ENVIRONOMICS (NZ)
TRUST
A
balanced
view
Ensuring
that
evidence-based
science
is
at
the
forefront
of
discussion
for
policy
development
in
New
Zealand
Please note; this has been reprinted from and article written by a Mr Ian Wishart,
13
Stratford
Avenue,
Milford,
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND mobile: 021
489
497 email: pjm.forensic.eng@gmail.com
11
October 2019
Prof.
Juliet Gerrard Chief
Science Advisor to the Prime Minister Email
addresses:
info@pmcsa.ac.nz
and
j.gerrard@auckland.ac.nz
Dear
Prof. Gerrard
On
20 August I sent an email to you, asking you to please give one -
just one - example of the
verifiable physical evidence that
convinced
you that the increasing concentration of carbon
dioxide in our planet's atmosphere is causing a climate crisis."
On
22 August, to your great credit, you
replied,
referring me to “Neukom, Raphael, Barboza, Luis A., Erb, Michael
P., Shi, Feng, Emile-Geay, Julien, Evans, Michael N., Franke,
Jarg, Kaufman, Darrell S., Lacke, Lucie, Rehfeld, Kira, Schurer,
Andrew, Zhu, Feng, Brannimann, Stefan, Hakim, Gregory J., Henley,
Benjamin J., Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier, McKay,
Nicholas,
Valler, Veronika,
von Gunten, Lucien 2019: Consistent
multidecadal variability in global
temperature reconstructions
and simulations
over the Common Era.
Nature Geoscience,
volume 12, issue 8, p 643-649
(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0)
and references therein." When,
in the link that you provided
(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0),
I read the following:
“Reconstructions and simulations qualitatively agree on the
amplitude of the unforced
global mean multidecadal temperature variability, thereby increasing
confidence in future
projections of climate change on these timescales.”, I realised
that
your response, contrary to that for which I had asked you,
had
not provided actual physical evidence at all. Instead,
it referred to the output of computer models, which are always
subject to the old adage
– GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. I
therefore referred your link to Dr Tom Sheahen, who holds B.Sc. and
Ph.D. degrees in physics
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has had a long
career in the USA as a physicist.
This
is a copy and paste of Dr Sheahen's response:
This
paper in "Nature" is another example of a correlation –
which must never be confused with
causation.
The
abstract talks about the CMIP5 computer simulations - and a computer
simulation must
never be confused with actual observational data.
From
the point of view of practicing science correctly, it distresses me
to realize how many
people
are unable to tell the difference between computer models and actual
data.
Consider
this
sentence:
Reconstructions
and
simulations
qualitatively
agree
on
the
amplitude of
the
unforced
global
mean
multidecadal
temperature
variability,
thereby increasing confidence in future projections
of
climate change on these timescales.
"Reconstructions
and simulations" simply don't cut
it.
Moreover, "qualitatively agree" is a
pretty
weak statement
- "how
much?" would be the better question to ask. And
"future
projections"
are utterly worthless. The famous picture that John Christy showed to
the
American
Congress a few years ago (attached) clearly displays the enormous
discrepancy
between
computer models and actual data.
You
do
not "prove" that CO2 causes temperature to rise by finding
a correlation. Both T and
CO2 have varied
a
great deal over the centuries, sometimes correlated, sometimes not
correlated.
Over the long haul, data indicates that the CO2 concentration rises
about
800
years
after
the temperature rises. Emphatically NOT a case of CO2 causing
change
in T. Maybe
the other way around is plausible.
The
reason
for the long-term uncertainty is that all data from long ago is
necessarily "proxy"
data, because the thermometer was only invented a few centuries ago,
and
nobody
ever
measured CO2 until the 19th century. So alternative indicators (known
as "proxy measurements)
were invoked
- a typical example is the isotopic-composition of oxygen
from
stalactites in a cave in Oman. Tree rings are a very common "proxy
measurement," but
tree rings can become widely variable because of different moisture
from time to time.
Accurate
measurements of CO2 began in 1958 (at Mauna Loa, Hawaii). The ONLY
really good
temperature data has come from satellite measurements, which date
from 1979. Thus, the
record is only 40 years long. Variations taking place on the order of
a century or so won't
show up in so short a record. So we'll have
to wait several hundred years to observe whether
or not CO2 varies about 800 years behind Temperature swings. In the
near term, the thing for scientists to do is to insist that
correlation must never be confused
with causation.
Tom
Sheahen
tsheahen@alum.mit.edu
Here's
a quotation from your “12 Questions” interview with Jennifer
Dann, published in the NZ
Herald on 9 October 2018:
1
What's
your No 1 goal in your new role as the PM's science adviser?
“To
build trust in science. I'm keen to open conversations with the media
about how we can give the public a balanced view, rather than a
polarised debate of this scientist v that scientist which fails to
explain complex issues. We also need to be more honest about
what science can do and when.
We might achieve a breakthrough that could lead to
a cure for cancer in 10 years' time but that gets distilled into the
headline 'Scientists find
cancer cure'. We've cured it so many times, according to the news,
that it undermines
trust. We need to find a way to get people interested in the story
without overselling
it. I had practice persuading the public of the value of basic
research chairing
the Royal Society's Marsden Council for six years and hope to build
on that.”
For
at least the last 30 years, I have been asking scientists who believe
that anthropogenic CO2
causes global warming, just as I asked you, to provide me with one
piece of verifiable physical
evidence that convinced them that increasing atmospheric
concentration of CO2 – let
alone
the
tiny
proportion
of it
that
is anthropogenic –
causes our planet's mean air temperature
to rise. So far, nobody
has been able to.
Relatively
recently, somebody gave me as their “evidence' a graph on the UK
Royal Society's website
at
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/
This
graph was produced from the data resulting from a massive research
project
undertaken
in
the 1990s to recover
and analyse ice core samples at the Vostok site in central Antarctica
(by scientists from Russia and France).
