In the recent few days I have observed a dramatic push on public television to propagandize the public that CO2 is harmful to our environment and is the leading cause of global climate change.  With my background in chemical engineering I would like to simplify and create a resource so that all of you can have the fundamental argument understood as to why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  I have also provided some simple links for easy data searching.

 

Lie #1.  Carbon Dioxide is causing global warming.

Carbon dioxide by most accounts, for all of the earth’s atmospheric chemistry, only provides for about 4.2 to 8.4% of total warming effect.  Think that you are covering yourself with clothing that covers 4-8% of your body, think thong bikini.  Water vapor accounts for nearly all of our warming in the atmosphere and is readily available for anecdotal analysis by low end scientists on how much water is filling our air.  The EPA, therefore, must introduce the enforcement that water vapor is a pollutant.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html : some thermodynamic CO2 data

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html : green house gases effect

 

Lie #2.  Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is larger than natural sources.

The baseline for CO2 in our atmosphere has been 288 parts per million from the pre-Industrial age.  In the last 150 years of human activity the concentration has risen to 369 parts per million.  One hundred and fifty years of Industrial human activity and the global concentrations have only risen by 1/5th.  Our atmosphere has a mass of 5×1018 kg,  0.039% of which is carbon dioxide by volume, with CO2 x 1.5 mass of air = 2.93 ×1015 kg or 2.93 trillion metric tons, or about 1.33 trillion standard tons.  My research indicates wild variances in amounts of CO2 production attributed by mankind but I would average these accounts to 19 billion tons of CO2 is man caused = 1.43% of all the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.  Think of that thong bikini now as one lonely piece of thread covering your naked body.  That is the approximation of how much warming mankind is responsible for.

http://www.grist.org/article/the-co2-rise-is-natural : ppm of CO2 over time

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth : mass of the Earth’s Atmosphere

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_heavy_is_carbon_dioxide : unit weight of CO2 vs. air

http://www.thehcf.org/emaila5.html : worldwide CO2 output per capita.

 

Math doesn’t lie but a computer model can tell you whatever you program it to say.

Views: 154

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I made a correction to the conversion from kg to metric tons to more accurately find our result.
Thanks for the providing this information, Fredrick.

Do you recall in the 80's and 90's about the growing ozone area?

They believed that the ozone was getting larger because of pollution, specifically methane gas.

The UARS (Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite) was the main study for this. 

Curious on why we don't hear about it anymore?

The main cause of the methane ........   rice paddies. 

When this was discovered and they realized they could not further a panic, it was dropped. 

Can you imagine if it was true about the ozone area, methane and rice paddies?

How many people would starve if they kept pushing the issue?

Of course once that was dropped then they started the next, global warming and now we are on to climate change.

What will it be next?

(Freon - in the old freezers, refrigerators - was a huge problem for the ozone and has been corrected.)

I know this link diverts on a tangent from the CO2 basis of the arguement but the junk science of melting polar ice and Polar Bear deaths is shown in a better light when the peer review was done by the authors wife...

 

Article from Human Events.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

 

Tabbed

News article identifying the political/non scientific structure of the debate.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-...

An article this last week in the Wall Street Journal titled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/01/27/no_need_to_panic_about_...

((the following is the transcript of a debate I am having with a reported climate scientist who measures CO2)).

Hello again Mr. Bernzeppi

 

I want to thank you for allowing this topic of the debate to come to light.  Your graphic was very entertaining to watch.  And before we proceed I will provide you with one great caveat.  As a conversationalist we must find a diverse form of energy to supply our needs in the future.  We are rapidly depleting an extremely valuable and dense supply of energy in Carbon based fuels.  With luck we could diversify our energy supplies with more efficient solar, wind, nuclear, and thorium in the next 100 years.  As economies and demand shifts, these new technologies will come on line with more efficiency and also conservation of energy will be more closely responded to behavior in the future as well.

