Three Graphs That Show There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’

Via The Daily Sceptic

As the West fitfully weakens industrial civilisation by trying to eliminate oil, coal and natural gas as energy sources, the scientific basis for Net Zero is based more on ‘general agreement’ than hard data. Climate scientists nevertheless sound optimistic about the progress that’s being made in destroying society’s carbon energy base.

There are of course criticisms of the idea of a carbon-dioxide-induced apocalypse, largely supported as it is by general circulation (i.e., whole-earth) planetary models. There are too many different GCMs all with too many free parameters (aka ‘fudge factors’), as well as wildly divergent readings of historical climate records: Are violent climate events really more frequent, and how does weather actually relate to climate? The popular press cries havoc, but the data are not so clear. The looming economic costs of a Net Zero target are leading to some political pushback. Nevertheless, the recent jury acquittal of nine Extinction Rebellion vandals shows that passionate belief in the imminent dangers of CO2 is not limited to activists.

Climate science is complicated, but the key question is simple. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but are we responsible? Does the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a major effect on the temperature of the earth? The standard answer is “yes, of course”. But in fact there are good reasons for doubt.

Popular accounts of the ‘climate emergency’ rarely show quantitative data. Yet there are widely available graphs that anyone can understand. Here are three graphs which suggest that the answer to the question is probably “no”. It is likely that beyond a certain point, carbon dioxide has a relatively minor effect on planetary temperature.

The very long-term historical record

This graph is controversial, simply because estimates of CO2 concentration and temperature before thermometers were widely available – i.e., through 99.99% of the Earth’s history – must be estimated indirectly, by proxies such as ice cores, tree rings and isotope measurements.

If this graph of global temperature and CO2 concentration over the past 600 million years is approximately valid, it shows two things:

  1. According to one expert, and as the far right point on the graph shows, “the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere today is the lowest in Earth history except for a period just following the end-Permian extinction event and very early in the Phanerozoic (that is, around 550 million years ago). [emphasis added]”
  2. There is no correlation between the CO2 level and global temperature: when CO2 is high, temperature may be low, and vice versa.

The second conclusion is less certain than the first. But, certainly vertebrate life has flourished on earth at CO2 concentrations much higher than today’s.

The long-term historical record

The CO2-temperature correlation is much clearer over a shorter time scale, 800,000 years, as in the next graph (which is not at all controversial). The graph shows temperature (red line) and four estimates of atmospheric CO2 from the EPICA Antarctic ice dome studies across an 800,000-year time period.

The two main conclusions to be drawn from this graph are:

  1. At this time scale CO2 concentration and temperature are strongly correlated: CO2 and temperature go up and down together.
  2. But CO2 increases reliably lag behind temperature increases, showing that the CO2 changes are caused by the temperature increases, rather than the reverse. Reason: As oceans heat up, gases, including CO2, are expelled, when they cool atmospheric CO2 is absorbed; warm water can hold less dissolved gas than cool (most planetary CO2 stored in the oceans).

There are arguments, based on positive feedback, that even though ocean heating precedes rather than follows CO2 increase, the effective causation is opposite: CO2 causes heating, not the reverse. But the simplest conclusion is that major changes in atmospheric CO2 are caused by changes in planetary temperature, not the other way round.

 Physics

The final graph is from a recent long paper by two physicists, William Wijngaarden (York University, Toronto) and William Happer (Princeton). The article just considers the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, given the physical properties of air and the handful of low-concentration greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide and methane) that it contains.

The blue bell-shaped curve shows the amount of solar energy flux (at different wavelengths, x-axis) radiated to space from an earth with no atmosphere. (Most is in the infrared region 400-1000 or so.) The green line is the flux with an atmosphere with no CO2 but with all other greenhouse gases at their standard concentrations. The black line is for all greenhouse gases, CO2 included, at their standard concentrations. The red line is for twice the standard concentration of CO2 (400 to 800 ppm) but with all the other greenhouse gases unchanged.

At 400 ppm CO2 does have a greenhouse effect: Radiated energy is reduced in the 500-700 frequency range. But an increase to 800 ppm has almost no additional effect – the black and red lines are almost the same. Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has almost no additional greenhouse effect.

Conclusion

Taken together, these three bits of data should make anyone doubt that further increases in CO2 pose any kind of environmental threat. The earth may be warming, but it is unlikely that CO2 is responsible. There is almost no chance that these changes are life threatening or even – granted that human activity is probably not responsible – that warming will continue indefinitely. It’s time to cease panicking. Let’s zero Net Zero.

As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
20 Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
November 26, 2023 4:30 pm

Excellent points.
I agree with the summary.

Old Dog
Old Dog
November 26, 2023 4:49 pm

The first time I saw the top graph was in a presentation by Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder and former President of Greenpeace. Here are two presentations that I have heard (as a truck driver I am not watching the screen).

Dr. Moore states that if it were not for mankind’s influence that life itself was in jeopardy. I’m not a plant scientist, but he states if the CO2 concentration falls somewhere below 150 ppm that plants will die, and if they die we die.

“Food” for thought.

He has some excellent ideas on long term solutions to our energy needs, how coal and oil should be used differently and more carefully in the future.

Gam
Gam
  Old Dog
November 27, 2023 6:50 am

agreed that there is a lot if waste such that if we optimized materials and uses we should be able to reduce the need forbpower and resources by 1/3 to 1/2.

Anonymous
Anonymous
November 26, 2023 5:08 pm

When the primary objective is for leftists to gain more power and control, these graphs can’t POSSIBLY be believable/sarc.

Snarkasterous1
Snarkasterous1
November 26, 2023 7:00 pm

Well, then, how does one explain NYC being underwater, as predicted, and the Arctic being ice-free, as predicted, and our children never “knowing snow,” as predicted?

Hey, wait a minute……

bunnies
bunnies
  Snarkasterous1
November 27, 2023 12:04 am

The “snow” nowadays is different than 20 years ago, as these are laced with chemicals from the chemtrails. And they’re tiny hailstones, making them much colder.

Anonymous
Anonymous
November 26, 2023 7:45 pm

As long as the bought and paid for media and governments say there is a climate crisis, people will believe it. If a small percentage of people know it to be bullshit , it doesn’t matter without a very large platform.

Doug
Doug
November 26, 2023 8:05 pm

You can’t argue with stupid. Or ignorance. Probably the best definition of politicians?

Lee
Lee
  Doug
November 27, 2023 4:16 am

you failed to mention evil.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
November 26, 2023 8:23 pm

The primary cause of warming comes from perturbations in the electromagnetic fields and flows within spherical Earth, the core of which is close to 11,000 degrees F. For those who don’t believe in “globe earth” … it’s caused by your car and cow farts.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Iska Waran
November 26, 2023 9:58 pm

I believe the primary cause for damn near everything under the sun ( earths core included ) is the sun itself . but hey , I’m just old fashioned that way I guess .

Soup
Soup
November 26, 2023 10:33 pm

I was out the minute I read 600 million years. Bullshit.

P
P
  Soup
December 29, 2023 10:41 am

Why? You think the earth is only 6,000 years old? Weird take for a retarded leftist, but I repeat myself.

k31
k31
November 27, 2023 5:20 am

This is all so fake and gay. I am doubtful there is a word of truth in this whole thing.

YourAverageJoe
YourAverageJoe
November 27, 2023 5:56 am

When some hysterical relative starts talking about rising sea levels I remind them of the time I took them fishing at the Galveston Jettys and ask them if they’d like to go again, because they are still there.

Gam
Gam
November 27, 2023 6:47 am

bottom line is that oil is now about half gone and life before and after oil is extremely difficult. The money changers print whatever they need to buy up all the resources and they are pissed that we are able to drain this resource without their approval. So their answer is to get rid of us and reduce the standard of living so they can control this resource like all the others. Its a war of the haves vs the have nots plain and simple.

Ed
Ed
  Gam
November 27, 2023 7:10 pm

Oil is not “about half gone “. That sounds like something Joe Biden would say.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Gam
November 27, 2023 8:04 pm

Oil is continuously created via abiogenic means:
comment image
.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1701266114

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49434/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/853851

And, of course, nature recycles everything. There are idiot vegans and environazis who smugly point out that cows use p 300,000 gallons of water each. So, the water’s gone forever, locked up in a cow that is now the size of a swimming pool, or something? Carbon returns to its sources, too.

P
P
  Anonymous
December 29, 2023 10:43 am

Leftists are deeply stupid people who think food spawns in the grocery store like it’s Fortnite.

P
P
  Gam
December 29, 2023 10:42 am

We have little idea how much oil truly remains, but we know it’s “a lot”.