Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Climate Tricks 10: Demonize CO2 as a Pollutant and Evil Gas

Yesterday, I posted this photo in my facebook wall with this note,

CO2 is a useful gas. It's the gas that we humans exhale, that our pets and animals exhale, the gas that our flowers and plants use for their food production. Also the gas that comes out when you open your can or bottle of soda. CO2 is the gas of life. Only the UN, Al Gore, WWF, Greenpeace, other scammers say that CO2 is evil.

It attracted counter-comments from a friend, Doods de los Reyes. We have a long and civil debate after this, yesterday until today, see below. A bit long, get your popcorn and juice :-)

Doods De Los Reyes carbon monoxide yung poisonous to humans, but a large concentration of carbon dioxide can also affect health. Also, carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect similar to hydrogen. Humans activities are producing more carbon dioxide than our oceans and vegetation can absorb. In any ecosystem, balance is important.

Nonoy Oplas Yes, CO, NO, Pb, particulates, etc are harmful to humans. But CO2 is not. If CO2 is a pollutant gas, then couples should not kiss lips to lips for long, or they should not stay in enclosed places like a car or small room or office, otherwise they will be polluting each other as they breath and exhale.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is soooo small actually, nearly 400 parts per million (ppm), that is why CO2 is considered as a "trace gas". Divide 400/1,000,000, you get what, 0.004 percent, that's how small CO2 is in the total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. About 95 percent of all GHGs is water vapor, like evaporation from oceans, seas and lakes, evapotranspiration from plants, human perspiration, etc.

Doods De Los Reyes This NASA study says that without carbon dioxide as a contributing factor water vapor levels in the atmosphere won't rise as much, and that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Doods De Los Reyes This study states that the Earth's atmosphere is losing three oxygen molecules for every molecule of carbon dioxide that accumulates in the air. http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises

hehe sorry about the Steve Ballmer picture, dunno why Facebook is showing it in the article preview.

Nonoy Oplas That's typical pronouncements and "studies" from GISS, an office under NASA headed by James Hansen. Here's a simple explanation, if not rebuttal, to such GISS paper, from a former NASA scientist, currently a climatologist at UAH, Dr. Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/. His concluding sentence," Climate change — it happens, with or without our help."

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Ruelle Albert Castro sir pagkakatanda ko yung COs eh ginagamit lang as equivalent nung harmful elements na nasa ere? so parang it's not about CO2 per se but yung CO2 equivalent niya sa bawat nilalabas na harmful elements...

Nonoy Oplas See any "causality" or link between CO2 concentration and global temperature, average for Northern hemisphere, tropics and southern hemisphere, satellite data of the air/lower troposphere, as of end-May 2012, http://friendsofscience.org/

Doods De Los Reyes Roy Spencer is a scientist that has faced numerous criticism and refutals. http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Roy Spencer
Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA).

Some say Spencer is actually just protecting the interests of fossil fuel stakeholders instead of promoting real science. http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/06/roy-spencer-and-all-this-time-we-thought-you-were-a-scientist-weird/

Roy Spencer: And all this time, we thought you were a scientist. Weird.

and actually, there is such a thing as carbon dioxide poisoning which is caused by rebreathing exhaled air in confined areas or staying for long periods in areas with poor air circulation. Scuba divers can also suffer from this if their breathing equipment malfunctions or working improperly.

Nonoy Oplas Doods, the links you gave are typical "shooting the messenger, not the message". The administrators of http://wattsupwiththat.com/, the most popular science blog on climate, about 2+ million pageviews a month, is also accused of such. I can also dig dirt on James Hansen (dozens of negative articles about him), Al Gore, WWF, etc., but we have to focus on the issue -- graphs, charts, tables, satellite photos, other hard data -- and see if there is indeed clear causality bet CO2 and "unprecendented, unequivocal warming" of the planet. So far, there is none. Because climate change of warming-cooling-warming-cooling simply happens naturally, in endless multi-decadal cycles.

Watts Up With That?
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

About CO2 in scuba diving, yes, one can get poisoned if one will inhale CO2. We exhale CO2, not inhale it. The reason why we don't get poisoned as we kiss our partners lips to lips for long, is because while we may inhale portions of their CO2, we also inhale oxygen in more ample amount. Inhaling pure CO2, or pure CO, NO, Pb, etc can be harmful.

