Planet Earth Climate Topics

Keywords: Climate changes, infrared spectroscopy, ocean acidification, AGW, Vostok ice-core, hurricanes, Cyclone Pam, El Nino, tectonic plates


[04Mar2015. This website launched, but a continuing process. It works with IE 11, Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari. ]

SITE STRUCTURE [Changed 07Sep16]
Firstly, the first section publishes my research as a series chapters – the order is changeable.

Secondly, by simply scrolling down further to the Second Section, one gets a synopsis of each chapter. It has opinion arising from the facts. Others’ sensible opinions are welcome.
——————————————————————

                                   First Section.   Evidence

Chapter 1. The role that changes in concentration of the Greenhouse Gas, carbon dioxide, has on Earth’s climate changes.
Click  CCPt1U   to view 4 page (.pdf)

Chapter 1a. Addendum. Answers AGW contentions.
Click  Addendum_2 to view 4 page (.pdf)  

Chapter 1b. Greenhouse revisited. (This easy section renders Chapter 1 and 1a largely redundant.)
Click  Greenhouse re-examined to view 3 page (.pdf)

Chapter 2. What is causing climate changes.
Chapt2_3:  Click to view 11 page .pdf file.

Chapter 2A: Venus, Earth and Mars   …. Game, Set and Match!
Click to view 3-page .pdf file.  RockyP_1

 

Chapter 4. The cause of some extreme weather events.
Cyclone Pam:. Click to view 5 page (.pdf)
Chapter 5. Ocean pH.
Seawater pH  . Click to view 5 page (.pdf)

Coming ….

Chapter 3. El Nino’s cause follows from this.
Chapter 6. (Work in progress). Timing  of climate changes and some otherwise exceptional weather events – not simply explanation; that bit’s easy – if one is not constrained by AGW.

 

 


                             Second Section.  Commentary

Chapter 1. Climate Change: The Role of Carbon Dioxide

[04Mar15, 05Jun15]: The only point I investigate in this first Chapter is the quantitative IR properties of the “Greenhouse Gas” CO2   as that is the only issue by which AGW stands or falls. IR properties have been somewhat neglected, eg in the thousands of pages churned out by IPCC, very few refer to IR – and even these are of dubious scientific character.

The currently accepted AGW view has been a serious impediment to the scientific community to getting answers to climate topics. The answers follow naturally from knowing the correct cause, but AGW gives a severely blinkered view. Once the blinkers are removed, a goldmine of explanations of natural phenomena becomes available.

I have yet to see any scientific backing for AGW’s that show that CO2 is able to cause such temperature changes.
(One can deduce that there is no such evidence when one hears “We must err on the safe side.”)

[14Apr15]: Corrected error on page 3, 60% to 40%. (Thanks Richard Seymour). Added reference to Gebbie.

1. Chapter One. Click  CCPt1U   to view 4 page (.pdf)         

Hammerfest, 20Jun05
Hammerfest, 20Jun05

Conclusion: Carbon dioxide’s greenhouse contribution to global warming is far too small to measure.


Chapter 1A: [07Mar15]: The Addendum to Chapter One answers AGW queries that I’ve come across. (Please post if you have others – but only if you have given thought to them.)      

Conclusions:
1. ALL satellite spectra will need to be adjusted with regard to their measured magnitudes .

2. AGW’s one attempt to quantify carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect uses satellite rather than surface-based IR measurements.  It fails to do the final simple but exact calculation which brings the 2 types into agreement – thus proving that AGW cannot occur. 

[Admittedly, I think my calculation has not been done elsewhere.]

Chapter 1B: [02Apr16]: (Requires high school science at most.)
A simpler demonstration that carbon dioxide’s contribution to global warming has always been far too small to measure. Its “Greenhouse Gas” properties are real but irrelevant.

A planet’s greenhouse effect is determined largely by the  total pressure of its atmosphere – ie it is constant – rather than by its composition.

[Illustration,
see Chapter 2A:
The greenhouse effects of Venus, Earth and Mars decrease in accord with each planet’s total pressure – as opposed to its carbon dioxide pressure.]

————————————————————–   

[15Dec15]
AGW ANTIDOTES:    Opinions from evidence.
This section refutes various statements put forward to support AGW, in a manner that does not require the definitive scientific calculations already shown. This may be sufficient for those with shaky science knowledge. Unfortunately, they also seem to be the most fanatical about this topic – and from both sides!

The basic question at issue is
Q: “Can increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 cause global temperatures to rise?”
This proposition is known as AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming ie Man-made).

A: “No.”

  1. Many people rely on such statements as:
    97% of scientists feel that Man is causing Global Warming because the carbon fuels Man burns produce increasing levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
    (97%: sounds like a Russian election result!)One would think that with this great number of scientists, they’d be able to prove their proposition, yet they are still unable to prove their belief after decades of trying to do just that. For example, the IPCC was formed in 1988 to push such an effort … without success. If this search had been successful, there would not now be a debate.

