Frozen in Time
Aug 11, 2017
Peter’s Corner Cable TV Series “Winds of Change - Examining CAGW”

Peter’s Corner presents “Winds of Change” Examining Claims about Global Warming /Climate Change

Hudson Cable TV

(Note: Parts are in reverse order; Part VII appearing first; and Part II is preceded by Part I)

Part I: Host Peter Lanzillo and Joe D’Aleo in ”CO2 the ‘Demon Gas’” showed how the demonized CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of our atmosphere. We showed evidence how it has little effect on temperatures but instead is a highly beneficial gas. It is a plant fertilizer that has greatly greened the planet and increase crop yields 3 to 5 fold. CO2 combines with water, nutrients and sunlight to grow plants through photosynthesis. We pump CO2 into greenhouses. As for it being a harmful pollutant, every breath you take emits 100 times more CO2 than the air you took in.

Part II: Host Peter Lanzillo and Joe D’Aleo in ”Taking the Earth’s Temperatures” showed the many issues in attempting to assess what is happening globally. 75% of the global stations were dropped after 1990, up to 90% of the remaining stations have missing months each year, a large percentage of the stations are now not properly sited. Oceans cover 71% of the globe and full accurate global coverage was not achieved until 2004. Dodgy models are used to adjust temperatures. Yet we claim we can assess global temperatures to hundredths of degrees.

Part III: Host Peter Lanzillo, Joe D’Aleo and Michael Sununu in ”Weather Extremes - the Real Story”, we showed though after Hurricane Katrina in 2004, scientists (and Al Gore) predicted devastating storms would be the ‘new normal. Yet since 2005, we have this week surpassed 4300 days without a major hurricane making landfall in the U.S. (more than double the 19th century record). The annual number of strong tornadoes are decreasing. There is no change in flood or drought frequency. Sea level rise globally has slowed to a 4 inch/century rate while models and the movie suggested changes in meters. Polar ice is just going through normal cyclical changes.

Part IV: Host Peter Lanzillo and Joe D’Aleo In the ”Real Natural and Man-made Causes of Climate Change”, we show how El Nino and La Nina cause warming and cooling and how decadal ocean basin cycles lead to a tendency for one or the other to dominate and lead to decadal temperature trends. We looked at the sun, which the climate models ignore, and show how solar cycles and the different solar outputs affect the climate and likely drive land and ocean temperature cycles. Volcanoes have a very strong affect but it tends to be shorter term. Man’s primary influence is through land use changes most specifically urbanization.

Part V: Host Peter Lanzillo, Joe D’Aleo and Michael Sununu looked at the ”Energy at Risk‘ story. We showed how we here in New Hampshire andthe northeast pay, along with California, the highest electricity prices in the nation because of bad policies and how the Paris Accord - by driving the costs of energy to high levels - would devastate our nation’s economy and hurt the poor and middle class and those on fixed incomes the most. We looked at current plans with special focus on Wind Energy.

Part VI: Host Peter Lanzillo, Joe D’Aleo were joined by NASA sea level expert Tom Wysmuller and Professor Larry Gould. In ”Isn’t the Sea Level Rise a Sea Level Ruse?”, Tom Wysmuller confirmed the linear-unchanging and no-sign-of-acceleration of sea level rise globally - in contrast to all models and claims - and addressed the beneficial nature of CO2.

Part VII: Host Peter Lanzillo was joined by Joe D’Aleo, Tom Wysmuller and a college professor, Dr. Laurence I ("Larry") Gould.  In ”Critical Thinking about Dangerous Anthropogenic ‘Climate Change/Global Warming‘“, Larry talked about how - by committing errors in elementary logic as well as by appealing to “authority”, “consensus”, and “code words” - schools, government, and the media have been indoctrinating our young people and the public to support harmful and unnecessary policies.

11 August 2017

Aug 09, 2017
Seriously flawed Obama imbed government report gets leaked to New York Times

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

The New York Times published an unreleased draft of the report Monday. The 543-page report was written by scientists from 13 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It concludes that temperatures in the U.S. have risen sharply, by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 150 years and that it is “extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate.”

