The Right Opinion
Inconvenient Truth: CO2 Disconnect With Global Temps Continues!
With climate change a huge issue this election season, we should review the latest facts on the matter. In the following chart, CO2 continues its rise. The global temperatures, however, have not only leveled off, they have begun to fall. This result is in line with natural climate cycle theory:
The temperatures are from the Hadley Center which the IPCC has been using as one of their measuring tools for the global temperature. The dashed blue line represents the sea surface temperature. Since the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the air, and C02 makes up only .0004 of the air (of which man has contributed .00002), logic tells us C02 cannot be causing the warming. The logical conclusion then is that the cyclical nature of the ocean temperatures are a cause, not C02. It makes no sense to blame man, who has contributed .00002 to a gas, which has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean, for the planetary temperature variations.
Using practical application, if the admission to the school of your choice, be it Cornell, or lets say Columbia or Harvard, depended on you answering this question -- "Given the facts presented in the chart above, is CO2 driving the Earth’s temperature?" -- what would your answer be?
We must face the facts, not imagine them.
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
© Copyright 2012 The Patriot Post
25 Comments
KN in Arkansas
Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Depends - Do I want to get accepted at an "elite" Ivy League school or do I answer according to the facts presented and go to dear old State U?
Abu Nudnik in Toronto
Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Yes to get into a once superior Ivy League school. They have entirely abandoned rigorous methods in learning.
Rex River in St Cloud, MN.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 12:48 AM
One must asked several Questions? 1. Who did the Study. 2. How was the Data collected? e,g, Satellite-ground temps? A) At what level and elevation where the temperature Gauges at? I've seen some Temp Gauges, 15 feet off the ground and near highways. Which would give a false reading in the Summer, heat rises. In the Winter, Cold air sinks, giving a warmer reading than what the actual ground temp is. B. Infrared Satellite readings give false readings of Frozen Lakes, Rivers. There maybe 2-3 feet of Ice, and It maybe -30F below zero, above the Ice. and yet the Satellite will show -15F as Heat from the Water, travels through the Ice, giving a false reading. 3. Who collected the Co2 readings, 4. where's the evidence that the readings were at those levels? 5. At what locations were they measured, near coal factories, major cities, or out in the wilderness? Just some many questions this Chart alone does not answer...
Joe Bastardi in Boalsburg pa
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM
Sorry I thought being well versed in this debate, you would have known The Hadley Climate Research Unit is from England and has been used for the measurement of the global temperatures . One can also see the fall in the 2 meter temps by the National Center for Environmental Prediction temperatures also.
http://tinyurl.com/8he8phx
Both of these are government agencies, so if you are trying to attack the messenger, the Hadcrut data has been used, when rising, to support the AGW idea. So is your implication that now that the temperatures are falling, its suddenly no longer correct? .. I would have thought, if you are well versed in this debate, you would have been watching the temps over the years and know the Hardcrut data is what is being used.
To make it clearer, its like looking at the Dow Jones Index and saying, how do you know the Dow Jones Index is really the Dow Jones Index? The point is that this has been used over the year to measure the global temps, and it clearly has leveled off, and is now falling. Its what we use to measure temperatures. Hope that answered your question
retack in PA
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM
If there IS global warming, is that bad? Without it, there would still be mid-continent glaciers and no Great Lakes? No Detroit? No automobiles to contribute to global warming!
G. Daylan in Peoria IL
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 6:33 AM
A real experiment that might correlate carbon dioxide levels and air temperatures could be: Construct several large, equal-sized containers filled with ambient air and ambient air with added carbon dioxide at different levels up to say 1%. Monitor the inside temperatures over time and see if those with added carbon dioxide actually record higher temperatures.
W. Tireman in Michigan
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 8:42 AM
This sounds like a good idea but it doesn't fulfill the idea that from space the earth is likened to a black box radiator. What you are suggesting for an experimental apparatus are not black box radiators and they are set inside the earth's atmosphere. The container will swamp the effects of the CO2.
Pepin the Short in G-Vegas
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 11:15 AM
An experiment to that end would not be necessary. All you really need is the radiation properties of the different components of the earth's atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. The math is simple enough.
But either the experiment you describe or the calculation that I just mentioned assume, more or less, that the earth is just a big radiating ball with gases surrounding it. Radiation may be the key to heat balance on this planet, but gas balance and temperature distribution are intensely complicated systems, and the impact that variables besides simple absorption and radiation have on the earth's temperature is the issue of contention in the global warming debate.
Windy in Obamaland
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Here is a chart from physicist Clive Best showing divergence between temperature anomalies and IPCC model predictions.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IPCC-20071.png
I wonder how long it will take for IPCC climate shills to "adjust" the temperature data to fit the models? I suspect it will be soon as IPCC AR5 is due out next year.
Tod-the tool guy in BROOKLYN, N.Y.
Sunday, September 2, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Mac is onto something here; God gave mankind all the natural resources that we need. God wants US(A), to be warm during the winter, and cool during hot summers! Fossil fuels are a beautiful and heavenly gift! Energy Independence by 2020-the Romney/Ryan plan! Drill and hydrofrack everywhere we can!!
AlecM in UK
Monday, September 3, 2012 at 8:10 AM
My Dear Joe, these data are not misleading. Any professional engineer knows at once that the heat transfer assumptions in the climate modelling are wrong, specifically you can't have IR emitted as an isolated black body in a vacuum. However, it's taken some time to work out that there can never be any CO2-AGW. The reason is three-fold:
CO2 self-absorbs by ~200 ppmV [water 9~900 ppmV] so IR absorption at TOA does not prove absorption of IR from the ground in the atmosphere.
By ~1800 ppmV, CO2 band IR absorption ceases [the mechanism is subtle].
The mechanism involves switching off IR band emission at the surface meaning it has to rise in temperature, the real GHE.
So there is no AGW and a fixed, low GHE set by the first ~1000 ppmV water vapour. These IPCC charlatans must be closed down because the science is C.R A P.
R James in Sydney
Monday, September 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM
The Hadcrut data looks out of date. Earlier this year they were concerned that the data wasn't matching the hypothesis. Rather than follow scientific practice and change the hypothesis, they changed the data. They found a data source from the Arctic area which was previously ignored, and decided to include it, because it boosted recent temperatures.
AlecM in UK
Monday, September 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM
Correction: By ~1800 ppmV water vapour [10% RH at ambient] CO2 IR absorption does not change with its concentration. The mechanism is probably associated with water adsorbed on the Earth's surface so does not apply in the atmosphere.
Paul Couch in NC
Monday, September 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM
A few days ago I read a report that co2 levels were down to 1992 levels. My mind is not the Vise Grip it used to be, so I can't tell you where I read it, but the fact was a surprise to the writers.
R James in Sydney
Monday, September 3, 2012 at 11:54 PM
That doesn't fit with any data sources I monitor.
Windy in Obamaland
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Paul I think you are referring to CO2 from US energy emissions that have fallen to 1990 levels. The data is here.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf
US CO2 emissions have fallen from roughly 6Gt/yr. in 2005 and based on 2012 YTD through May will likely finish at 5.17Gt/yr. for a 14% decline in just 7 years. There are 106 more coal plants set to be phased out by 2016 which will continue to assist the US in continued CO2 emissions reduction. Also of note is the 750 million tons/yr. of CO2 sequestered by US forests which lowers the US footprint to about 4.42t/yr. net.
retack in PA
Monday, September 3, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Bastardi is a scientist and knows that there are known knowns, things that we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know that we don't know; and there are unknown unknowns, things that we don't know that we don't know. I believe JoeBa would subscribe to the last scenario when it comes to the dynamics of the Earth-solar systems.
A follow-up comment by meteorologist Bastardi would be appreciated. (My apology to former Sec. Don Rumsfeld for the known/unknown scenarios!)
MNIce in Minnesota
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Rumsfeld was citing what was a common engineering proverb in the 1980's.
Ed Shipley in Amarillo, Texas
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 2:20 AM
I'm no scientist, but about ten years ago I took the almanac I had then, and checked their record low and high temperatures for the states of this country since 1900, I think it was. I don't recall much more than it looked like the 1930's and the 1950's had the most high record temperatures, but it did not look as if the record high temperatures were tending to be the years since 2000. No, I cannot recall the almanac name or publisher or even the date for sure. And, no, I can't prove any of this. Maybe someone would want to try this again? I remember thinking that the internal combustion engine probably had little impact on the temperatures in remote areas and during early decades.
One VA Patriot in Arlington, VA
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Walking into the office this morning I saw a tall thin man wearing a green t-shirt and emblazoned across its back was the statement "Earth Day 2012."
As he stepped up to the front door of the building he promptly hit the electric door opener.
How green is that?
Liberal pukes.
Mike in NY
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 8:52 PM
"Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked." Funny how it's OK to abuse this if you are on "Joe's" side of the debate.
MNIce in Minnesota
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM
One feature of the chart that caught my interest is the cyclical. seasonal nature of the CO2 level - it increases rapidly during the northern hemisphere winter, more slowly in the spring, then drops even more quickly in the summer. There is something odd here. Supposedly the greatest contributor to CO2 buildup is the combustion of fuel for transportation, but this is greatest during the summer. There is an assumption implicit in the entire debate that CO2 levels are uniform worldwide. Perhaps diffusion of the CO2 from the source is not so very rapid after all. What is the seasonal variation in the southern hemisphere? Why should there be a seasonal variation in the tropical regions? Could it be that heating and lighting during the northern winter are more significant contributors to rising CO2 than transportation because regional natural uptake by plants is shut down for the season? If so, a relatively simple solution would to replace coal power plants with nuclear, and improve the heating efficiency of buildings.
But there is another assumption that needs to be proven: is the rise in CO2 levels definitely anthropogenic, or is there a natural cycle here also that is as yet unrecognized? We can test for this by measuring proportional Carbon 14 levels in tree rings over the last century (this will require molecular analysis to identify molecules altered by C-14 decay). If fossil fuel consumption is the cause, the proportion of C-14 uptake today should be substantially less than it was 100 years ago, and there should be a significant dip caused by World War II.
Can we stabilize CO2 levels by improving vegetative uptake? What is the optimum environmental level of CO2?
There are many questions that need to be answered before we can say this is "settled science" as Scientific American et al. are so fond of claiming, much less make an effective plan of action.
Drew in Danville
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM
CO2 is just one of many forcing. Natural variability still plays a very critical role on decadal temperature scales. This graph only shows that, despite all the natural temperature forcings being negative in the last 5 years (ENSO, solar, PDO), the temperature is not decreasing. This graph, while trying to mislead the public, actually confirms anthropogenic forcing on the climate! Thanks Joe!
P.S. Good luck on the cooling by 2025. I hope you willing to put bets on that one.