Doods De Los Reyes ok let's think about the issue and disregard any scientific information/disinformation that's out there. i think we can agree that the earth is heating up, the bone of contention is what is causing it. What is being discussed/disputed is whether humans have something to do with or not. So, if not due to human activity, what could be causing it? Let's assume for the moment it is due to a natural cycle. What controls this cycle? Some say it's the sun. Should we suppose that the sun itself warms up and cools down in a cycle? As far as we know, the sun is a ball of gas. This gas is simply burning itself out, so a cycle does not seem likely. Also, a cycle always has triggers. What if human activity is hastening the trigger with our industry, buildings, modern contrivances, and growing population? I'd rather err on the side of caution and raise a call for balance in everything that affects our ecosystem rather than simply shrug it off as something inevitable and go on without a care in the world. If the scientists would rather pursue their own agendas, they are simply denying the population the right information with which to act. But global warming is real and affecting our lives. If we can, we should do something about it.

Nonoy Oplas Global warming was true -- over the last 2,000 years alone, it occurred twice, during the medieval warm period (MWP), about 500 years of warming even if human CO2 emission was almost negligible, from about 600 to 1100 AD. Then global cooling occurred, especially the little ice age (LIA) for about 400 years, then global warming re-occurred in the past century, about 150 years. Then global cooling re-occurred from last decade. More rains, more flooding, more snow, are indicators of global cooling, not warming.

See my longer discussion here, also copy-pasted graphs and charts from scientific sources, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/03/climate-tricks-5-co2-clouds-and.html. The statement "the earth is heating up" to imply it is unprecedented, unequivocal and forever warming, is simply wrong.

Government and Taxes: Climate Tricks 5: CO2, Clouds and Positive Feedback

Giovanni Rodriguez Startng July 1, we are going to pay for Carbon Tax in Australia. At least I can say we are the first in the world to pay tax on this hoax, he, he.

Citos Buenaventura I have to side with Nonoy on this. I have been a long time believer in global warming, but the climate gate scandal exposed the weak arguments from the global warming camp. The worst part is that there seems to be manipulation of data to promote global warming.

Under certain conditions such as in scuba diving, even oxygen can be poisonous to humans. "Diving below 60 m (200 ft) on air would expose a diver to increasing danger of oxygen toxicity as the partial pressure of oxygen exceeds 1.4 bar (140 kPa), so a gas mixture must be used which contains less than 21% oxygen (a hypoxic mixture)." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Oxygen toxicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing m...

Nonoy Oplas Vanni, Australia may soon follow Germany whereUp to 600,000 people have cut off their power because energy prices are getting higher and higher, thanks to carbon cap and trade and related extortions to milk more money from average energy consumers.

Doods De Los Reyes Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson stated in a speech that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel is causing this global warming. If there's any sector that's most invested in funding research towards disproving that human activity, specifically burning fossil fields, contributes to global warming it is the oil companies.

Citos, I have no doubt that some advocates on both sides of the argument would stoop to manipulating or manufacturing data to support their claims. It doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist nor is it fixable. Global warming or not, it is undeniable that mankind is at an all time high with regards to extracting and using up the planet's natural resources because of too many people demanding more and more. Humans love their creature comforts and the planet is suffering because of it. Clean and renewable energy is available if governments were more willing to embrace it and bite the bullet. Population rise can be controlled through proper information.

Nonoy Oplas Wrong Doods,the single biggest funder of climate research worldwide is the US government. From 1989 to 2008, some $70 B were poured on climate research alone. The goal is clear -- more environmental regulations, more carbon and energy taxes, more carbon cap and trade schemes, more climate bureaucracies, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/the-well-funded-climate-business-follow-the-money/

The “well funded” climate business – follow the money
Flashback, Michael Mann said this on October 5th, 2010: Our efforts to communica...

Doods De Los Reyes you're missing my point. What I said was oil companies would be the biggest funders of research which seeks to disprove that use of their product is actually harming the environment. But here is Exxon Mobile's CEO admitting that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the culprit, though he stops short of saying we should all go away from fossil fuels but rather adapt to the effects.

Nonoy Oplas Nope, I see your point, it's just there is no data or serious study to prove the point that petrol companies are heavily funding research that shows that CC of warming-cooling-warming-cooling is mainly natural, not man-made. If you find one, please share -- how much per year, by whom, breakdown for climate science, climate tech, etc.

To your points above re the role of the Sun, it's not entirely the Sun per se, but the role of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) in more cloud formation, and how the Sun regulates or deflects the entry of more GCRs into the solar system, see here, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/05/climate-stupidity-10-sun-and-gcrs-dont.html

Government and Taxes: Climate stupidity 10: The Sun and GCRs don't affect climate?

Doods De Los Reyes I am not talking numbers, I am simply saying that oil companies would be the hardest hit if there is an international consensus to scale back consumption of fossil fuel-based oil products and tap into alternative energy instead. Hence any disinformation in the nature of tainted scientific research to back up the argument that human activity does not contribute to global warming would expectedly come by funding from oil companies. Yet, Exxon is saying global warming is real and carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are partly to blame. I understand your position regarding the possibly unnecessary taxation by governments in relation to carbon dioxide emissions. But your claim that carbon dioxide is the gas of life is overreaching IMO. Yes it is necessary for nature's cycle to continue at levels that we are accustomed or even dependent on, but I do not think that data and statements regarding carbon dioxide concentration levels having an impact on the atmosphere and our health should be discounted as baseless just because some sectors choose to play these up for their own selfish agenda.

