“Carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.” FOSC
AN excellent ‘re-education’ piece by Robert Lyman via Friends Of Science Calgary on the politically demonised gas of life – CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).
OUR children are being scandalously indoctrinated in the class-room to believe that colourless, odourless, tasteless trace-gas and plant food CO2 is a “pollutant”.
THE Obama administration via his extremist EPA even declared, by law, CO2 (your own breath) a “pollutant”!
The EPA on April 17  proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.
YOUNG adults in Canada today have grown up during a period when educational standards are significantly different from those of previous generations, and “environmental awareness”, was often included as a formal or informal part of the curriculum. Yet, misconceptions abound. I was reminded of this the other day when a young woman I met expressed concern about how carbon dioxide was harming air quality and people’s health. Even the government, after all, calls carbon dioxide “pollution”.
In the interests of clarity, therefore, I thought I would offer some hard information that people might find good to have.
In brief, carbon dioxide does not harm air quality.
Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas found naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. It is produced by natural sources like volcanoes, hot springs and geysers, people and animals (including fish), decay of organic materials, the combustion (i.e. burning) of fossil fuels, and as a by-product of some industrial processes like baking and brewing. Plants and algae use light to photosynthesize a compound called carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon life; in other words, without carbon dioxide, there would be no life on earth.
Carbon dioxide is an essential element in human respiration; people breathe out about 40,000ppm (parts per million) CO2 with every breath.
The quality of the air we breathe is sometimes impaired by certain contaminants, and it helps to know what these are. The main ones are:
- Particulate matter: Particulates are tiny drops of liquid and sold particles, the size of dust or smaller, suspended in the air. They come mainly from agriculture, construction and dust from roads, although various industrial sources play a role. Along with ozone, it is a major component of smog and, at high levels, can harm human health. (Often referred to as PM2.5 or PM10 – meaning Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 or 10 microns in size.)
Nitrogen oxide: Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown toxic gas with an irritating smell. Exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause breathing problems and reduced lung function, and it is a component of acid rain.
- Ground-level ozone: Low-level ozone is a colourless gas that is formed through a chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. The major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are transportation, oil and natural gas production, electricity generation, home heating and even the burning of firewood. At high levels, ground-level ozone can cause breathing problems, lung damage, and asthma attacks in humans and damage to sensitive vegetation.
- Sulphur dioxide: Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and toxic gas that smells bad. It is caused both by natural sources and by human activity, the most important of which are smelting and refining, electricity generation, heating, and oil and gas production and other industries. Sulphur dioxide in high concentrations can contribute to breathing and heart problems, especially among infants and the elderly.
- Carbon monoxide: Unlike carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas that is caused by the incomplete burning of oil, natural gas and coal. High levels of carbon monoxide can cause dizziness, unconsciousness, and even death.
So, carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.
Time lapse of plants with different CO2 concentrations:
Plant Food CO2 Related :
- CO2 In The Atmosphere Is Not Pollution | Climatism
- Bureaucratic Dioxide | Climatism
- China won’t classify CO2 as a pollutant in new environment law | Climatism
- Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life – Paul Driessen
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora « JoNova
- Greening the Planet and how Fossil Fuels protect world’s Flora & Fauna | Dr. Matt Ridley | Climatism
Arctic “Death Spiral” update…
Ron Clutz writes at Climate Change Dispatch:
Arctic Sea Ice Surges Back During First Half of October
Consider the refreezing during the first half of October through yesterday, adding an average of 96k km2 per day. On the left side, the Laptev Sea has filled in, and just below it, the East Siberian Sea is also growing fast ice from the shore to meet refreezing drift ice.
View original post 140 more words
A penguin-perfect example of the
global warming “climate change” scam in action…
And, don’t forget to believe the climate faithful next time they yell “The Science Is Settled!”