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” the report states. “Thousands of studies conducted by tens of thousands of scientists around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; disappearing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea level; and an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate changes.”

---------

This politically and ideologically driven report is nothing but a rush job rehash of the former government junk science reports by scientists trying to save their funding, their positions and undeserved reputations and try and put the train back on the track to take us to their path of globalization and control over over every aspect of our lives.

This report like all recent government assessment reports fails in its attribution. The models have predicted up to 3 time the observed warming.  The only model among the 100 plus models used that comes close is the one that minimizes the greenhouse effect and improves ocean interaction.

image
Enlarged

Now some of the findings in the report are correct about extreme weather trends. There is no trend in drought or flood. We are at a record lull in landfalls of major hurricanes in the US (4300+ days), strong tornado trends have been down since the 1970s even with better detection, sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century worldwide on average according to our best sea level experts using tide gauges in areas where the land is not rising or sinking. Snowfall is increasing not decreasing in autumn and winter for the Northern Hemisphere with records for amounts in major cities of the east where records go back in places 150 years. Arctic ice has gone through cycles before with even less ice in the 1920s to 1950. 

Katharine Hayhoe, a report author from Texas Tech University, noted that the report found no alternative explanations for why climate change is happening other than human influence.

All changes to temperatures and extremes are cyclical and explainable by cycles in the oceans and on the sun and volcanism (as shown in this research report which unlike the government report strictly followed the scientific method w/r to attribution).  These natural cycles explain all the changes in the period back to 1950. We proved what I had found here and here.The Assessment says they can rule out natural factors in causing temperature changes and extremes and that their analyses proves thus that greenhouse gases are to blame.

Most all the changes in temperatures layered on top of the natural cycles are in the land use and urbanization factors and in adjustments - continuous changes to the data to better fit the models and minimize the cyclical nature of the data (shown in this peer reviewed research report) and even then no rise is seen globally in nearly 20 years.

In the model-biased government report, the threat of model based future heat issues is greatly exaggerated. We live in the atmosphere not in a model world. The trend towards heat in the real world is clearly DOWN not up. The number of state all time record highs peaked in the 1930s (23 states), 38 occurred before 1960. The number of days exceeding 100, 95 and 90 degrees in 1200 US stations have declined since the 1930s.

image
Enlarged

The biggest warming is found in cities and due to the urbanization, which Tom Karl (with Gavin and Kukla) in 1986 noted “The average difference between trends (urban siting vs. rural) amounts to an annual warming rate of 0.34C/decade.” Karl used this finding to include a UHI adjustment in the first USHCN data set in 1990. When it was seen this adjustment had the US temperatures not showing the warming in the cruder global data sets, it was removed in version 2.

One of the authors of this new government report, David Easterling, while Chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAA in one of the NASA FOIA emails noted: “One other fly in the ointment, we have a new adjustment scheme for USHCNV2 that appears to adjust out some, if not most, of the ‘local’ trend that includes land-use change and urban warming.”

I and many of the climatologists who have worked with data for may decades believe virtually all the warming is urban warming, with most all stations now at urban or airport locations. This is supported by the fact all the warming is at night, which is consistent with UHI and with the lack of increasing daytime heat. See all the reasons why we can’t use the GAST as analyzed to detect small changes over time here.

A long list of authors, multiple agency involvement (after the agencies have been purged of any doubters) and scary, hugely exaggerated and some patently false headlines does not make this a work of science that will stand the test of time, just like prior recent government assessments. The UN proved that 5 times.

The great scientists I have been privileged to know over my long career including Namias, Willett, Landsberg and Gray and the great men who championed the scientific method like Feynman, Popper and Einstein would be appalled by this report and the overall decline in the sciences and the alarming peer review failures that allows bad and dangerous science like we find in this report to propagate and be used to support harmful policies. I believe that the only part of the government climate work in recent years and the conclusions made in this work that is ‘extreme likely’ is that future scientists and historians will look on it as a low point in the history of climate science.

---------

While the late night comedy talk show hosts (dark and not funny anymore) lose their mind over Trump, the late great comedian Groucho Marx got it right about establishment progressive politics.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

image

----------

Politico in a very flawed and inaccurate summary gave its take. Former NASA scientist and well know sea level expert Tom Wysmuller summarizes some of the biggest nonsense points.

Folks, thought that you would like to see how well the Administration is controlling the climate facts going to the public, It’s sickening!

NOAA’s report, released Aug. 10, is the most comprehensive look at climate impacts released thus far by the Trump administration. [I’m not sure it should be characterized this way.  Perhaps released “during the Trump administration” is closer to the truth, as I suspect that Obama holdovers are largely responsible for generating this.

Politico summarizes some of the key findings in the NOAA report:

Greenhouse gas concentrations are higher than ever recorded. From 2015 to 2016, carbon dioxide concentrations saw their biggest annual increase in the 58 years on record, reaching peaks not seen in ice-core measurements representing the past 800,000 years.  [I personally believe that this is a huge plus - good for the world and abetting our ability to feed a hungry planet]

Global surface temperatures are the highest on record. [Only after violent adjustments were made to past records, erasing the 1930s warm(est) period].  Check out what was done to the Reykjavik record:  The first is the new version, the second is the historical version.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Sea levels are the highest they’ve ever been since record keeping began. Global seas are about 3.25 inches higher than the 1993 average when satellite recording began. 2016 marks the sixth year sea levels have risen. [Of course, they are using “adjusted” (some say “fabricated") satellite data, but here is a look at the past 7 years of Portland, Maine’s tide gauge:

image
Enlarged

Only in Never-Never Land can one find that “...2016 marks the sixth year sea levels have risen.” - the numbers on the right scale are CO2 levels measuring the green line at the top of this excerpted graphic.  See my two “over the top” posters attached - one for the NYC region and one for the Gulf of Maine. Check the last 6 years in each!

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Precipitation cycles are becoming more extreme.  [ Wow!  Has this been pulled out of thin air (I can think of other places too).  How do they measure “Precipitation cycles” - a new meteorological term?  Or define “extreme” for them.  World Precipitation has been flat for over 100 years, mainly due to atmospheric moisture carrying capacity.

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world. No surprise here, when HadCRUT4 adds about 400 stations to the record, most of which are in northern urban heat islets, and connects them over vast unpopulated stretches of the Arctic region.  Of course there’s much more, but it is well known that far less heat input is needed to warm an area one degree at 30 below, than one degree at 30 above.

Antarctic sea ice levels are lower than ever recorded.  [& recently were the highest ever recorded!]

Alpine glaciers have declined for 37 consecutive years. Glaciers shrunk an average of 2.8 feet. [Their percentage of total world ice is so minuscule that it borders on being unmeasurable]

There were more tropical cyclones, with 93 storms in 2016, compared with an average of 82 between 1981 and 2010. [But look at the ACE numbers (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy).  There’s a 15 year downturn approaching the lowest ever recorded]!  There may be more cyclones, but they are decidedly weaker!!!

And landfalling major hurricanes have not made landfall in the United States now in over 4310 days - more than double the prior record.

image
Enlarged

Aug 04, 2017
Cable Series (7 shows to date) and Research Reports Challenge ‘Consensus Science’

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

Update: Fake News NYT has a story here on a junk science interagency report. Tony Heller shows this is a fraud.

-------------

Peter Lanzillo, host of Pete’s Corner on Hudson NH cable offered me and a team of scientists an opportunity to present an alternative view on the so called ‘consensus science’ that has driven policies that have devastated Europe’s economies and started our region and country on the same path.

image
Michael Crichton (pictured), Biology degree then MD from Harvard, taught at MIT, Cambridge (UK), did research at the Salk Institute before becoming a writer, playwright, lecturer wrote about consensus:

“Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled.”

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc)”

Science has been politicized. The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The global warming hoax may be the biggest example of the politicization of science in the history of man. It continues in the universities, the media and the next few weeks unfortunately in the theatres.

