Lets get straight to the point! There is NO link between CO2 and Climate Change!
What started as a claimed link between CO2 and Global Warming with the now infamous Hockey Stick has been morphed into Climate Change. This allows the environmentalists to claim that any and every unusual weather event is Climate Change.
It is now clear, and confirmed by the Hadley Centre, that for 17 years since 1997 there has been NO measured warming of the planet. In the same period though CO2 levels have risen inexorably at around 3 parts per million per annum, from around 350ppm to around 400ppm.
There have been all the usual scares about tipping points, rising sea levels, endangered polar bears, melting polar ice caps, melting glaciers, etc, etc. All rubbish!
Well-documented palaeoclimate evidence reveals CO2 levels in the atmosphere 600 million years ago were at 7000ppm, about 20 times today’s level. Indeed for only one relatively short period of earth’s long existence has the CO2 level been as low as it is today.
Sea levels that were rising around 4mm/annum between 1995 and 2003 have slowed to 2mm/annum since then. The polar bear population is at an all time high of about 26,000 animals and they will continue to thrive until they reach steady state with the supply of the their main food source, which are seals.
The Hockey Stick
The computer program by Dr Michael Mann that produced the Hockey Stick was really quite basic and could easily run on the simplest computer. It was a program written to search through samples of data giving emphasis to any sample that gave a rising response in recent times and deliberately reducing the variations of samples at earlier times. Give it 100 samples with just one with recent rising results and a hockey stick shape would come out.
This program was deliberately created to give the desired result and in so doing blamed CO2 from the human burning of fossil fuels for an apparent massive rise in surface temperature. This is just what the environmentalists wanted and Dr Mann was acclaimed as a hero and a genius. Ironic isn’t it, that a computer program designed to crunch numbers in a specific way is called an Al-Gore-ithm.
The failings of Climate Models
Climate models have became ever more sophisticated using a number of parameters to determine change in temperature. None of the programs can make the observed temperature changes relate to the tiny steady increases in CO2 levels. So they all include fiddle factors referred to as forcings, such that an increase in CO2 would cause something else to happen which would in turn drive up the temperature.
The only result from such a process is a runaway warming in the future and that’s what all the computer models give. With the parameters and forcings used they only achieve a rough link between CO2 and temperature for periods of a few decades at most. None of them give even a poor link in historic or pre-historic times. Without being able to do that they must be deemed as having failed.
If they start putting other factors into the model to come closer to reality, like adding solar irradiance, and water vapour as a negative feedback, it is likely they would be able to achieve good correlation with past and present climate conditions. Unfortunately the models are stuck with CO2 as the culprit because without it they have no case, and no gravy train.
The demonised molecule
Some climate sceptics accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, though they usually claim its effects will be miniscule. Indeed without the fiddle factor forcings of the climate models some have theorised that a doubling of concentration from 300ppm to 600ppm might produce as much as a 0.4C increase in temperature.
Frankly I don’t even ‘believe’ that. At sea level a CO2 molecule will bump into other atmospheric molecules 100,000,000,000 times a second! Most of these collisions will be with the most abundant molecule nitrogen. A much smaller proportion will be with oxygen. Some will also be with water vapour and others with CO2 molecules.
What this makes clear is that when a CO2 molecule absorbs infra-red radiation from the surface and increases its energy level, it will most likely share that energy during a collision with another molecule rather than re-emit it as infra-red. This makes the CO2 molecule good at passing on energy and assisting in heating the rest of the atmosphere.
At a concentration of 300ppm of CO2, 95% of certain wavelengths will be absorbed within 20 metres of the surface. If you double the concentration, then all that happens is that 95% absorption occurs at 10 metres above the surface. Increased CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere actually increases the infra-red emission to space, helping to cool the planet.
So CO2 is a good conductor of energy and not an energy store. In my opinion it has no effect overall on surface temperature. Destroying western culture by reducing the use of cheap fossil fuels and replacing them with very expensive wind farms will NOT affect surface temperature. CO2 levels have no other way of affecting our constantly changing climate.
Lib/Lab/Con all support the Climate Change belief and all wish to continue taxing the population and spending this on unreliable wind and solar farms. Only a vote for UKIP will stop this nonsense with the abolition of the Department of Energy & Climate Change and its wasteful spending of £18B per annum.
(Editor’s Note: And when it comes to Sun spot activity and solar radiation, the New Scientist ran this article recently and yesterday the Mail ran a more sensationalised version of the “story”. )