TOO MUCH ICE, TOO LITTLE. MORE PENGUINS, LESS. IT’S ALL GLOBAL WARMING, YOU KNOW
THERE were too few penguins in the Antarctic, and then lots more. Now they’re starving. Same thing with ice: there was too little and now too much, which is killing the penguin chicks. Yet every change we’re told: it’s global warming. Be scared.
“Bill’s Adelies, struggling, failing, persisting, succumbing, were a small poignant example of a potentially vast reality. In one sense, they had become surrogate humans. Through them, the impact of a changing climate on established communities was palpably visible, a kind of parable in real time. This is how it is, if you have been residing in attractive island real estate, and climate change comes knocking on your door.” p. 268, The Ferocious Summer, Profile Books Ltd, 2007
The literary awards of Labor Premier John Brumby are … worth a total of $210,000… And the non-fiction prize … [went to”> The Ferocious Summer: Palmer’s penguins and the warming of Antarctica by Meredith Hooper Again, to explain:Meredith Hooper has captured how one scientific team uncovered the story of the devastating impact of rapid global warming on the Adelie penguins of the Antarctic Peninsula.
New, very short film from the E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation highlights threats to Adelie penguins from climate change, already. Actor and conservation activist Harrison Ford narrated “Ghost Rookeries, Climate Change and the Adelie Penguin.”
SBS reports: Penguins are in peril because of extreme environmental conditions linked to climate change, research has shown…. Adelie penguins on Ross Island, Antarctica, are finding it harder to feed as melting sea ice fragments to form giant icebergs.
For the first time, researchers have counted all the world’s Adélie penguins—a sprightly seabird considered a bellwether of climate change—and discovered that millions of them are thriving in and around Antarctica… “What we found surprised everyone,” said ecologist Heather Lynch at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y., who led the penguin census. “We found a 53% increase in abundance globally.” Counting the birds by satellite, Dr. Lynch and imaging specialist Michelle LaRue at the University of Minnesota found that the Adélie penguin population now numbers 3.79 million breeding pairs—about 1.1 million more pairs than 20 years ago. In all, they identified 251 penguin colonies and surveyed 41 of them for the first time, including 17 apparently new colonies.
Almost the entire cohort of chicks from an Adelie penguin colony in the eastern Antarctic was wiped out by starvation last summer in what scientists say is only the second such incident in over 40 years. Researchers said Sunday the mass die-off occurred because unusually large amounts of sea ice forced penguin parents to travel farther in search of food for their young. By the time they returned, only two out of thousands of chicks had survived.
Sea ice extent in the polar regions varies each year, but climate change has made the fluctuation more extreme.
- Adelie Populations Growing | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
- Bigger, smaller, whatever. It’s global warming | Climatism
This is interesting. It appears that a “pause” has developed in global sea levels. For two years, since July 2015, there has been no sustained increase in global sea level, in fact, it appears to have actually fallen a bit. This graph, provided by NASA’s Global Climate Change website, tells the story:
A zoom of the area of interest, two years prior to the most recent data point.
Source for both graphs: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
The satellite derived sea level data is also available here: ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/merged_alt/L2/TP_J1_OSTM/global_mean_sea_level/GMSL_TPJAOS_V4_199209_201708.txt
NASA says on that website:
Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.
Hmmm, I think they left something out of that description.
View original post 318 more words
“It is time to bring climate alarmism-inspired reductions of CO2 to an end and use the vast resources devoted to it to solve the many unsolved problems that would actually benefit from their use rather than on a non-problem that government can do very little if anything about.”
TIME to divert the taxpayer trillions, wasted on fake fixes to a fake catastrophe, to solving *real* pollution problems.
TIME to stop demonising colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food “Carbon Dioxide” of which man contributes 3% to nature’s 97%.
Alan Carlin argues here that ‘the main justifications offered for climate alarmism are expensive general circulation models, which cost taxpayers many billions of dollars but prove nothing except that garbage in results in garbage out.’ Meanwhile even more fortunes in public money are being spent chasing unattainable ‘climate’ goals.
