Did you ever wonder where those clockwork CO2 spikes come from? After all, they accompany every interglacial.
See: Physorg.com -Even soil feels the heat: Soils release more carbon dioxide as globe warms
for a helpful hint - 99.5% comes from natural sources.
In the above referenced web-article, these scientists have bumped their estimated current microbial contribution to atmospheric CO2 from 85 to 98 petagrams. Our anthropogenic contribution is less than a tenth of that at ~6-7 petagrams. The total of all natural emissions is estimated at some 2,000 - 2,200 petagrams. Now in this article they seem to suggest that our 6-7 petagram (sub 0.5%) contribution has unfortunately and deleteriously triggered this microbial increase of 13 petagrams (from 85 to 98). In fact, most all studies regarding Soil Respiration engage the very same broken blame-game.
However, if we humans were never here at all, the consequently expanded microbial contribution can be roughly estimated to become 127 petagrams. Microbes would have geometrically filled our void for an increase of ~42 petagrams. And expanded proliferations of insects and mammalia would have contributed to a yet much larger delta. So what would these Theologians suggest this far greater contribution would have “unfortunately and deleteriously triggered?”
Well, regarding any prior interglacial, they would have to say this greater level would have triggered yet more proliferation of life. What an irony it is that our under-contribution of Vitamin C(O2) to this interglacial is what has negatively impacted the current levels of bio-diversity. However, for this interglacial, their theological position is that we sinners are here, and even though our presence has likely lowered the total level of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2), the Earth-Carbon-Cycle now contains a poisonous 0.5% contribution from us that must be stopped!
So which is it? We humans are emitting too much Vitamin C(O2) so as to poison the Earth, or not enough Vitamin C(O2) to fully support the proliferation potential of all other forms of life. The theologians can argue that both are true – at the same time! Apparently to them anthropogenic Vitamin C(O2) is poisonous while natural Vitamin C(O2), inhibited by humans, is also damaging the environment. “Mother Nature will know her own carbon” must be their thinking. We are truly sinners!
AGW Theology is full of such absurdly circular arguments. And cause is often confused with, or even made to follow, effect. The AGW Theory, if I can be so kind as to call it a continuing theory has never yet prevailed with a single testable prediction. But amazingly, it has not suffered discernible setback from at least five major embarrassing predictive failures. The most recent failure is the global temperature prediction since 1998.
AGW Theory firmly predicts that global temperature must rise in response to the continued (naturally and steeply) growing atmospheric CO2 concentration. But since 1998 global temperatures are flat to down. So the Theory is wrong. How many more failures will they get a “pass” on? How long will we wait for them to get one right; which they most likely never will unless by accident?
There has never been a scientific theory so replete with failure that wasn’t summarily thrown out as rubbish. AGW Theology is completely wrong at its foundation and builds to absurdity from there. Our anthropogenic Vitamin C(O2) emission has no negative impact on climate or anything else. But it greatly benefits life’s proliferations.
And if any evidence actually showed a legitimate problem with elevated atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) (for which there is no evidence), then why wouldn’t we look to address some portion of the 99.5% that is being spewed by Mother Nature. Is it really so that we have just the right size, but massively growing, Earthly populations of microbes and insects? A 5% hit to them would be…well…a 5% hit. A comparable CO2 reduction produced by humans would have us all living in caves. And in neither case would anything constructive be produced.
If you ask the AGW Theologians how it could be that global temperature is flat to down over the last 12 years while anthropogenic emission is sharply up during the same period, they shrug it off as “natural variability that has overtaken our CO2”. And go on to say “but be assured, our CO2 emission is dangerous and has to be reduced at any cost”.
Really...well just what are these “natural variables” that have overwritten the pivotal role of CO2? CO2 isn’t so pivotal. You just said so. Other unknown variables are more important. You just said so. And “at any cost” you say? How can one continue to defend a CO2 reduction imperative based on such conflicting and hyperbolic statements?
Every day new information and understanding accumulates regarding climate change. And all the mounting evidence continues to point away from CO2 having any role to play in modifying the climate of the Earth. We simply don’t yet know what the fundamental causes of climate change are. But we do know that rising temperature is what drives atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) upward. And we do know that Vitamin C(O2) stimulates all forms of life.
So that leaves us with the strongest position that exists in support of AGW Theology: “How else do you explain it?” But this has become one of only two remaining supporting positions. And it is not, of course, any evidence at all. We just don’t know what the causes are. However, theologians have often invoked this expression for centuries.
The only other remaining supporting position is the result that stems from their General Circulation Models of the climate (GCMs, also known as Global Climate Models). However, the Earth’s climate is properly described in scientific terms as a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system”. This is essentially techno-speak for “utterly impossible to model”. And that is true. It is impossible to model. So when your enormously expensive, but utterly feeble, model disagrees with observational fact, what do you do? Vigorously defend the model, as that is your future career and where all the money is available to reap.
