Climate Tricks 30: On the term "CC Denial/Denier"

Have a friendly debate today in fb with a physician friend, DiVa. She showed a poster of Mr. David Koch saying he has “given $67 million to climate change denial groups since 1997.”

I commented that the term "climate change denial" is stoopid. I am a skeptic, and I do not deny climate change (CC). It is true. It has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen in the future. Climate changes from warming-cooling-warming-cooing-warming-cooling... in endless, natural cycles. CC is mainly natural or nature-made, not man-made.

On the contrary, climate alarmists deny that global cooling can also happen along with global warming. Alarmists deny that CC is cyclical, they deny that CC can be nature-made.

She admitted that CC is  both nature- and man-made, but “overuse of fossil fuels is reaching alarming levels…it wouldn't hurt to develop renewable energy.”

Global warming (GW) was true. It did happen -- roman warm period, medieval warm period, past century's warm period. Both GW and CC are true. What is being denied by the skeptical groups is the "man-made" adjective. It should be "nature-made GW" and "nature-made CC" and "nature-made global cooling".

Here's a good chart from Dr. Roy Spencer in a testimony at the US Senate last year. Roman WP and Medieval WP shown. They occurred more than 1,000 years ago, not a single car existed then, "man-made" CO2 emission except breathing almost zero, yet GW happened. Now the UN, Al Gore, etc. say it is mainly anthropogenic and did not mention RWP and MWP. 

Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”, July 19th 2013.

I have no problem with renewables. If people put up solar panels in their houses, or windmills in their farms or backyards, fine. It's their own money. What I dislike is forcing everyone else to subsidize solar and wind, like the feed in tariff (FIT) in the PH's renewable energy (RE) Act.

Even the warming scientists cannot an answer, how much of the recent warming was man-made and nature made? 10-90%? 25-75%? 50-50? 90-10? Assuming they give such estimate (for now it's zero), what explains for the roman warm period, medieval warm period, when there was not a single car, not even bicycles?

If GW will happen even if we throw all the existing cars and planes and malls, and global cooling will still happen even if everyone in the planet is driving a car, what's the point of all those "fight man-made GW/CC" policies? I only see one goal for their activities. More politics, more government, more bureaucracies, more junkets.

In an earlier discussion, a friend Samson P. observed that Climate Variabilities and Extremes (CVEs) has been cited too often by the warming camp as “proof” of anthropogenic CC. Yes, the alarmist groups say that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less snow and more snow, less cats and more cats, they are ALL proof of man-made CC. This is a very dishonest, sigurista argument. 

Many climate research have been done that point to the role of natural factors like the Sun, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), water vapor, volcanoes and geologic movements, etc. on planet Earth's climate. The problem is people won't find what they are not looking for. If they are so preoccupied to find only anthropogenic sources, that's what they will find, no matter how small, then amplify or exaggerate it. In IPCC AR4 (2007), of the 9 factors as contributors to past century's warming, 8 of them were anthropogenic.

Meanwhile, this is very informative. How much of warming in the past century was due to nature, how much from humans? Are GHGs evil or saviour? Without those GHGs, we should need perhaps 1/4 inch thicker skin, otherwise no life as we know it is possible, simply too cold.

Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective by Ira Glickstein, April 7, 2014.

And an update last month from Christopher Moncton of Brenchley, April 5, 2014, using global air/lower troposphere temperature data from the Remote Sensing System (RSS),

No global warming for 17 years 8 months

--------

See also::

Climate Tricks 26: CO2, Pollution and Climate Junkets, February 21, 2014 

Climate Tricks 27: More Risks and Danger Ahead, Send More Money to the UN, April 01, 2014
Climate Tricks 28: Earth Day Cartoons, April 23, 2014 

Climate Tricks 29: Bioethanol to Save the Planet, or Pollute the Planet?, May 03, 2014

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
www.nasa.gov

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
blogcritics.org

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.
www.drroyspencer.com

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/

CO2 is a Useful Gas

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fanaticism has resulted in the bastardization of a number of scientific facts. One of which is the declaration that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a harmful, pollutant and evil gas.