By 2003
the results had been fully analysed. However, the
Royal Society erroneously uses that graph to claim that it is
evidence that increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
causes
the
planet's mean temperature to rise. However, closer examination of the
data, as shown in APPENDIX 1, reveals
that over some 800,000
years there was always a lengthy delay of approximately 800 years,
between changes
in
earth's temperature and the subsequent change to atmospheric CO2
concentration.
However,
far from providing proof that CO2 causes global warming, The Vostok
ice core data actually shows that, for the past 800,000 years, CO2
concentration peaked approximately 800 years
after
each
peak in the planet's mean temperature.
Therefore,
as Dr Tom Sheahan points out in the text of his email reproduced
above, the only possible conclusion from the UK Royal Society's graph
is that CO2 does not cause global warming.
The
most likely reason that atmospheric CO2 concentration peaks lag
behind each peak in the planet's
mean temperature by approximately 800 years is that as our planet
warms up during 'climate change', rising ocean temperatures cause CO2
to de-gas from the oceans. This process
follows basic laws of physics. If
passed, the Zero Carbon Bill would inevitably cause a significant
reduction in New Zealand's
food production. This would be in blatant contravention of the Paris
Accord, of which
New Zealand is a signatory. Article 2 of the Paris Accord
requires governments to avoid
mitigation measures that affect food production. Growing numbers of
farms are being purchased
by corporates who are planting trees in order to profit from carbon
credits. Up to half
of sheep and beef farms are predicted to be
converted
to radiata pine forests.
The
government's entire climate policy is not based on physical evidence.
Rather, it is based on the output
of
computer models, which have been proven over and over again to
predict increases
in temperature by approximately a factor of three. There is simply no
physical evidence that increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 -
let alone mankind's very small contribution
– have any significant effect on our planet's mean temperature.
There
is no physical evidence that CO2, CH4 and N2O have ever had any
impact
on climate,
although
all three are regarded as "greenhouse gases". The
approximate mean atmospheric concentrations of the gases in the
atmosphere above New Zealand are Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 21%, water
vapour 2%, Argon 0.9%, CO2 0.0415%, CH4 0.00019%,
and N20 0.00003%.
Because
of their tiny concentration numbers, CO2, CH4 and N20 are called
trace gases.
When
emitted to the atmosphere, CH4 (methane) has a half-life of
approximately 12-5 years, oxidising
to become water vapour (H2O) and CO2 – so cows' belches are
absolutely harmless. A
simple explanation as to why cows' belches are harmless is that when
a cow eats grass, its subsequent belches cause some of the carbon in
the grass to be emitted as methane. Grass,
in order to re-grow, absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and emits
oxygen, in a process known as photosynthesis. Then,
when the cow eats more grass, it continues the cycle by belching
methane.
The
paper
“GREENHOUSE
GASES
–
A MORE REALISTIC VIEW” (APPENDIX
2)
by
Dr
Jock Allison and Dr Tom Sheahan, published in the September 2018
issue of “The
Journal”,
gives more detail on this. Methane
production from livestock is therefore proportional to the number of
livestock. As world
population growth slows, which it will inevitably do as people become
wealthier, the world's population will stabilise, and so will the
world's livestock numbers, again rendering methane
a non-problem.
According
to well-known climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger in an opinion piece
in the NZ Herald
of 6 September 2019
(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c
id=1&objectid=12265413),
CH4 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 84, meaning that a
molecule of CH4 is reputed to be 84 times as potent
as a molecule of CO2 in causing global warming. However,
as shown by Dr Jock Allison
and Dr Tom Sheahan in their paper
reproduced as
APPENDIX 2,
the number 84 grossly overstates the GWP of CH4 by a factor of at
least 10, making its GWP less than 8.4, and
as the concentration of CO2 exceeds the concentration of CH4 by a
factor of approximately
218, all of the CH4 currently in the atmosphere has about 8.4/218,
i.e. 0.39, i.e. less
than 40% of the global warming effect of CO2.
As
you well know, CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Since 1880,
when the atmospheric CO2 level was approximately 280 ppm, the
subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 has led to significant
greening of the planet. As you well know, the three things essential
for plant growth,
apart
from nutrients, are water, CO2 and light for photosynthesis. Because
plants thrive on a CO2 concentration of 1000-2000 ppm, many
greenhouse
owners find it cost
effective
to inject bottled CO2 into their greenhouses, and of course, this has
no measurable effect
on their workers.
Human
industrial activity has materially increased the level of atmospheric
CO2 since the 1970's.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 had no effect on
climate between 1940 and 1975, when the climate cooled, or between
1976 and 1998, when the climate warmed. After 2000 and
up to the present date, the climate hasn't warmed and yet the
concentration of atmospheric CO2 has accelerated even higher
(mainly due to emissions from developing countries such as India and
China).
Dr
Jock Allison and Dr Tom Sheahan in their paper reproduced as APPENDIX
2,
point out
that:
“There
has been no significant increase in the world's temperature in the
last couple of decades, the well-known and accepted 'pause'. Over
this short time there has been about one-third of all human GHG
emissions ever, and
the
concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased
more than 10%. Apart from some variation up and down, the mean
temperature has
not shifted much, certainly not at the rate suggested by the IPCC
models. This is good
evidence
that CO2 is not the main driver of the world's temperature and/or
does not have a major
effect on the world's temperature.”
The
true cause of variations in earth's atmospheric temperature is
already hypothesised to be the sun, because
the warming during the 20th century to 1940 matches greater solar
activity, the reduction in temperature from 1940 to 1975 matches the
reduction in solar activity, the increase
from 1975 to 1998 matches the increase in solar activity and the
pause since 1998 matches
the start of something which may prove to be catastrophic...global
cooling.
Indeed,
global
cooling has recently been forecast to be without precedent in the
last 200 years. This latest
eventuality is now agreed between all of the space agencies of
countries that have them.
The
reason why CO2 is inconsequential is due to the effects of the
Beer-Lambert law that has been known of for about a century. This law
provides that the largest thermal absorption for CO2
occurs for the first 20 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and thereafter the
thermal absorption rate
Snip: my own addition there should have been a slide but this is the calculation which produced the slide ;
Beer's Law Example Calculation
A sample is known to have a maximum absorbance value of 275 nm. Its molar absorptivity is 8400 M-1cm-1. The width of the cuvette is 1 cm. A spectrophotometer finds A = 0.70. What is the concentration of the sample?
To solve the problem, use Beer's law:
A = εbc
0.70 = (8400 M-1cm-1)(1 cm)(c)
Divide both sides of the equation by [(8400 M-1 cm-1)(1 cm)]
c = 8.33 x 10-5 mol/L
Importance of Beer's Law
Beer's law is especially important in the fields of chemistry,
physics, and meteorology. Beer's law is used in chemistry to measure the
concentration of chemical solutions, to analyze oxidation, and to
measure polymer degradation. The law also describes the attenuation of
radiation through the Earth's atmosphere. While normally applied to
light, the law also helps scientists understand the attenuation of
particle beams, such as neutrons. In theoretical physics, the
Beer-Lambert law is a solution to the Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BKG)
operator, which is used in the Boltzmann equation for computational
fluid dynamics.
To continue;
This
relationship is the basis of the MODTRAN atmospheric model,
University of Chicago.
The
net effect is that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 has been
almost totally saturated
at 280 ppm (which was the pre-industrial level) and after that each
incremental effect
is so small as to be
insignificant. This also means that any attempts to reduce the level
of
CO2 will be completely ineffective, firstly because human CO2
emissions are less than 4% of
all emissions, and secondly because the level of emissions reductions
required to reduce the temperature would take humanity back to well
into pre-industrial times. Given the planet's present
population, that is not only not feasible, but is also simply
impossible.
Without
doubt it is the sun that provides more than 99% of the earth's energy
and the history of
solar cycles corresponds closely with the history of earth’s
climate over a period of up to 5,000
years. The Russians and Chinese adhere to these in their planning,
yet
the OECD does not.
Over
longer
periods it is agreed that earth's movements within the solar system
over
20,000-, 40,000-
and 100,000-year cycles, described as "Milankovich
cycles" three factors - eccentricity,
obliquity
and precession – determine the sequence of 90,000-year ice ages and
11,000-year
interglacial periods. After
the solar cycles, it is air movement, ocean currents and the effects
of water vapour and the
clouds, that provide the greatest impact on atmospheric temperatures
and the climate. CO2 has
no discernible effect.
When
the theory of human impact on climate change was first promulgated
during the mid 1980's,
it was an interesting theory, in part because famous names such as
Angstrom and Bohr had
categorically ruled it out (due to the Beer-Lambert law - easily
repeatable and conclusive) but at the time it was considered worthy
of investigation.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
theory was completely discredited by 2004,
but
its name
was changed to Climate Change! As we all know and acknowledge, the
climate changes
all
the time, and always has!
All
but
one
of
the
more
than
100
computer
climate
models,
costing hundreds of billions of dollars over 30 years, have
failed in their ability to come close to predicting the climate. The
Russian
model alone, which is based on the solar cycles and not on CO2, is an
accurate predictor. The conclusion from this is surely that CO2 does
not affect the climate in any significant
way.
That
CO2 is not a pollutant has been well proven. If the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 drops
below 150 ppm all plant life and therefore all animal life on our
planet will come to an end.
With
the support of the UN IPCC, the ‘anthropogenic global warming'
non-science rolls on, with active promotion of the lie as truth by
the globalist press barons, as evidenced by the recent (globally
coordinated in 170 media organisations worldwide) series of articles
in the mainstream press, including the NZ Herald. Simply put, passing
the Carbon Zero Bill would not only be in blatant contravention of
Article
2 of the Paris Accord, but would also wreck the New Zealand economy
and cause a rapid
deterioration in the wellbeing of New Zealanders – the poorest
being worst affected. Minister of Climate Change James Shaw has been
telling farmers that the prices for their products in a carbon
neutral environment will command high premiums in world markets. This
of course is nonsense, as we have hundreds of thousands of tonnes
of meat and dairy products,
being sold mainly into commodity / ingredient global markets. One
obviously thinking person, David Segel, has written his personal
story of his journey to uncover the truth about anthropogenic climate
change:
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled
1e3ae4712ace
I
suggest that you take time to read it. Anthropogenic Global Warming,
aka
‘Climate Change', is Government policy
throughout the world.
Governments pay
a)
all
of the Govt departments, including the scientists,
b)
Almost
all of the Education Sector, including the Universities and their
Scientists,
c)
Pay most of the research Grants.
Around
the world, those who disagree with their government's line are being
ostracised by their
peers and many have lost their jobs. When
given the opportunity to provide physical evidence that anthropogenic
CO2 emissions,
let
alone any CO2 emissions from natural causes, have a significant –
let alone dangerous - effect on our planet's mean temperature, you
were unable to do so.
Therefore, the Environomics
(NZ) Trust, Inc.
hereby calls
on you to explain to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
the truth
that:
The
increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 has no significant effect
on our planet's mean temperature, and The
Carbon Zero Bill would achieve nothing useful but would decimate the
businesses -
especially farming businesses – and wellbeing of New Zealanders
from all walks of life,
and thus would decimate New Zealand's economy. It would also
adversely affect the
mental health of many New Zealanders, especially
farmers who would bear the brunt of the economic damage.
Once
Prime
Minister
Ardern
knows
and
understands
the
truth,
she
hopefully
will
have
the
political
nous
to
explain
to
the
nation
that
she:
1.
is
keen
to
help
you
to
re-"build
trust
in
science”
2.
has
withdrawn
the
Zero
Carbon Bill
3.
will
move
to
withdraw
New
Zealand
from
the
Paris
Accord
4.
will
move
to
end
all
–
both central government and local government - subsidies and
incentives
for so-called 'green' energy
and electric cars.
Sincerely
Pq
Morgan
Peter
J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching Honorary
Chief Executive Officer, Environomics (NZ) Trust, Inc. Consulting
Forensic Engineer, Marine Designer, Technical Writer, Sub-editor &
Technical Editor
APPENDIX
1
Refutation
of the UK Royal Society's
claim
on its website that physical evidence shows
that
CO2
causes global warming
The
UK Royal Society claims that a graph on its website, constructed from
the Antarctic Vostok ice cores, is evidence showing that CO2 causes
global warming. The
URL for the graph is:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/
Below
is an electronic image of the graph, showing at first sight
remarkable correlation.
However,
when the time axis is stretched out, the claim is shown to be
spurious. The graph actually shows that every time our planet warms,
usually in response to increasing
radiation from our sun, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
increases, but with a time lag of approximately 800 years. Here's an
electronic image of a 20,500-year vertical slice of the above graph,
for a period approximately 340,000 years ago:
image
above, with a stretched-out time axis, shows that the peak in carbon
dioxide concentration lags behind the peak in temperature by
approximately 800 years.
This graph therefore shows unequivocally that increases in
atmospheric temperature lead
increases
in carbon dioxide concentration, not the other way around as the
global warming fanatics have been trying for more than 30 years to
convince us! Correlation, however, is not
causation! However, the micro-analysis of the graph,
just performed, shows conclusively that rising temperature leads CO2
concentration. This is because some 98% of the carbon dioxide on our
planet is dissolved
in the oceans,
and as the planet warms up, dissolved carbon dioxide evaporates
(degasses) at a faster rate from the oceans, thus increasing carbon
dioxide concentration
in the atmosphere.
Conclusion:
Increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere
demonstrably DOES
NOT cause
global warming, aka ‘climate change'!
JOCK
ALLISON
AND THOMAS P. SHEAHEN
GREENHOUSE
GASES - A MORE REALISTIC VIEW
The
contributions of water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH) and nitrous oxide (N2O) to the warming of the atmosphere are
reviewed. Water
vapour and clouds are responsible for 80-90% or more of the
greenhouse gas
(GHG) effect. CO2 has a finite influence. However, contrary to the
common assertions, the contribution of methane and N2O to world's
total emissions is negligible. We therefore conclude that expensive
attempts to reduce human emissions
can
have
negligible effects only on regional and world temperature. Therefore,
the generally accepted effects of CH4 and N,O as infrared absorbing
GHGs, causing about 50% of the total New Zealand emissions, must
therefore be urgently reassessed, and to a lesser extent the
quantitative
role
of CO2. It is therefore suggested
that CH4 and N2O be removed from New
Zealand's Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and that the supporting case for
such treatment be prepared for negotiation with our international
partners towards eventual withdrawal from the Paris 2015 Climate
Agreement.
Introduction
The
rotating planet earth is warmed by incoming sunlight in the daytime
and cooled by outgoing infrared radiation at night (Figure
1A).
The
planet never actually reaches equilibrium. The real atmosphere
contains a varying percentage of water vapour
(dry air is an idealised concept found only in the laboratory). The
principal atmospheric gases N2 and O2 have no role in cooling.
The
black body curves shown in Figure
1B
are displaced in
wavelength (shifted horizontally), depending on temperature.
Molecules radiating from different altitudes will
do so at corresponding temperatures.
The
cooling process involves multiple steps: heat from the
surface
is
radiated
back,
absorbed by the various GHGs (mainly water
vapour), and transported upward by the convection of
moist air to the upper troposphere, where clouds form. Throughout
this journey from the surface molecular collisions, emission
and re-absorption of radiation continues. The
'greenhouse
effect' is attributed to gases that absorb and emit solar
electromagnetic energy in a particular part of the electro magnetic
spectrum - ultraviolet (UV), visible, infrared light. The final
cooling step (emission to space) takes place via infrared radiation
leaving the upper troposphere and stratosphere.
The
down-going radiation from the sun is in the UV and
visible light part of the spectrum (0.1 to 1.2 microns wavelength),
and here there is some interception of energy by
clouds and a little by water vapour. There is virtually no effect
of the GHGS, CO2, CH4, and N20 at the wavelength of
the incoming radiation from the sun.
All
of the upgoing thermal radiation is in the 3 to 70 micron
range of the spectrum, where the GHGs have some effect
in absorbing the up-radiated heat from the earth's surface. This will
be discussed in greater detail later.
Computer
models used by the IPCC and many climate scientists
attempt to account for all these mechanisms, and
make future predictions about planetary conditions, especially
temperature.
Figure
1A: Incoming solar radiation (energy) in and infrared emissions out
Figure
1B : Incoming solar radiation (energy) at 0.2 to 3 microns
and outgoing thermal radiation at 3 to 70 microns
The
IPCC concentrates
mainly on anthropogenic
(human) emissions, and
ignores natural contributions of the GHGs from the planet and the
ubiquitous
water vapour, both of which also must be included in any sensible
consideration
of the effects on world temperature.
GHGs
and their contribution to global warming (aka climate change and more
recently climate disruption") are
of national interest in view of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement,
and the commitments New Zealand has made to reduce emissions of these
gases in the future. In addition to the known GHGs, ozone is
recognised for its protective
effect against UV radiation from space and will not
be discussed further. CH4 and N20 make up almost half
of New Zealand's assessed GHG emissions, but are insignificant
in comparison with CO2
Mistakenly,
water vapour is not included in any assessments of GHG effects by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a crucial omission.
The IPCC concentrates mainly on anthropogenic (human) emissions, and
ignores natural contributions of the GHGS from the planet and the
ubiquitous water vapour, both of which also must be included in any
sensible consideration of
the effects on world temperature
The
potential effectiveness of GHGs in influencing temperature depends
essentially on five factors: 1.
The capability of individual molecules to absorb
or
radiate heat. 2.
Their relative concentration in the atmosphere. 3. Whether each can
actually absorb effectively (as heat
is
radiated to and from the earth) depends on both the location of their
spectral bands and the energy
distribution
of the earth's outgoing radiation. 4. Competition for absorption by
and between other gases. 5.
Phase change of water, evaporation, condensation
and
precipitation. These
factors will be discussed in turn.
Capability
of individual
molecules In
the 1860s, John Tyndall demonstrated that some atmospheric and other
gases absorbed heat from black body
radiation. He reported that CH4 and N20 both
absorbed
about four times as much heat as carbonic acid, the original name for
CO2. While his observations were not truly quantitative, this
estimated value is many times less than indicated by the adopted
Global Warming
Potential (GWP) figures from the (IPCC) - see values
in Table
1.
GWP
is a calculated ratio that the IPCC uses to estimate how much heat a
GHG absorbs in the atmosphere (IPCC AR5, pp. 210-216). It compares
the amount of heat trapped by a very small amount of the gas in
question to the same additional very small amount of the comparator
gas,
CO2 in this instance. This
value
for 'radiative forcing' is
supposed to estimate the relative capability of a GHG molecule
to have an effect on warming in comparison with
one
molecule of CO2. GWP is a concept promulgated by the
IPCC and is accepted (by governments) as the basis for
the calculation of their country GHG inventories. More of that later.
The
individual molecules of CO2, H20 and N20 are similar
in structure. Their relative concentrations in the atmosphere
are in Table 1 - CO2 is now 410 ppm.
The
GWP values are from the 2007 IPCC AR4 report. In 2013, the IPCC
adjusted the GWP for CH4 up to 28 and for
N2O downwards to 265. Effectively these values are almost
certainly wrong because of the faulty conceptual approach embedded in
the very definition of GWP. Recent reports
also emphasise that the treatment of reputedly
*The
amount
of water
vapor in
the
air varies according
to
temperature
and density of air
(usually
~1-3% of
troposphere
Water
vapor levels
vary strongly
according to region, so rates
of change
and warming
potential
cannot
be assessed
long-lived
gases such as CO2 in the same way as short lived
gases (such as CH4, 12 years) is not environmentally credible
(Allen et al., 2018). This same approach must also
be considered for N2O because the half life of this gas in the
atmosphere is about half that for CO2. Allen et
al.'s (2018) approach if adopted may reduce CHA's assessed
effect by about three-quarters, or New Zealand's calculated
emissions by about 30%. Quite evidently, the 'official' GWP numbers
asserted by the IPCC are unreliable and
controversial.
Recent
calculations (Happer & van Wijngaarden, unpublished
data) clearly show that the absorptive capability
of individual molecules of the GHGs is not as widely
different as the GWP values might suggest (Table
2).
This
refutes the popular notion and the IPCC's claim that
CH4 and N20 are much more powerful GHGs than CO2.
The reason for this is that the assumed radiative forcing
for CO2 is much more strongly saturated than the
other gases (Figure
2).
Because
of this saturation additional CO2 above 400 ppm
has a miniscule effect on warming in comparison with
additions to the very low unsaturated concentrations for N,O and CH4.
However, the comparative effects of CH4
and N20 on warming are derived with no cognisance of any competitive
effects of water vapour throughout the atmosphere, or the fact that
there is very little energy
transfer from the earth at the frequency on the electromagnetic
spectrum at which these trace gases might
have an effect. More of this later.
Relative
concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere Omitting
water vapour, the major gas components of a 'dry' atmosphere are
nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2)
and argon (Ar),
at 78.1%, 20.9% and 0.92% by volume, respectively, all of which do
not absorb heat. This leaves 0.1% by volume
for the remaining gases. CO2 at 400 ppm is the largest
of the trace gases. CH4 and N20 are very
small, just
traces in effect, 1.7
and
0.3 ppm, respectively (Table
1).
But
the real atmosphere is not dry.
Water
vapour is widely variable:
a very low percentage at the poles, but up to 4% in the
tropics. For the purposes of comparisons and discussion in this
article, we have assumed it is 1.5% or 15,000 ppm. Of
course, any amount of atmospheric water vapour will proportionately
reduce the percentage of all the other gases.
Further
the amount of anthropogenic CO2 (human induced)
produced each year is less than 5% of the total CO2
entering the atmosphere. Now, how are these gases supposed to cause
all of the warming the world has experienced since the Little Ice Age
(LIA)? In the teaching and scientific
literature the estimates vary.
Table
2 shows that the capability of the individual molecules to absorb
heat (radiative forcing) is of the
same
order of magnitude. This seems reasonable since
the molecular structure of the four molecules is not
enormously different. Also, the absorptive value differences
between the molecules is very
similar to what
Tyndall found in the 1860s.
Most
of
carbon's
warming
effect comes
in
the first
20ppm
Atmospheric
CO2 concentration (ppm) *Assumes a
climate
sensitivity
of 0.15°C/W/m2
following Lindzen and Choi,
2009
Figure
2: Increasing levels of CO2 cause less and less warming effect
Source:
Adapted from Lindzen & Choi
(2009).
This
relationship
is
the basis
of the
MODTRAN
atmospheric
model, University
of
Chicago.
Figure
4: Breakdown of the 'natural greenhouse effect by contributing
gas. As
halocarbons are
industrial gases they are
not represented here Source:
IPCC Report
(1992)
Of
all the CO2 going into the atmosphere each year, 5% or less is
anthropogenic, in
comparison with
CH4, about 40% of which is from
natural sources, and
similarly estimates of naturally
occurring N20 are about 60%.
The
estimates in Figure
3 above suffice for the discussion. CO2
is generally regarded as causing about 60% of the warming from GHGS,
CH4 15%, and N,O about 5%. Clearly the
'agricultural gases', although at very minor concentrations in the
atmosphere, are estimated as being major causes of the total warming
effect on the world from GHGs.
A
common representation of the effect of the relative effects
of the GHGs is in Figure
3, which 'conveniently eliminates
the dominant effect of water vapour.
The
2013 IPCC Report, AR5 (Physical Science Basis, Chapter
8, p. 666) states: 'Water vapour is the primary GHG in the earth's
atmosphere. The contribution of water
vapour
to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that
of CO2 depends on the accounting method, but can be
considered to be approximately two to three times greater.
Further, the IPCC's 1992 report indicates that water
vapour accounts for 55% of the total GHGs effect,
and
that clouds account for a further 17%
(Figure
4).
Many
scientific assessments consider that the total effect of water vapour
is more like 90%, much more than the
72% suggested
by the IPCC. Even at a value of 72% for water vapour, the proportion
of the GHG effect on the world temperature, which international
governments are
ambitiously seeking to diminish through the reduction of
the GHGs going into the atmosphere, is far less than conveyed
in communications to the general public through official
channels or the media.
Of
all the CO2 going into the atmosphere each year, 5%
or less is anthropogenic, in comparison with CH, about
40% of which is from natural sources, and similarly
estimates
of naturally occurring N20 are about 60%. It is frequently claimed
that without the anthropogenic contribution of CO 2 the amount of
natural CO2 being released
into the atmosphere would equal the amount of
CO2 being absorbed each year by the biosphere, and mankind is blamed
for the absence of the balance.
Governments
rely heavily on the IPCC's reports and claims about GHGs causing or
threatening to cause dangerous
warming. As shown above, however, the IPCC's
reports fail to provide the complete picture, especially about water
vapour. The IPCC relies on General Circulation
Models (GCMs) to predict future temperatures, and when run with and
without GHGs, to estimate mankind's
contribution to warming. Because water vapour
added
to the atmosphere is present there for only a few days
it is not incorporated into the models. Instead, the assumptions
in the GCMs are that water vapour operates as
a 'positive feedback', which amplifies the effects of the GHGs
by two to three times.
This
indicates an assumption that H2O does not operate
in a direct way as do other GHG molecules in the atmosphere. This
contention is made in spite of the fact
that water vapour molecules are always
present. All
of the GHG molecules are well mixed throughout the
atmosphere, albeit with water vapour at differing percentages
(i.e. humidity). In this situation, all GHG molecules absorb, lose
and re-absorb photons of energy. Thus, some radiant heat from the
earth's surface is reflected
back.
THE
JOURNAL SEPTEMBER
2018
been
no significant
increase in the world's temperature in the last couple
of decades, the well-known and accepted 'pause'
There
is no logic for the removal of water vapour molecules
from consideration in the dynamic situation where
all of the GHGs participate in exchanging photons of
energy radiating outward from earth. This is particularly relevant
in a situation where there is such a high concentration
of water vapour in comparison with the other GHGs. As noted
previously, many scientific assessments
specify
that water vapour is the most important GHG and responsible
for 80% to 90% of the greenhouse effect.
The
IPCC dismisses any possible role of variations in solar
output, such as the solar wind interacting with the earth's
magnetic field or variations in sunspot activity.
There
has been no significant increase in the world's temperature in the
last couple of decades, the well-known and
accepted 'pause! Over this short time there has been about
one-third of all human GHG emissions ever, and the concentration of
atmospheric CO2 has increased more than 10%. Apart from some
variation up and down, the mean temperature has not shifted much,
certainly not at the rate suggested
by the IPCC models. This is good evidence
that CO2 is not the main driver of the world's temperature
and/or
does not have a major effect on the world's
temperature.
Temperature
The
fact is that the world's temperature is not increasing at
anything like the rate projected from the GCMs of the IPCC.
The 'feedback' from water vapour amplifying the actual
temperature effect of CO2 by two to three times, as expected
in the IPCC models, is not evident at least for the last
two
decades. Clearly the climate models are running hot,
which is shown in Figure
5.
The
data are lower stratosphere measurements from satellites
(green) and radiosondes on balloons (blue). These are
the most accurate temperature data available, covering most
of the world (including the oceans); not suffering from
the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects, from poor siting of climate
stations in urban areas, or allowances for the heat build up,
particularly at night from asphalt, shelter
and other heat stores. Adjustments of past surface temperature
records have also often resulted in apparent amplification of recent
warming.
Heat
absorption activity range of GHGs over the total electromagnetic
spectrum The
ability of the GHGs to absorb and emit radiation has been
investigated extensively. In the daytime incoming radiation
from the sun spans wavelengths from 0.2 to 3 microns.
CO2 has a small absorption band centred at 2.8 microns, which can
absorb some incoming radiation. At this
same wavelength water vapour is 100% saturated, so its
15,000 ppm versus 400 ppm substantially diminishes any minor effect
CO2 might have on incoming heat. We
conclude
therefore that there is little effective absorption of
incoming radiation by CO2. Far more important is that the central
stratosphere (~50 km) is warmer than the tropopause
because ozone absorbs UV energy.
Water
vapour does have two significant absorption peaks
and some smaller ones in the 0.2 to 3 micron range
of the spectrum which will be responsible for some absorption
of incoming radiation. The outgoing radiation of
heat from the earth is in the 4 to 70 micron range
Figure
6A: Upper: Absorption of outgoing radiation from
the earth's surface in the 2 to 70 micron range of the
spectrum. Lower: Two panels show the absorption saturation
by H2O and CO2 in various spectral regions
Figure
6B: Upper
same as 6A. Lower bands: Absorption peaks
for H2O, CH4 and N20 across the infrared. The
absorption bands
of CH4 and N20 are quite
narrow the
electro-magnetic spectrum (peaking around 10-15 microns),
as shown in Figures
6A and 6B. Absorption bands for CO2, CH4 and N20 are indicated. The
water vapour bands are dominant. Note that CO2 does not compete with
CH4 and N2O for heat radiated back from the earth, at
any
specific wavelength, only water vapour. Their roles are
completely independent of each other.
One
very important point that stands out in Figures
6A and 6B is that water vapour absorbs over a very broad region
of the spectrum. In contrast, CH4 and N20 absorb only in narrow
bands. This means that H,O
captures much, much
more of the radiant energy.
CO2
has three main bands of infrared absorption: 1.8 to
2 microns, 4 to 5 microns and 12 to 18 microns. At the position
of the first two bands where CO2 is able to absorb there
is hardly any energy being radiated by the earth anyway
(Figure 1A),
and thus CO2 is not effective as a GHG in those bands. The 12 to 18
micron band is the main place
where CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation. Absorption and
emission from this band of CO2 remains a major factor even
up into the high stratosphere - above 50 km.
For
CH4 and N2O, Figure
6B
shows narrow absorption peaks in the 7 to 8 micron range; these are
their only relevant
bands. At the other minor absorption peaks for these
gases there is very little energy emitted by earth into that
spectral region.
In
this discussion 15,000 ppm is taken for the atmospheric
concentration of water vapour. This is 38 times the concentration of
CO2, and a much bigger concentration difference in comparison with
those of CH4 and N20. We know the individual capability of the GHG
molecules
is of the same order of magnitude (Table
2). We
also know the projected warming is not happening,
(Figure
5) and that the GWP metrics presently used by the
IPCC
to classify the various GHGs as to their respective effects on
warming are defective. The suggested treatment of
a new
way for
CH4 to get an environmentally credible metric
(Allen et al., 2018) is a case in point.
Further,
Sheahen (2018) has pointed out the mathematical
illogicality of using the slope of a saturated gas
(CO2) as the divisor of the numerator (the top number in a fraction).
If any number is divided by another number (the
divisor), which is close to zero, then the quotient (the
result) becomes a large number itself. This is the simple
situation in the calculation of the GWP. A normal numerator
(the number related to the absorption by CH4 or
N2O) is divided by the very low number, the slope of the CO2
absorption curve. This ridiculous situation produces a huge
quotient (purported value for GWP).
CH4
and N20 at their tiny concentrations in the atmosphere
absorb radiated heat at the earth's surface and
in the trophosphere - in small, narrow bands. While this
happens, water vapour (a GHG of similar absorptive capacity)
is at concentrations thousands of ppm higher than
these GHGs. The sequence of absorption, collisions (with
N, and O2), emissions and more collisions combines to
carry energy away, and that process is dominated by H2O
and CO2. That mechanism completely truncates the effectiveness of CH4
and N20 as GHGs.
Further,
Ollila (2014) suggested
that the present assessment
of the effectiveness
of
the various GHGS was
badly flawed, referring to an analysis from the Harvard-Smithsonian
Centre for Astrophysics (2014), which
noted that the total contributions of GHGs up to 120
km in altitude were H20 82.2%, CO2 11%, 03 5.2%, CH4
0.8% and N20 0.8%. This assessment agrees with many other estimates
in the scientific literature that
suggest
that water vapour
is the main GHG,
THE
JOURNAL SEPTEMBER
2018
Increasing
the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not such a potential
warming problem
for the world as frequently
promoted in the scientific literature,
by governments and the media.
and
82% being higher than the IPCC's estimate of 72%
mentioned above. Clearly, the main GHG is water vapour
and there is not
a great deal that
can
be done about
the control of this gas.
Other
energy transfer mechanisms that must be examined
simultaneously There
is an important factor that is often overlooked with one of these
GHGs, namely water, which has the additional ability to change phase
(evaporate, condense, and precipitate) which the others cannot. These
properties also
act to provide cooling mechanisms for the earth.
If
the planet heats up for any reason, the oceans (which are
70.9% of the earth's surface) will heat up slightly, water
will evaporate, and the atmosphere will increase in
humidity. Then convection carries the moist air to the cooler upper
troposphere, where water changes phase back again, deposits its heat
at high altitudes and forms
clouds.
More clouds reflect heat back to the earth. Further, in the daytime
clouds will reflect back or absorb about 30% of the incoming
sunlight. This is a built-in cooling effect, a 'negative feedback.
Again, this casts doubt
on the IPCC contention that water vapour provides strong
positive feedback that amplifies the warming effect
of CO2.
Increasing
the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not such a potential
warming problem for
the
world as frequently promoted in the scientific literature, by
governments and the media. Clearly water vapour
is the dominant GHG. CO2 becomes less and less
effective (at a logarithmic rate) as its atmospheric concentration
increases. Thus, there is limited opportunity for additional CO2 to
cause heating, as previously illustrated in Figure
2.
There
is agreement that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere
causes some warming; the relevant discussion is about how much? There
is also general agreement that
doubling the CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 'pre-industrial
levels of about 280 ppm might increase global
temperatures by up to 1°C. Just how much of the temperature rise is
due to expected warming as the earth comes out of the Little Ice Age
(LIA), i.e. natural variation, and how much is due to an increase in
CO2 levels is impossible to determine.
much
of the trophosphere where water
is the dominant GHG.
At higher altitudes water is largely frozen
out and
the dominant absorber becomes CO. At higher stratospheric
altitudes water vapour is in the few ppm range,
with CO2 and CH4 still at their lower trophospheric values.
In the lower stratosphere the oxidation of CH4 to H2O and CO2 begins
to occur. Consequently, CH4 always
remains
less than half the concentration of water vapour.
In
the stratosphere the ambient temperature is below minus 30°C, and so
the energy peak of outgoing radiation has shifted further out into
the infrared, leaving even less energy
in the 7 micron zone. Again, CH4 has no significant role
as an absorber
of infrared energy. Ultimately, the cooling of the planet takes place
from the stratosphere and
upper troposphere as gases emit radiation
into space.
CO2
participates in this process, but CH4 does not. CO2 does not compete
with CH4 or N2O to absorb radiation
from the earth; CO2 absorbs at different frequencies. Nevertheless,
the effect of water vapour in the atmosphere overwhelms the role of
CO2; H2O is known to provide about 33°C worth of greenhouse effect
warming (IPCC, AR4 & AR5). That suggests that reducing
atmospheric CO2 by reducing human emissions has little potential to
reduce temperature, much less to control
climate. Presently, anthropogenic CO2 is less than 5%
of all the CO2 going into the atmosphere, and as the temperature
increases (as it has in the last millennium) the ocean
will heat up and 'outgas' CO2. Of course, this will also
contribute to the atmospheric concentration.
Benefits
of CO2 There
is a huge scientific literature about the benefits of additional CO2
in the atmosphere; it is in fact the gas of life.
The fact that many refer to this gas and the increasing levels
in the atmosphere, even the adding any of it to the
atmosphere, however
small, as 'carbon pollution' is illustrative
of a misinformed and alarmist media and a misinformed general public.
Already
the increase in atmospheric CO2 from
280 to 400+ ppm from 1850 to 2018 is responsible for probably more
than a 15% increase in plant growth, and the 'greening' of the the
earth is well recognised. Adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere
will increase crop, pasture and forest growth. In fact a doubling of
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would most likely result in about
30%
increase in plant growth, a result which would be a terrific
boon towards food production for an increasing world
population.
THE
JOURNAL SEPTEMBER
2018
High
altitude absorption The
observed temperature and GHG concentration data are
pertinent close to the earth's surface and through
There
is a huge scientific literature about the benefits of additional CO2
in the atmosphere;
it is in fact the gas of life. Doubling of the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere would
most likely result in about 30% increase in plant growth, a result
which would be
a terrific boon towards food production for an increasing
world population.
an
urgent need to stop all this expensive concentration on 'climate
change' and be rid of the naivety of assuming that human beings can
control and/or
stabilise the climate.
Are
the present IPCC Estimates of GWP for the various GHGs
realistic? It
is clear that the warming effect of CH4 and N2O is limited due to
their molecular structure, their concentration
in the atmosphere, and the minor amount of energy falling within
their very narrow absorption bands. They
are ineffective GHGs.
There
are four serious discrepancies regarding our present
political assessment of the effectiveness of CH4 and N20 as GHGS: 1.
The similar molecular structure to CO2 and H2O, N20
and
CH4 result in their individual capability to absorb radiating
heat from the earth of a similar order of
magnitude.
2.
There are very tiny amounts of CH4 and N2O in the
atmosphere.
3.
The earth emits very little energy in the energy band
where
both CH4 and N2O can absorb radiation. 4.
The absorption bands of CH4 and N20 are narrow and
small,
thus these molecules are unable to materially contribute
to the dominant role of water vapour in the
Acknowledgements
The
authors thank Will Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton
University in the USA, and William van Wijngaarden,
Professor of Physics of York University in Canada,
for allowing us to present their unpublished data in Table
2, and for their ongoing expertise and patience in improving our
understanding and application of atmospheric
physics during the preparation of this article.
References
Allen,
M.R. et al. 2018. A Solution to the Misrepresentations
of CO2 Equivalent of Short Term
Climate Pollutants Under Ambitious Mitigation.
Climate
and Atmospheric
Science,
1, Article No. 16.
Christy,
J.R. 2016. U.S. House Committee on Science, Space
& Technology.
Testimony
of
John R. Christy
on
2
February
2016. University of Alabama at Huntsville. Available
at: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.
science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY
WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
heat
transfer process.
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014
(AR5)
-
Climate
Change
2013: The Physical
Science Basis.
Geneva:
IPCC.
Ollila,
A. 2014. The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse
Gas. Development
in Earth
Science,
2: 20-30. Sheahen,
T.P. 2018. How to Deceive With Statistics: Distortions
With Diminutive Denominators. American
Thinker,
11 January.
Lindzen,
R.S., and Choi, Y.S., 2009.: On the determination of
climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705.
These
factors drive the potential impact of these gases
down to vanishingly small values. Based on the information
presented we conclude that the GWP value of
25 (and rising) for CH4, and between 265 and 310 for N20,
is incorrect. Such an error, if followed through to financial
commitment according to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
the 2015 Paris Agreement will have
very
serious negative
effects on the New Zealand economy, not to mention all other
countries. All of this would be promulgated
with an indiscernible effect on temperature or climate. Thus, the
generally accepted GHG effects of CH4 and N2O, almost 50% of the
total New Zealand emissions,
must be seriously questioned, and to a lesser extent
the quantitative role of CO2. Water vapour
is the dominant
GHG.
We
assert therefore that the GWP values of both CH4
and N20 are vastly overstated by the IPCC, and therefore by member
governments of the UNFCCC. Consequently,
it is suggested that these gases be removed from New Zealand's
Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and that the
supporting case for such treatment be prepared for negotiation with
our international partners.
Further,
there is a much bigger
prize at stake. CO2 has such a small part to play in global
warming/climate change, with
no more than 20% of the total greenhouse (heating of the earth)
effect and probably a lot less than that and the effects
of CH4 and N2O are trivial. This means that there is
Further
reading For
those who wish to read further on the topic of global warming
we recommend a small (and free) book availabe on
Google, Why Scientists
Disagree
About
Global
Warming: The
NIPCC
Report on the
Consensus (2nd Edn).
THE
JOURNAL SEPTEMBER
2018
Dr
Jock Allison, ONZM,
FNZIPIM
is a partly
retired
sheep breeder,
scientist and consultant,
who was
previously
Director
of
Agricultural Research for the Southern
South
Island
for the Ministry
of
Agriculture
and Forestry (MAF).
Email:
jock.allison 85@gmail.com.
Dr
Thomas P.
Sheahen
is Chairman of the
Science
& Environmental
Policy Project (SEPP) based
in Virginia in
the USA.
Email:
tsheahen@alum.mit.edu.
J