Nonoy Oplas Precisely, it's only a guess, a hypothesis, and not a fact. Fact is that so many independent scientists do not buy the UN-Al Gore-WWF-Greenpeace racket of man-made warming, even if they do not receive a single centavo of "petrol money". I know of at least two heads of departments in UP College of Science for instance, who don't buy this scam.

Besides, hoping for "renewable energy" to power huge energy demand by the people (solar can not power buses, t trucks, ships, commercial planes, or huge malls, office residential towers, etc.) will not happen. Renewables are good only for off-grid areas, and they become "affordable" only via huge taxpayers subsidies.

Re CO2 level, ok, find new data saying that plants, flowers, trees, do not need CO2. More CO2 means more plant growth, more greening of the planet, see this report, "CO2 Is Greening The Planet: Savannahs Soon To Be Covered By Forests", http://www.bik-f.de/root/index.php?page_id=154

Biodiversität und Klima - Forschungszentrum | Current Press Release

Doods De Los Reyes I didn't say CO2 is not needed. As the saying goes, "anumang sobra ay masama." A balance has to be maintained. This is elementary science. On one side of the equation are the O2-breathing, CO2 generating humans whose numbers are ever-growing. On the other are CO2-sipping, O2-producing plants and vegetation. The balance is being upset by the increasing CO2 production by humans which cannot be absorbed fully by the dwindling number of plants on the planet and ends up in the atmosphere. This is regardless of the argument on whether carbon dioxide contribute to global warming or not, which as you have outlined is still being debated. To restore the balance, humans must take measures to keep constant or lessen the current levels of carbon dioxide emission while also planting more trees and improving the density of vegetation especially in areas with high levels of carbon dioxide. If burning fossil fuels is one of the contributors to high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then this is one activity that should also be limited. Now if Exxon, as one oil industry player which would be damaged heavily by this, is openly admitting that it is so, I would be more wont to give credence to such a statement instead of scientists whose loyalties can be bought or subjugated to personal ambitions.

Nonoy Oplas ok, so what is that "sobra"? Right now, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is nearly 400 ppm. Is 800 ppm "sobra at masama"? Is it 1,000 ppm?

One "bad news" is that more CO2 is good, not bad, for the plants, for humanity.Government and Taxes: CO2 is a Useful Gas, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/02/co2-is-useful-gas.html

Doods De Los Reyes yes I read a study that more CO2 leads to bigger plant growth and better O2 production. Did you read the link I posted regarding the link between O2 depletion and raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Are we supposed to care more for the CO2 needs of plants than the O2 requirements of humans? it matters less what the actual threshold of "sobra" is, what should be of greater import is that we have apparently reached it because data from the study points to displacement of O2 molecules by CO2 molecules. O2 makes up only 20% of the atmosphere. Apparently either we don't have enough plants to absorb our CO2 or we generate too much CO2, or more likely a combination of both. A statement such as yours that CO2 is the gas of life is not borne out by the fact that humans still breathe O2 and not CO2. Both are necessary (along with nitrogen) to sustain all life on this planet, not just human life.

Nonoy Oplas More CO2, more plants, grasses and trees. More plants and trees, more oxygen production, so nature is regulating itself. I have read the link you gave and its the first time I have encountered such literature that more CO2 means less O, weird. The article from Biodiversitat und Klima above says otherwise. As more CO2 is added, what used to be grassland in Africa willl turn to become forest. So it affirms the formulation that CO2 is the gas of life, a very important and useful gas that should not be demonized, overtaxed and over-regulated.

Doods De Los Reyes more CO2 does not automatically result in more plants. Man is stripping nature by cutting down trees, leveling mountains, reclaiming land from the seas, swamplands and deserts to build roads, buildings, bridges, etc. This type of human activity is depleting the plants which in turn increases the amount of unabsorbed CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have to consciously embrace a greener environment for the planet to continue to be self-sustaining. I am not in favor of the type of environmental tax that you are fighting against, but man has to be held accountable for its actions and informed properly as to what is necessary for continued sustainable existence.

Nonoy Oplas Land reclamation is good. The HK airport, Narita and Nagoya airports, many parts of Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, the SM MOA and CCP complex, were previously water. Now there are lots of structures which humanity benefits. Building more roads, bridges and airports are good, otherwise people cannot see and visit more rural areas of their countries and more exotic islands. It is the anti-development, anti-modernization of human civilization that is the implicit agenda of many green socialists actually. In my case, with better and new roads in NLEX and SCTEX, I can visit our agro-forest farm in Pangasinan pa more often, more conveniently :-)

Doods De Los Reyes i am not against modernization and urbanization, especially with the growing human population. since these cannot be avoided, man should consciously plant more trees and reserve more areas for vegetation in order to absorb the CO2 that our existence produces. Taking steps to decrease our CO2 emissions won't hurt as well.

