onshore gas fields.

The iron-clad law of ­energy supply is that more ­renewables force out baseload power, which you need when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

Yet SA is pretending that the world’s biggest battery built at huge taxpayer expense by another global green huckster, Elon Musk, is going to save the day.

The diabolic task facing federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is to wrangle agreement on something approaching a rational energy policy out of the recently ­released Finkel Review.

Unlike Donald Trump, this government doesn’t have an electoral mandate for pulling out of the Paris treaty.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 17, 2017 at 04:02AM