CO2 was demonized by the warming camp, saying that more of it in the past century contributed to "unprecedented global warming." And more of it now and the future will cause our planet's average temperature to rise by 4 C, even a worst case rise of 6.4 C, at the end of this century or just 90 years from now. Thus, they say, CO2 should be heavily regulated via various man-made restrictions like carbon taxes and carbon cap and trade.

The gas that we humans exhale is CO2. The gas that our dogs, cats and other pets, as well as our farm animals exhale, is CO2. Tha gas that our rice, corn, orchids, apples, mangos, other plants and trees use to produce their own food, is CO2. So how can this very useful gas now declared as an evil gas?

The quick answer is: politics, and deep desires by political institutions like governments and the UN, to have more power in their hands to regulate, to tax, people around the world.

There is a good article today in WUWT blog, CO2 is Plant Food (Clean Coal, Say WATT?) written by Ira Glickstein, a systems engineer. She gave this illustration and wrote:

The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 390 ppm (parts per million). Doubling or tripling that level in a CO2 greenhouse can greatly increase the yield of many crops. It turns out that 1000 to 1400 ppm is ideal for increasing production of tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce by from 20% to 50%; grains such as rice, wheat, barley, oats, and rye by from 25% to 64%; roots such as potatoes, yams, and cassava by from 18% to 75%, and legumes such as peas, beans, and soybeans by 28% to 46%! It is likely that genetic engineering could develop new food crops that would thrive in CO2 levels of 2000 ppm or even higher, greatly increasing yields.

CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to produce carbohydrates – the material of which their roots, body, and fruits consist. Increasing CO2 level reduces the time needed by plants to mature. CO2 enters the plant through microscopic pores that are mainly located on the underside of the leaf. This enables plants to combine CO2 and water, with the aid of light energy, to form sugar. Nutrients and water uptake usually increase with higher levels of CO2 and plants develop larger, more extensive root systems that allow them to exploit additional pockets of water and nutrients, and spend less metabolic energy to capture vital nutrients. The chemistry is as follows:

6CO2 {Carbon Dioxide) + 2H2O {water} + 4H2O (added water) + SOLAR ENERGY ==> C6H12O6 (sugar} + 6O2 {Oxygen}

Description of formula: The combustion process produced six Carbon Dioxide molecules (i.e. PLANT FOOD) plus 2 water molecules. To these we add four molecules of water plus the ENERGY from the Sun. This yields FOOD in the form of a sugar molecule as well as six molecules of Oxygen, released into the atmosphere to partially compensate for some of the Oxygen used during the combustion process.

There. Real science says that CO2 is a useful gas, while voodoo science says it is a pollutant and an evil gas. If people think that it is indeed a pollutant, then they should not kiss their partners/spouses lips to lips for long, or they should not talk close to their kids and friends. Otherwise, they will pollute and poison them.

This is a clear bastardization of basic biology that we took in elementary and secondary schools. They do it because of politics and their ecological-energy central planning agenda.

It is good that some independent scientists help combat this bastardization of basic science. Like the son-father authors of this new book, The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, Dr. Craig Idso and Dr. Sherwood Idso. The book is subtitled How humanity and the rest of the biosphere will prosper from this amazing trace gas that so many have wrongfully characterized as a dangerous air pollutant.

CO2 is a useful gas. It's the gas that we humans exhale, the gas that our pets and farm animals exhale, the gas that our crops and flowers use to produce their own food via photosynthesis. Thus, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more plant growth, more food production, stable food prices despite ever-rising global population. Climate alarmist-Malthusian pranks will be humiliated further.

Anthony Watts of WUWT has a new review of the book today at The Benefits of Carbon Dioxide. WUWT is among my favorite science and climate blogs. Lots of good papers there.

Two years ago, Dr. Craig Idso, a geographer-climatologist, partnered with Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, in writing and editing a comprehensive book, Climate Change Reconsidered. It's almost 900 pages long, published by the Heartland Institute. To read more about this book, visit the NIPCC website.

So let us not believe the UN and its attached environment/climate agencies (UNEP, WMO, IPCC, FCCC), Al Gore, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace, other alarmist environmental groups, when they say that CO2 is a pollutant and evil gas.