Climate alarmism is an all too typical scientific scam replete with failure to follow the scientific method and many of the common illogical fallacies going back to Aristotle.
The difference is that its proponents have had almost infinite resources to sell their scam, especially taking into account the “free” media support supplied by the mainstream media.
But scam it nevertheless is since the scammers are benefitting from their efforts.
View original post 98 more words
FOLLOWING on from the landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience that concedes the world has not warmed as predicted this century, comes a new paper from Scafetta et al, confirming that the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” indeed lives on!
via GWPF :
The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
As explained in part 1 of this study , in the last decade future climate scenarios have been used to develop and politically enforce energy expensive policies to contrast catastrophic climate warming expectations for the 21st century. This has been done mostly by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2, 3, 4]. Several studies based on general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the Earth’s climate concluded that the 20th century climate warming and its future development depend almost completely on anthropogenic activities. Humans have been responsible of emitting in the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 throughout the combustion of fossil fuels. This paradigm is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGWT).
However, before trusting GCM projections about future climatic changes, it is necessary to validate these models by testing whether they are able to properly reconstruct past climate changes. In Ref. , the authors have argued that since 2001 AGWT was actually supported by the belief that the “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstructions, which claim that an unprecedented warming occurred since 1900 in the Northern Hemisphere, were reliable [2,5] and could be considered an indirect validation of the available climate models supporting the AGWT . However, since 2005 novel proxy temperature reconstructions questioned the reliability of such hockey stick trends by demonstrating the existence of a large millennial climatic oscillation [7-10]. This natural climatic variability is confirmed by historical inferences  and by climate proxy reconstructions spanning the entire Holocene [12, 13]. A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods [9, 11, 14- 16].
To test the reliability of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) GCMs, in Ref.  it was shown that for the period 1860-2016 they predict an excessive warming relative to four independent global surface temperature reconstructions. This was a first significant discrepancy between observations and models. Then, it was noted that AGWT advocates had claimed that discrepancies between observation and modeled predictions could occur because of an unforced internal variability of the climate system that the same GCMs are able to predict .
These people were very explicit by providing the following scientific criterion to validate the models: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” .
By using such a 15-year interval criterion, in Ref.  we tested the CMIP5 GCMs against the observations in the periods 1922-1941, 1980-1999 and 200-2016. The first two periods were selected because they are characterized by a strong and compatible warming rate but by very different rate of anthropogenic GHG emissions. On the contrary, the 2000- 2017 period is characterized by a very strong increase of anthropogenic GHG emissions while the temperature has been quasi stationary. Our statistical analysis  confirmed with a 95% confidence that the GCMs fail to properly reconstruct the temperature trends in 1922-1941 and in 2000-2017. Thus, according to the very criterion proposed by the AGWT advocates themselves, the GCMs used to support the AGWT are demonstrated to be flawed.
Herein, a detailed study of the natural climatic variability observed after 2000 in six available global temperature records versus the performance of the GCMs is carried out. We also critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 oC. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. In fact, an even stronger El-Niño event occurred in 1878 when the sudden increase of the global surface temperature was 0.8 oC: see Figure 2 in Ref. . Finally, for the post 2000 period we compare the predictions of the CMIP5 GCMs used by the IPCC , against that of two semi-empirical models proposed a few years ago [15,19].
These models were based on a specific number of natural oscillations suggested by astronomical considerations plus an anthropogenic warming effect strongly reduced by 50% relative to the GCM predictions. We stress that the latter result is consistent with recent scientific literature findings  confirming that the real climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about half, that is between 1 oC and 2 oC, than what predicted by the GCMs supporting the AGWT, which is about 3 oC .
Warmist paper Millar et al confirming the warming slowdown in the first fifteen years of this century, contradicting UN IPCC Climate model simulations :
97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :
- Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’
- How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1,000,000,000,000-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures | The Sun UK
- Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects | Watts Up With That?
The Writing Was On The Wall :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
Global Warming “Pause” Related :
- The Pause | Search Results | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism