This is written by climate change debate researcher John Rofe. Those who don’t like its bias can also read the Wikipedia webpage, which is inclined the other way, however, that also acknowledges that the present amount of carbon dioxide currently only constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, and that is still way below the 0.2% at which air quality will suffer.
Obviously, air pollution as such is not a good thing and the less there is of it the better, but this is to do with the specific arguments about C02 and misinformation by the global warming theorists.
_______________________________________________________________
“I suppose pictures of polar bears on small pieces of pack ice are just part of the IPCC’s and your disinformation programme. The same disinformation shows factory chimneys with water vapour billowing out which is represented as being CO2, whilst the content of the emissions, whether clean or polluted, remains unknown. This is a level of deceit your government should be railing against and not condoning or promoting. The cherry-picking of data for inclusion in graphs must surely be a source of deceit of which you are already aware? Your ministry’s advisers contribute to it, don’t they?
“Coral reefs in the warmer Papua New Guinea waters are thriving despite allegations that the warming waters of the cooler Great Barrier Reef are killing the same species of corals off. In fact, the death and rejuvenation of Great Barrier Reef corals have always been part of the natural cycle.[…]
“We are all carbon-based life forms. We humans breathe in air (we are told) with 410 ppm of CO2 and we use much of the oxygen that we inhale for our cardiovascular systems, eventually breathing out ‘stale air’ (due to 20% of the inhaled oxygen component having been carbonated) that contains only about 16% oxygen but about 41,000 ppm of CO2.
To: John Rofe
4/4/19
Hi John,
You wrote an interesting article that was reproduced nearly a year ago in NZ Climate Science. However I could not find any address to communicate to you that it was a thoroughly sensible and comprehensive article.
Now I see you have written a somewhat longer and more detailed article that is full of good straightforward sense
My congratulations and thanks to you.
I am a physicist and well aware of the astonishing nonsense promulgated about climate (not to mention many other things) by people who think they are clever such as far too many journalists, politicians, celebrities and academics.
In fact I have been intrigued at how stable our climate is, notwithstanding the Milankovitch cycles which inexorably steer it over a temperature range of around 15C over the 40,000 – 120,000 year cycles. A while ago Vincent Gray published a paper covering about 6 town sites in NZ and compared 25 year temperature averages made around 1880 with similar averages made around 2000. There really were negligible temperature differences, well within the expected statistical error, 120 years apart.
Elsewhere I read a paper relating how the solar energy output had been well monitored from around 1950. It appears that not insignificant changes in the sun’s output were observed over the next 50 or so years, typically varying on a 10 year time scale. But these energy variations were not reflected in earth’s temperature records.
I speculate that there is a feedback system from clouds and water vapor that smooths out the sun’s variability over decades or more. Of course it can’t do much about the equivalent effect of the Milankovitch cycles operating over periods of many thousands of years.
In my view there is room for genuine and proper studies of these and similar effects, but not the nonsense we get thrust down our throats by the current lot of climate pseudoscientists.
I have also read that about the beginning of the 20th century studies simulating the effect of varying the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere were carried out, with the expected result that wide CO2 variations caused negligible temperature changes.
From a physicist’s point of view, CO2 has a resonant absorption band for photons in the 15 micrometer spectral region (corresponding to the broadband far infrared radiation emitted the by the earth as a pseudo black body) with a molecular photon absorption cross section of about 10^-22 m2. In earth’s atmosphere the CO2 level of 400 ppm corresponds to about 10^22 molecules per cubic meter. Consequently the mean free path of these photons is about 1 meter. By 7 meters from the earth’s surface, 99% of the photons in this band have been absorbed, heating the atmosphere slightly by collisions. The result is that CO2 does produce a significant greenhouse effect which lifts the earth’s mean temperature by about 2C. The important issue is that this effect is so totally saturated that even if the CO2 level was to drop by a factor of nearly 10,000 or increase by any plausible or implausible amount, there would be negligible change in the earth’s 2C temperature lift from the CO2 greenhouse effect.
It is so obvious in physics that any absorption phenomena like this operates exponentially (i.e. multiplying the radiation intensity by ½ for each successive mean free path) that one has to be incredibly stupid or devious to pretend it is a linear effect.
It is a pity few can neither see the obvious about the CO2 greenhouse effect, nor go down to the sea regularly to look at the sea level. I grew up in Golden Bay and occasionally re-visit it. When I was young I wondered why people built their batches 1 meter about high tide level. I still wonder why! But in more than 70 years, the high tide level has not changed. So why are we supposed to believe that in the next few decades sea levels will rise and (to quote the NZ Herald) displace 43,000 people in Auckland alone as well as causing global mayhem?
In finishing, there is a famous philosophical principal called Occam’s razer which basically says that simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one. Here the simplest hypothesis is that as the past climate has not changed in a lifetime, we can expect it to change negligibly in another lifetime (notwithstanding the vast faking of data to make is seems that the climate has been changing when it has obviously not been changing).
I simply expect that most of us old enough to have life experience will have observed that climate has changed very little, that Venice is still no more under water than it ever was, and that just as some areas of the earth are experiencing sea levels rises, others are having sea level falls. (Well, it did take about 75 years for “scientists” to stop calling Wegener a dunce for his hypothesis of continental drift). Thus in the west of the UK sea levels have fallen and in the east they have risen. Instead of working out the obvious reason, climate pseudoscientists conveniently fail to ever mention sea level falls, only rises! Why is it that the self-styled climate experts cannot see nature as it is?
Congratulations and best wishes,
Evan Bydder