As we discussed in the before mentioned statements this debate is far outside of the true topic.  One can measure CO2 to be more precise and accurate each day.  They can spend an entire career funded by tax dollars recording industrial outputs and doing studies on concentrations and still have the basic component of this science misunderstood and filled with inaccurate statements.  CO2 as a molecule does not have the potential to do what some say it is doing.  Let alone the anthropogenic properties of this debate.  The very foundation and fundamental flaw of the entire debate that delves into the topic is what is CO2.  The real argument is not scales by which the data sets are provided in graphs or historical records of human activity that the focus of this debate is on.  We have our own version of a “Witch Hunt” today and our superstitions minds are focusing all of our hate on a molecule that is not responsible for our current climate conditions.  The real question we are faced with is, “Does CO2 fulfill the physical and chemical properties capable of our observed climate change”?  The science says no.  To keep this in modest terms CO2 has a narrow and weak ability to absorb in the Infrared Spectrum, see the below link (2349 (4.26 um) and at 667 (15.00 um)).  In a simple understanding of chemistry CO2 is relatively stable Covalent Bonded molecule that will not readily accept large amounts of energy.  Think of the greatest green house gases like methane and water vapor.  Water Vapor has a tremendous amount of potential to absorb energy in its gaseous state and for those characteristics has been used as a means of transferring energy for a long time.  Ergo the steam powered age and steam powered plants.  Once a threshold of CO2 is reached in our atmospheric density and volumes there is an even weaker ability to warm with greater concentrations.  This fact of science can and is being overlooked in favor of supposing that a hypothetical anthropogenic, or human caused, situation is the cause of our climate.

 

To better help I have supplied a link to an online source on the fundamentals of CO2.

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

In conclusion:  As observed in the data sets, 300 years of increasing levels of CO2 can only account for a fraction of a degree Celsius rise in atmospheric temperatures globally.  To put it more simply our atmospheric concentrations would need to increase by a factor of 10 to reach what the AGW calculated output in degrees of warming.  And in such an environment with over 10% CO2 concentrations of our atmosphere the positive applications would far outreach the changes to more ancient environments.  Theoretically a lush and verdant GAIA like environment could be conceived with enough understanding of biology and technology for us to live in absolute harmony with our mother earth.  We could dream of many potentials of growing our own homes in the time it takes a contractor to build one out of frames and nails.

So what would you second a guess, as to where the actual warming is being derived?  I can’t answer that question as I don’t have a PHD in astro-physics to come to a more complete conclusion.  I can state that we will learn more with the added observation and study of our star with more advanced technology.  The biggest and most intimidating dog in this neighborhood is our own solar star.  For instance the solar constant does not have an actually measured method of deviation as we have not been around long enough to measure one.   The possibility still exists that the output in KJ of our stellar sun may be responsible for much of the observed climate changes on the planets and moons of the solar system since we have first started observing them.  Our own aboriginal ancestors worshiped this great star with wonder and fascination.  Numerous other Neolithic and bronze aged cultures had sun worship define their civilizations.  I think that we will recover from our insular world centered views and soon discover that the world does not revolve around us anymore.

This site I came across while doing more research.  It has some nice charts showing exactly how important water vapor is to the overall GH-effect compared to the narrow bands that CO2 is responsible for.  Overall giving a much better idea of what is going on in our atmosphere with relation to reflection & absorption.

University of Delaware, 400 level geography department.

http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_inte...

 I found a new website that describes some of the other important issues around water vapor being the most dominant greenhouse gas and how the IPCC assumes many things when attempting to use water vapor in the corrupted computer modeling.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

 

how a molecule like water vapor absorbs energy.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_absorption.htm

 

I still forward that water vapor is hands down, the most dominant greenhouse gas that the many other trace gas effects are made insignificant.  The molecule has vastly greater potential for energy absorption, vastly wider range of the spectrum to absorb, and has such higher concentrations in our atmosphere that when all are combined water vapor will calculate to be greater than 90% of the overall contribution.  Ergo doubling, tripling, or any increase in CO2 measured in the next 200 years would contribute less than 1 degree Celsius.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service