Nonoy Oplas With my 20 yrs or so experience in agro forestry, I notice that in many bald mountains with little trees and invaded by cogon, other grasses and vines, the 1st thing to do actually is NOT plant trees because trees, like grasses, will grow naturally even in harsh grassland conditions. Rather, protect those naturally-growing trees from some human intrusion like those who cut and cut small trees for firewood, charcoal, poles, etc. Or deliberately setting fires in the mountains to burn old cogon and grasses, so that new grasses will grow for pasture by their cows. cheers.

Doods De Los Reyes i am not talking about planting trees in bald mountains. Plant or protect trees in urban areas instead of cutting them down. Urban areas are where plants and trees are more needed because that is where humans live and work, hence there is greater concentration of CO2 to absorb. Also, it is where the oxygen produced by plants would be beneficial to humans. Even in small places such as condo units, potted plants are recommended in order to recycle the CO2 emissions of the dwellers into O2 that can be circulated. Maintaining a green environment is one of the things I admire about Singapore, but it takes conscious thought and effort by government and citizens.

Meanwhile, here is an update on the Sun-climate theory, from Dr. David Archibald. He is saying that the current less active Sun will result in (more GCRs, that help in more cloud formation leading to) more low low cloud cover globally, resulting in less solar energy can penetrate into land and sea surface, resulting in global cooling.


The Sun has changed its character

Guest post by David Archibald
A number of solar parameters are weak, and none is weaker than the Ap Index:
Figure 1: Ap Index 1932 to 2026
Figure 1 shows the Ap Index from 1932 with a projection to the end of Solar Cycle 24 in 2026. The Ap Index has not risen much above the previous floor of activity in the second half of the 20th Century. It is also now far less volatile. With now less than a year to solar maximum in 2013, the Ap Index is now projected to trail off to a new low next decade....
Figure 4: UAH Monthly Temperature versus Low Global Cloud Cover
The cloud cover data for this figure was provided by Professor Ole Humlum. There is a significant relationship between low global cloud cover and global temperature. Assuming that the relationship is linear and remains linear at higher cloud cover percentages, this figure attempts to derive what cloud cover percentage is required to get the temperature decline of 0.9°C predicted by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum in their paper entitled “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” available at:http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf
Figure 4 suggests that the predicted result will be associated with a significant increase in cloudiness.

See also:
Climate Stupidity 25: Wetter or Drier, We Send them More Money, December 29, 2011
Climate Tricks 1: 4.5 Billion People to Die This Year, January 03, 2012
Climate Tricks 2: Solar Activities (TSI, Ap index, Neutrons) Don't Matter, January 25, 2012
Climate Tricks 3: Solid Waste Management to Save the Planet, February 09, 2012
Climate Tricks 4: Don't Use Air Temp. Data, Don't Mention the Sun, March 09, 2012
Climate Tricks 5: CO2, Clouds and Positive Feedback, March 21, 2012
Climate Tricks 6: Using NASA for Political Science, April 11, 2012
Climate Tricks 7: On a "New Ice Age" and Temperature Cheating, May 01, 2012, 
Climate Tricks 8: Catastrophic Scare for Climate Money, May 16, 2012

Climate Tricks 9: Ignore Skepticism, Flat-lining Temps, June 13, 2012


Al said...

In it simplest form, the AGW mechanism is "CO2 increase causes water vapour positive feedback which then causes the huge temperature increase." AGW acknowledges that without the positive water vapour feedback, the CO2 increase alone will not cause the huge temperature increase.

With the billions of dollars poured into AGW research, not one research has ever produced factual data showing the AGW mechanism ever happened in the past or is even happening now. Climate models cannot be considered as factual data because these can be programmed to give any result that the modeller wants. Therefore, the idea that "CO2 increase causes water vapour positive feedback which then causes the temperature increase" (AGW mechnisam) is nothing but conjecture.

Now, compare the non-factual climate models with the factual ice cores data. The ice cores data show the temperature increased prior to the CO2 increase. Based on this fact alone, it is highly unlikely that the CO2 increase caused the temperature increase. Invoking a complex mechanism (AGW) to prove a highly unlikely interpretation of the temperature-CO2 data (in other words, CO2 driving the huge temperature increase) should be backed by factual data. None exist!!! Therefore, the main driver of climate change is NOT CO2. In fact, research have shown that natural causes driver climate change, NOT man-made CO2.

Anonymous said...

"Is CO2 a pollutant?"