And it gets worse. It is widely known and accepted that water vapor is a vastly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And it is also widely known and accepted that water vapor in the atmosphere exists in vastly greater quantity than CO2. So water vapor is clearly a real, real important issue to any GCM that will become useful in its predictive performance. However, the Modelers are forced to admit that they have no capacity to model water vapor or cloud formation or cloud dissipation, as these issues are far beyond their capability. They don’t know if more CO2 leads to more water vapor or less. They don’t know if more CO2 leads to more clouds or less. And they don’t know if more clouds lead to higher temperatures or lower.
Nonetheless, every GCM makes the simplistic and observationally erroneous assumption that a little increase in CO2 will trigger a large increase in water vapor and that this will lead to appreciable warming. Well, why would you make that assumption? How can you stick by it when 12 years of steep CO2 increases has lead to flat-to-down temperature since 1998?
And when you recognize that 99.5% of the increase is natural, and the increase is benefiting all forms of life, why would you target the sub-0.5% that is anthropogenic? Well, as stated above, follow the money.
You might think that such nonsense cannot be, but it is. Here is another climate modeling dichotomy. We are inundated with media driven concern over the catastrophic climatic events that AGW will bring on to us – floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and all manner of extra violent storms. There is no observational evidence for support of any of this, but let’s set that “reality” aside.
Meteorologically we know that the vigor of all storms is largely driven by the size of the temperature gradient. When a cold pressure front slams into a hot one, storms develop and their vigor is a strong function of the temperature difference between the two fronts. We see this happen on a daily basis.
But the GCMs all predict that the temperature differences will be smaller under the AGW Theology. The greenhouse heating effect (according to the GCMs) is stronger at polar regions than equatorial ones such that the global difference should be diminished. And the greenhouse heating effect (according to the GCMs) is stronger at night than during the day such that this temperature difference should also be diminished. There is no observational evidence for support of these diminished-gradient predictions, but let’s set that additional “reality” aside (so much for the predictive value of the GCMs).
So why don’t the Modelers step in and say, hold on here, storms won’t get worse, they’ll get better. Well, the Modelers simply have no idea whatsoever if storms will get better or worse or stay the same, because their models are not even close to being capable of modeling what is impossible to model. Nonetheless it is so that their feeble models do predict that the vigor will go down. If they admit that their models predict storms will be fewer and less vigorous, the hysteria is diminished and so will their funding. And they know that they really don’t have a clue as to what might be so. They could admit they don’t know at all. But that won’t inspire more funding. So the Modelers choose to ignore the discrepancy altogether and let the hysteria continue, as that is in their continued funding interest.
They simply have no idea because it is not possible to model a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system. However, in spite of the impossibility of it, we have spent $Billions on many, many GCM attempts. But make no mistake, the General Circulation Models all predict that storms will be fewer and less violent while hysteria of cataclysmic and more violent storms continues. Now that is a dichotomy that should clearly indicate to all the incompetence of GCMs and the conflict-of-interest that surrounds the current modeling effort.
So there you have it. The current support for AGW Theology rests on two dubious pillars of profound strength: 1) the theological conundrum “how else do you explain it”. And 2) incomplete, broken and impossible models that attempt to model something which cannot be modeled.
It’s not going to be easy to change direction. The effort on GCMs goes way back – to the days when we thought we could model what we cannot. There are literally thousands of scientists whose careers are tied to the effort’s continuation. In fact there are many hundreds of scientists who have never known another career at all outside of climate modeling. Should the effort continue? I think it’s become too big to stop so I doubt it can be. However, we have to at least recognize that it’s going to take a lot more time and money before the effort has anything predictive to contribute, if ever. And GCMs certainly provide no evidence today of what may be so in the future.
So as we unfortunately continue to allow AGW Theology to force the contemplation of massively consequential actions to address climate change, shouldn’t we require that at least some of the new observational (non-modeling) information and understanding support the AGW Theory. None of it does. And by none, I mean categorically not any of it.
These circular arguments and cause/effect confusion all arise from forcing a bankrupt AGW Theology into an entirely implausible explanation. This confusion needs to stop at our earliest awakening – if not sooner. OK…we had an idea. In retrospect it was childishly over-simplistic and just plain wrong. To prove the felonious idea we attempted to model the impossible and have found that it is not possible. So let’s stop, take a deep breath, and figure out where to go next; preferably before we throw ourselves on to our own sword as the AGW Theologians insist.
Many AGW arguments stem from the Eco-Theology belief that we humans are sinners who must punish ourselves. I cannot help but disagree. Many of the rest of the arguments largely surround money and political power. I have to strongly disagree with these motivations too. The remaining AGW arguments are just innocently misguided. The whole of the AGW Eco-Theology is a ridiculously upside-down charade that is broken at its very foundation.
Ronald D. Voisin