The UK courts required all UK schools that showed the first Al Gore movie, had to distribute a list of the 9 most major egregious errors. A judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change. It is, he ruled, a “political film”. In the next story and cable show we will outline all the exaggerations and falsehoods in the sequel. Gore predicted in the 2007 movie, that we had 10 years to save the planet, that sea levels would rise and flood places like New York City. Sea levels have risen less than 1 inch at the Battery since 2007.

image
Enlarged

But Al uses Sandy’s storm surge in the sequel to say he was right. Much stronger hurricanes in the past have come ashore in NYC - like the category 3 storm in 1821 with similar storm surges, but back then there were no subways or tunnels to flood and the city had a population of just 155,000 compared to over 8.2 million today.

Also, the number of polar bears, a movie icon, have increased to record highest population levels.

THE WINDS OF CHANGE

Peter, I and the very capable production team at Hudson Cable have produced so far 7 shows. They can be viewed here .

Part 1: CO2 the ‘Demon Gas’ showed how the demonized CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of our atmosphere. We showed evidence how it has little effect on temperatures but instead is a highly beneficial gas. It is a plant fertilizer that has greatly greened the planet and increase crop yields 3 to 5 fold. CO2 combines with water, nutrients and sunlight to grow plants through photosynthesis. We pump CO2 into greenhouses. As for it being a harmful pollutant, every breath you take emits 100 times more CO2 than the air you took in.

Part II: Taking the Earth’s Temperatures showed the many issues in attempting to assess what is happening globally. 75% of the global stations were dropped after 1990, up to 90% of the remaining stations have missing months each year, a large percentage of the stations are now not properly sited. Oceans cover 71% of the globe and full accurate global coverage was not achieved until 2004. Dodgy models are used to adjust temperatures. Yet we claim we can assess global temperatures to hundredths of degrees.

Part III: In Weather Extremes, we (guest Michael Sununu and I) showed though after Hurricane Katrina in 2004, scientists (and Al Gore) predicted devastating storms would be the ‘new normal’. Yet since 2005, we have this week surpassed 4300 days without a major hurricane making landfall in the U.S. (more than double the 19th century record).

image
Enlarged

The annual number of strong tornadoes are decreasing. There is no change in flood or drought frequency. Sea level rise globally has slowed to a 4 inch/century rate while models and the movie suggested changes in meters. Polar ice is just going through normal cyclical changes.

Part IV: In the Natural and Man-made Causes of Climate Change, we show how El Nino and La Nina cause warming and cooling and how decadal ocean basin cycles lead to a tendency for one or the other to dominate and lead to decadal temperature trends. We looked at the sun, which the climate models ignore and show how solar cycles and the different solar outputs affect the climate and likely drive land and ocean temperature cycles. Volcanoes have a very strong affect but it tends to be shorter term. Man’s primary influence is through land use changes most specifically urbanization.

Part V: We looked at the energy story. Guest Michael Sununu and I joined Peter to discuss the energy story. We showed how we here in New Hampshire and the northeast pay, along with California, the highest electricity prices in the nation because of bad policies and how the Paris Accord would devastate our nation’s economy and hurt the poor and middle class and those on fixed incomes the most.

Part VI: We had a NASA Expert on sea level, Tom Wysmuller who confirmed the slowing of sea level rise and the beneficial nature of CO2 and Part VII a college professor Dr. Larry Gould who talked about how the schools and the media are indoctrinating our young and the public to support harmful and unnecessary policies.

RESEARCH REPORTS

As we have reported here, since April, 2016, I worked with a team of expert co-authors and highly competent reviewers to produce two research reports here and here.  Like the shows, the papers were done pro bono.

Although, alarmists could not attack the solid science or our rigorous statistical analyses, they argued for all to dismiss the works because they did not pass through their controlled peer review process. But our review was more rigorous and our reviewers even shared their names as well as their endorsement.

See how we followed the scientific method properly unlike most well paid researchers in science and medicine and how their peer review is failing with serious consequences here.

-------------------

Our country needs your help. Please consider writing letters to the editors to papers from the big city to local weekly papers, give talks (we can help with slides and even PPTs). Point out WUWT, Icecap, Carlin Economics,The Deplorable Climate Science Blog, Climate Depot, SEPP, DrRoySpencer, NoTrickZone and other blogs and the series on Hudson Cable and forward and post stories challenging the false consensus junk science.

Debate or challenge the local teachers or at least investigate what is in the science books.

Contact Peter Lanzillo at Hudson Cable to get access to his series and to contact me. You may consider doing your own shows on your local cable system. Most are looking for content beside the selectman meetings to show on the Local Access channels. Play a role in your community to combat the never ending main stream media and politically driven scare stories. The result of the CAP and many of the local plans underway would lead to like in Europe skyrocketing electricity costs and lost jobs as we showed in the series for no benefit. Look into those local plans and you will be motivated to submit letters to the media and your local representatives. I assure with literally billions of dollars to work with, the radical environmental groups and wind and solar opportunists are making their voices heard and funding supportive politicians on all levels.

Icecap has surpassed 88 million page hits - have been increasing to about over 2.5 million/month. We appreciate your donations. We have a staff of ‘1’ which is why there can be no comments. WUWT and others will tell you moderation is a big job. My commitment to Weatherbell is 7 days a week, but this is just too important so despite my age, I am fully engaged after my day there on Icecap, on research reports and videos.  You can see from the shows, it takes its toll.  And lastly, pray for all of us. 

Aug 04, 2017
Weather-related Natural Disasters: Should we be concerned about a reversion to the mean?

Professor Roger Pielke Jr (University of Colorado Boulder)

Roger is a long-term Research Fellow of Risk Frontiers and recently it was our pleasure to be able to host him, once again, in Sydney. During this visit, we were rewarded with an insightful seminar entitled Natural Disasters and Climate Change: The Science and the Politics. Below is a brief synopsis of some of the key points raised in Roger’s talk. A pdf of his presentation is available for those wanting further information.

We would also direct readers to Roger’s book entitled: The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change as the most accessible and thoughtful compendium of research in this area and of discussion as to the correct role of science in informing political debate and policy in contentious and important areas like global climate change. (see Roger’s book)

The world is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters. This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe. Fortunately, government and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) analyses allow such claims to be adjudicated based on science, and not politics.  Here I briefly summarize recent relevant data.

Every six months Munich Re publishes a tally of the costs of disasters around the world for the past half year. This is an excellent resource for tracking disaster costs over time.  The data allows us to compare disaster costs to global GDP, to get a sense of the magnitude of these costs in the context of economic activity.  Using data from the UN, here is how that data looks since 1990, when we have determined that data is most reliable and complete.

image
Enlarged

The data shows that since 2005 the world has had a remarkable streak of good luck when it comes to big weather disasters, specifically:

From 2006 to present there have been 7/11 years with weather disasters costing less than 0.20% of global GDP.

The previous 11 years saw 6 with more than 0.20% of global GDP.

From 2006 to present there has be zero years with losses greater than 0.30% of global GDP.

The previous 11 years had 2, as did the 6 years before that, or about once every 4 years.

According to a simple linear trend over this time period, global disasters are 50% what they were 27 years ago, as a proportion of GDP.

Why has this occurred? Is it good luck, climate change or something else?

By disaggregating the data phenomenon by phenomenon we can get a better sense of why it is that disaster costs are, as a proportion of global GDP, so low in recent years.

A good place to start is with tropical cyclones, given that they are often the most costly weather events to occur each year.  The figure below shows global tropical cyclone landfalls from 1990 through 2016. These are the storms that cause the overwhelming majority of property damage. Since 1990 there has been a reduction of about 3 landfalling storms per year (from around 17 to around 14), which certainly helps to explain why disaster losses are somewhat depressed.

image
Enlarged

Even more striking is the extended period in the United States, which has the most exposure to tropical cyclone damage, without the landfall of an intense hurricane. The figure below shows the number of days between each landfall of a Category 3+ hurricane in the US, starting in 1900. As of this writing the tally is approaching 4500 days, which is a streak of good fortune not seen in the historical record.

image
Enlarged

A very conservative estimate of the effects of this “intense hurricane drought” is that the United States is some $70 billion in arrears with respect to expected hurricane damage since 2006. In fact, it is not widely appreciated but the US has seen a decrease of about 20% in both hurricane frequency and intensity at landfall since 1900. I urge caution placing too much significance on linear trends, as they are quite sensitive to start and end dates, but there is very little to indicate that tropical cyclones are either more frequent or intense.

Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent.  The IPCC concludes:

“There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

“There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail.”

“There is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.”

Thus, it is fair to conclude that the costs of disasters worldwide is depressed because, as the global economy has grown, disaster costs have not grown at the same rate. Thus, disaster costs as a proportion of GDP have decreased. One important reason for this is a lack of increase in the weather events that cause disasters, most notably, tropical cyclones worldwide and especially hurricanes in the United States.

Climate change, of course, is all too real and has a significant human component. The IPCC has concluded that there is evidence indicating that heat waves have become more common as too has extreme rainfall in some parts of the world.  Projections for the future suggest that some other types of extremes - including tropical cyclones, floods, drought and tornadoes - may yet become more intense or frequent. However, there is great uncertainty about how extremes will evolve in the climate future.

But we don’t need climate scenarios to be worried about more disasters. To the extent that people believe that we are presently in an era of large or unusual disasters, many will be in for a shock when large weather disasters again occur. And they will. A simple regression to the mean would imply disasters of a scale not seen worldwide in more than a decade.

Consider that 2005 saw weather disasters totaling 0.5% of global GDP. In 2017, if the world economy totaled $90 trillion (in a round number), then an equivalent amount of 2017 disaster losses to the proportional costs to 2005 GDP would be about $450 billion. That is about equivalent to Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Andrew, the 2011 Thailand floods, the 1998 Yangtze floods all occurring in one year plus about $100 billion more in other disaster losses. And there is no reason why we should consider 0.5% of GDP to be an upper limit. Think about that.

The world has had a run of good luck when it comes to weather disasters. That will inevitably come to an end. Understanding loss potential in the context of inexorable global development and long term climate patterns is hard enough.  It is made even more difficult with the politicized overlay that often accompanies the climate issue. Fortunately, there is good science and solid data available to help cut through the noise. Bigger disasters are coming - will you be ready?

References

Mohleji, S., & Pielke Jr, R. (2014). Reconciliation of trends in global and regional economic losses from weather events: 1980-2008. Natural Hazards Review, 15(4), 04014009.

Munich Re, 2017.  Natural catastrophe review for the first half of 2017

Murray, V., & Ebi, K. L. (2012). IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX).

Pielke, R. (2014). The rightful place of science: disasters and climate change. (CSPO: ASU)

Stocker, T. F., et al. (2013). IPCC, 2013: climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Weinkle, J., Maue, R., & Pielke Jr, R. (2012). Historical global tropical cyclone landfalls. Journal of Climate, 25:4729-4735.

Jul 26, 2017
CO2 emission, CO2 absorption

Alan Siddons

The chart below is taken directly from figures provided by the U.S. government’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website, specifically its 2016 Global Carbon Project spreadsheet on the Historical Budget tab. In terms of gigatons of carbon, and from 1770 to 2004, it itemizes the growth rate of radiative forcing by atmospheric CO2 and the growth rate of oceanic absorption, what is known as a “carbon sink.”

image
Enlarged

As anyone can see, and as was pointed out by Joe D’Aleo and myself ten years ago in Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases, as CO2 emissions increase, so too does the absorption of these emissions by carbon sinks. An odd state of affairs.

image
Enlarged

Joe and I weren’t the only ones to notice this trend. In Air Pollutant Climate Forcings within the Big Climate Picture, James Hansen et al made the same observation in 2009.

“Contrary to what you read in the newspaper, the sinks of CO2 are not decreasing. On the contrary they are increasing as fast as the CO2 emissions have increased. The fraction of CO2 emissions that disappears annually continues to average 44%.” - James Hansen et al

This may have been true as an average over a span of time, but it is not true in detail. CDIAC’s 2004 figures indicate 2.334 for oceanic absorption, 3.476 for atmosphere. That’s 67% of “disappearing CO2.”

Is something very wrong with the currently accepted paradigm of atmospheric CO2?

You be the judge.

Alan Siddons

Page 3 of 274 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »