What Does CO2 Have To Do With Climate?

Little or nothing, if Tim Ball is correct. This post on his web site packs more iconoclasm (and useful information) into a shorter space than just about anything I have read on the subject:

Recently a Japanese Research Institute published a satellite map of sources of CO2 emissions. It was virtually ignored by the mainstream media, but that has become an inverse measure of its significance to the climate debate. It showed a pattern that most would not expect because of the misleading information presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) amplified by most media.

Here it is:

North America is a net consumer of CO2. Dr. Ball explains: “The map is only surprising if you believe that humans are the primary source of CO2.” But he is just getting warmed up:

The oceans are the main control of atmospheric CO2 as one of the atmospheric gases in constant flux between the water and the atmosphere. The ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 is a function of its temperature – cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water.

This is why whenever the Earth’s climate gets warmer, it is followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2.

There are several misconceptions about CO2, most created because proponents tried to prove the hypothesis rather than the normal scientific practice of disproof. It helped them if the misinformation created unfounded fears. An early IPCC claim said atmospheric residency time of CO2 was at least 100 years. Done, ostensibly, for the political point that even if we stopped production immediately the damage was done. We now know the actual time is at most 5 to 6 years.

The major assumption of the hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., Antarctic ice core records were presented as evidence. Just four years later proof that the major assumption of the hypothesis was wrong appeared. Somehow it was shuffled aside, probably because of the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years. It doesn’t matter, it still contradicts the basic assumption. Temperature change before CO2 change is the case in every record for any period or duration is studiously ignored by proponent and skeptic.

Humans actually have little to do with the production of CO2:

According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, “Forests soak up more CO2 than thought” and “Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study” keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn’t even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.

Global warming alarmism isn’t science, it it a combination of politics and religion. Dr. Ball sums up: “Science must be about skepticism, otherwise the science is settled, but then it isn’t science.”

UPDATE: The alarmists are trying to shut Dr. Ball up. Two of them, the notorious Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are suing him for libel. Dr. Ball, one of Canada’s foremost climatologists (now retired) said of Mann that he “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State,” for his role in covering up climate fraud, and of Weaver that he cherry-picked scientific data in his work with the IPCC. It would be great fun to conduct discovery on Dr. Ball’s behalf, but that costs money–money which Mann and Weaver assume that Ball, a retired academic, does not have. You can contribute to Ball’s legal defense fund at the linked web site.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line