After so many scientists failing for so many years to prove AGW, you’d think they’d give at least some consideration that their proposition might be wrong!

And note also,
“97% of scientists” believed in the Piltdown Man for decades; it proved to be a hoax.

 “97% of scientists” ridiculed Alfred Wegener’s Continental Drift theory for decades; it is now mainstream.

  1. Greenhouse Gas:
    Most people have now heard of Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, and have an inkling of what that means, but as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
  1. The magical 2ºC limit.
    Whenever record hot spells strike anywhere in the world, the cry arises that Man must reduce carbon fuel use to prevent global warming above 2ºC. What they fail to mention is that Earth’s temperature is expected to rise from natural causes – by that magical, unexplained figure of 2ºC.

This is because it has done so four times cyclically – now approaching the fifth – over the past 420,000 years (Figure 1), but with CO2 levels of only 290ppm maximum. Clearly, as CO2 levels are now 400ppm but the temperature is 2ºC less than previous temperature maxima, warming does not follow CO2 levels, so they must be irrelevant.

Do you reckon we are being hoodwinked?

———————————————————

Chapter 2: What is causing climate changes?
[05May16]
plates

Conclusion: Global warming is distributed irregularly in both time and around the globe – matching tectonic activity qualitatively and quantitatively.
———————————————————————-

Chapter 2A: Venus, Earth and Mars   …. Game, Set and Match!    [16Aug16]

Courtesy: NASA
Courtesy: NASA

CONCLUSIONS:
1. The greenhouse effect, G is proportional to a planet’s atmosphere’s total pressure.
2. G for each planet is therefore constant.
3. Vostok shows a planet’s geologically released internal heat, IntT varies with time.
4. G is unrelated to an atmosphere’s carbon dioxide density. AGW is wrong.

Thus validating Chapters 1B and 2.

Conclusions from Chapters 1 & 2:
The faulty AGW theory results from the faulty definition of Greenhouse Effect.     Classic GIGO.

 

——————————————

NO

Chapter 4a. Pam & severe storms. [26Mar15, 31Mar15]: Cyclones such as Pam develop from the same mechanism causing climate changes. Weather events do NOT occur randomly; they all have a physical basis – it’s just that sometimes we have not been able to identify them yet.

 

Conclusion: At least some severe storms have identifiable geological beginnings.

………………………………………………………………………..

 

 

 

Chapter 5: Ocean pH [15Sep15, 29Sep15]

aquarium

Calculates the extent that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels change ocean pH (ie acidity/alkalinity).

Conclusion: Carbon dioxide’s effect on pH is calculated to be measurable, but like AGW, is too small to be significant.

[16Jun16]
Currently there is anxiety about coral bleaching, affecting particularly the northern Great Barrier Reef. Valerie Taylor had a short informal interview in The Weekend Australian’s Magazine, May 14. You may recall she made many documentaries with her husband Ron about sharks. She’s now 80, and still dives. [Current researchers would/should have been aware of their well known documentaries.]  She says of the GBR,

“In 1965 we went from one end of the reef to the other, over six months, and we found bleaching then. In the ‘70s we went back and you’d never know it happened. The coral had recovered; nature had taken care of it. I’ve seen reefs in PNG that were as white as snow and I’ve just come back from there and they’re terrific.”
She thus observes that bleaching is reversible. (Presumably spores from unaffected corals can flow in again to re-colonise affected areas once the cause has departed.) Coral bleaching and repair occur independently of atmospheric CO2 levels.

As it is mainly the relatively untouched northern areas of the GBR affected, it is unlikely that run-off is the cause. The current bleaching decreases towards the south, flowing on the north-to-south counter-clockwise current from Vanuatu, and becoming depleted in the process. Upstream undersea volcanic activity around Vanuatu produces toxic H2S (Chapter 4a, Cyclone Pam), in time oxidising to sulphuric acid, which may also be a concern; Chapter 5 shows acidity produced by CO2 is not.

Other coral bleaching areas around the globe, eg Seychelles, Caribbean, Maldives, etc are downstream from undersea volcanic areas.

 

What is AGW’s agenda given that both Anthropogenic GW and “Ocean Acidity” can so easily be dismissed by real scientific investigation? Is it a hoax?

 

[01March 2016: This step of self-publishing has been necessary as journals seem to have an aversion to publishing articles contrary to the current AGW dogma.

For example, I sent what is now Chapter One and its Addendum (below)  to Nature Climate Change (email receipt of submission1023 PM, 11Dec2014). EIGHT minutes later (1031 PM) I received a written rejection by a sub-editor! That’s not even enough time to have read past the first page’s title. Nor enough time to solve the geometric problem inherent in #2a of the Addendum.)

Blogs such as The Conversation, funded by many universities, allows its excessively pro-AGW moderator, Cory Zanoni, to remove most non-AGW comments. This can be noticed by the absence of past non-AGW contributors – presumably blocked like me for putting such views. Even the publicly funded CSIRO declined my request for comment.

This site will allow airing of my work. Sensible comments welcome. Abuse is not. ]