Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Allan MacRae's comment
#1
From HERE

Quote: Allan MacRae says:
October 6, 2012 at 7:06 am

Regarding dCO2/dt versus Temperature, CO2 Lags Temperature, Temperature drives CO2, and “Feedback Effects”

I discovered the close relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature in late 2007 and published the paper below on icecap in January 2008. This dCO2/dt relationship is the source of the 9 month lag in CO2 after temperature, also demonstrated in my paper ( although the latter fact was previously noted by Kuo et al in 1990, Keeling et al in 1995, and Veizer in 2005 ).
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...re_can_no/

Then there is the much longer ~~800 year lag of CO2 after T (as measured in ice cores). Note that ~800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period.

It appears that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

Each temperature cycle has its own CO2 delay, and its own approximate period (cycle time length).

There may also be one or more intermediate cycles between the above two (the late Ernst Beck believed there was), and other shorter cycles.

There is ample evidence of a daily localized cycle, driven by photosynthesis.
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30

The evidence suggests that varying atmospheric CO2 is not a cause of climate change, it is an effect.

I further hypothesize that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are relatively small compared to natural daily, weekly, seasonal and millennial CO2 flux, and are probably insignificant in this huge dynamic system. Deforestation may have a greater impact on atmospheric CO2 than the combustion of fossil fuels.

No small irony here – if I am correct, both sides of the rancorous “mainstream” global warming debate are wrong. Both sides assume that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are the primary driver of temperature, and are only arguing about the amount of warming (climate sensitivity to CO2, H2O feedbacks positive or negative, etc.). If I am correct, both sides of the mainstream debate have “put the cart before the horse”.

When I wrote my 2008 paper, the ~9-month lag of CO2 after temperature was dismissed as a “feedback effect”. I think this was a cargo-cult response to my sacrilegious hypo that temperature could drive CO2, rather than the generally-accepted opposite. While such “feedback effects” may exist, I believe they are so small as to be insignificant and they may not exist at all. To be specific, I believe that the sensitivity of temperature to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is much less than 1 degree C, which is an upper limit of its magnitude.

We confidently wrote in 2002 at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publicatio...oto_pt.htm

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

Since then there has been no net global warming, and perhaps some modest cooling.

We also predicted the debacle in green energy, where a trillion dollars of scarce global resources have since been squandered on alternative energy nonsense.

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

In comparison, every dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmist movement has failed to materialize. There has been no runaway global warming. Corn ethanol and other food-to-fuel programs are humanitarian, economic and environmental disasters. Grid-connected wind and solar power schemes have driven up energy costs, failed to provide useful additional energy, and have destabilized electricity grids.

The environmental movement lost its way in the 1970’s and since then has done much more harm than good to humanity AND the environment.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Allan M.R. MacRae comment Sunsettommy 0 469 01-23-2017, 09:15 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)