Ice Core Results Debunk IPCC Global Warming Concerns

The previous post detailed how the IPCC had spent thirty years glossing over the fact global temperatures rose from 1910 to 1950 at the same rate as they did from 1970 to 2012 despite the fact fossil emission growth was a tiny fraction of the later increase.  Also global temperatures went down between 1950 and 1970 despite the fact that fossil emissions more than doubled during that period.

Both debunk the claim that an increase in fossil emission has 10 times the effect on global temperatures as increased energy from the Sun.  The only rational explanation is that global temperatures driven by the Sun increase CO2 out-gassing from ocean.  At least for the last 100 years, increasing global temperatures are the reason for the increases in atmospheric CO2 not the result.

This post details ice core data also support the conclusion global temperatures are the reason for increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere.  The entrapped air inclusions in the ice cores enable comparisons of global temperatures and CO2 over many millennia.   A 1998 collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m. 

The Eemian glacial period between 136,000 and 110,000 years before present was one of 5 interglacial periods in the last 450,000 years. It showed temperatures increasing some 12 deg C over 7000 years with CO2 rising some 200 years behind from 200 parts per million (ppm) to 290 ppm. 

A Skeptical Science web site apparently concurs with IPCC with posts purporting to  “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism”.  It responded to the delay with a recent post “CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?”  under the heading “Climate Myth”:

In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. 

This “feedback” assessment may or may not be a rational explanation for CO2 lag during the warming.  How does  “feedback” explain the subsequent drop in CO2 from 290 ppm to 230 ppm over the next 25,000 years.  The only rational reason for the drop is reducing temperature increases CO2 dispersion into the ocean.  This rationale is supported by CO2 lagging temperature 10 deg C cooling.

Again the only rational reason for cooling for all five interglacial periods has to be that lower global temperatures increase dispersion into ocean.  Thus it’s “likely” to the increase in CO2 in atmosphere is due to increased out gassing from ocean with higher temperatures.

The IPCC should take note.

Thirty Years of IPCC Incompetence

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Policy (IPCC) defines itself as “the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change”. It was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Since 1988 the IPCC has produced five comprehensive Assessment Reports and several Special Reports on specific topics. They've also produced Methodology Reports, which provide practical guidelines on the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories for the inventory reporting requirements of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was finalized between 2013 and 2014. Its key findings were:

·                  Human influence on the climate system is clear

·                  The more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts

·                  We have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future

The IPCC claim for “human influence” is based on their assessment fossil emissions will raise atmospheric CO2 levels, increasing global temperatures, and "risk severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts".  No one doubts additional CO2 can increase global warming by allowing solar rays through atmosphere and blocking radiation back to space.  Venus exemplifies that influence, however its atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. 

The question becomes whether the human influence from increasing fossil CO2 emissions beyond current 0.04% atmospheric level can have a similar affect  The IPCC AR5 SPM, “Summary Report for Policy Makers” includes on page 4, Figure SPM 1 (a) Observed globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850–2012.  It shows plots of annual average temperatures and decadal average temperatures. 

They both show annual and decadal temperatures rose between 1910 and 1950, were relatively flat from 1950 to 1970 and rose from 1970 to 2012 at the same rate as they did from 1910 to 1950.  Meanwhile fossil CO2 emissions, nearly all from coal, were relatively flat from 1910 to 1950.  From 1950 to 1970 the added emissions from oil and gas more than doubled fossil CO2 emissions. They continued to increase until 1990 with subsequent emissions adding 70% by 2017.  (That increase was largely the result of China increasing emissions from 2,397 million tons  (Mt) in 1990 to 10,877 Mt in 2017, double US 5,107 Mt emissions.)

Thus by 1990 IPCC already had ample evidence to debunk their decision to attribute global warming to fossil emissions. That increases in fossil emissions did not have their purported ten times the effect on global temperatures as increases in energy from the Sun.  First the fact that global temperatures had increased from 1910 to 1950 at the same rate as from 1970 to 1990 despite the fact fossil emissions had increased very little.  Second that the global temperatures from 1950 to 1970 were relatively flat despite the substantial increase in fossil emissions.  After 1990 the IPCC continued to ignore the fact subsequent temperature increases continued at the same rate as from 1970 despite the 70% increase between 1990 and 2017, failing to reflect purported sensitivity.

The IPCC is currently in the process of conducting their 6^th Assessment Cycle.  For thirty years they’ve failed to recognize the lack of correlation between global temperatures and fossil emissions.   They've also failed to demonstrate the ability to limit fossil emissions so it’s time they concede fossil emissions are not an existential threat.  That global temperatures, driven by the Sun, are increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean.  That increasing global temperatures are the reason for increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result. 

The entire world has already paid a heavy price for IPCC incompetence.  Their claim "We have the means to limit change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future" is beyond incompetent.  My goal as a global warming denier gubernatorial candidate is to begin exposing this reality.

Seattle Times Ignores Gubernatorial Climate Warming Denier Candidacy

The recent Seattle Times decision to cite Thomas Jefferson support for “free press” epitomizes the paper.  It was Jefferson who said, “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth”.

That advice surely applies to years of Seattle Times slavish support for Sound Transit’s Prop 1 and ST3 “Beyond Prop 1” light rail extensions.  Without that support Sound Transit would have likely failed to garner the votes needed to spend billions on the biggest transportation boondoggle in history.  It’s only a question of whether it's Northgate operation in 2021 or East Link in 2023 that demonstrate that reality.

The Seattle Times decision to ignore my 2020 Climate Change Denier exemplifies their decision to persist with belittling all my candidacies, even ignoring one claiming fossil fuel emissions are not an existential threat to the planet’s survival.    While I came in 3^rd out of 11 candidates for governor in 2016 they continue to ignore several emails announcing my intent to file in 2020.  While they’ve published articles concerning candidates for lieutenant governor it’s likely most voters won’t learn about my Global Warming Denier gubernatorial candidacy until the Candidate’s Statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet”.

One would think a paper heralding itself as the “Winner of 10 Pulitzers” would welcome the opportunity to tell the world that the current increase in global temperatures is due to increasing energy from the Sun. (Like hundreds of warming cycles over countless past millenniums.)  That increased global temperature is increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface.  That increasing global temperature is the reason for increased CO2 in atmosphere not the result.

The most obvious indication the Sun, not fossil fuel emission, is driving CO2 levels in atmosphere is that a 70% increase in fossil fuel emissions between 1990 and 2017 has not changed the rate CO2 in atmosphere increased from that from1970 to 1990 before the increase  

That climatologists’ claims the fossil fuel emissions have 10 times the impact on global temperatures as the Sun are debunked by the fact the rate that global temperature also increased with the 70% fossil fuel emissions the same as before. 

Large areas of the country have already been devastated by the purported need to replace coal power with far more expensive and less reliable solar panels and windmills.  Oil and gas fracking to increase fuel supply and pipelines to supply users continue to be opposed.  Increasing car mileage standards and battery power continue to add to attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.  However, those efforts pale in comparison to the futility of plans to spend trillions implementing the "Green New Deal"  despite the fact China already emits twice US fossil emissions and plans to continue increasing until 2030.

If the Times wants to garner support for the press they could begin by being part of ending this debacle rather than continuing to abide it.

The IPCC Climate Change Failure

The previous blog post  detailed my intent to use the 2020 gubernatorial Candidate’s Statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet to refute the risks of Global Warming.  I still believe my 8 previous candidacies attempting to “derail” Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions were vindicated.    That it’s only a question of whether it's the Northgate extension operation in 2021 or the East Link operation in 2023 that will demonstrate they were part of the biggest transportation boondoggle in history, the Prop 1 extensions

However my "Global Denier" candidacy is an attempt to expose the billions wasted by Sound Transit incompetence are a "drop in the ocean" compared to that wasted as a result of the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) edicts.  Since 1988 the IPCC has been dedicated to “providing the world with objective, scientific  information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options”.

Since then IPCC edicts about the “risk of human-induced climate change” have resulted in hundreds of billions spent annually attempting to reduce C02 emissions into the atmosphere.  Large areas of the country have been devastated by the purported need to replace coal power with far more expensive and less reliable solar panels and windmills.  Oil and gas fracking to increase fuel supply and pipelines to supply users continue to be opposed.   Increasing car mileage standards and battery power continue to add to attempts to reduce CO2 emissions. 

However, despite those billions spent and the other devastating affects, carbon emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017. China emissions have increased from 2,397 million in 1990 to 10,877 in 2017, twice US level 5107 Mt.  That's 29% of total and they’ve no plans to stop current increases until 2030.  The IPCC edicts have clearly failed to limit fossil emissions.

Even more delinquent, the IPCC doesn’t seem to recognize or chooses to ignore the fact the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions hasn’t significantly increased CO2 in atmosphere. Plots show CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960 to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as from 1990 to 2014.  Clearly the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions has had little effect on CO2 PPM.

The whole basis for the fossil CO2 emission global warming concern is while CO2 allows the Sun to heat the earth if tends to block radiant heat transfer back to space.  Climatologists have used computer models to conclude increased fossil CO2 emissions have 10 times the impact on global temperatures as increased heating from the Sun. 

However if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions didn’t increase the rate at which atmospheric CO2 increased they could not be the reason for increasing global temperatures.  That the only rational explanation was increasing global temperatures, driven by the sun, were increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface.  That increasing global temperatures are the reason for increasing CO2 in atmosphere, not the result.  That fossil CO2 emissions are not an existential threat. The sooner the IPCC and those advocating spending trillions on the green new deal recognize that reality the better.  

What’s amazing is neither multiple prominent global warming alarmists nor deniers have responded to my emails detailing these concerns.  I finished 3^rd with more than 48,000 votes in 2016.  While I have no expectation or desire to be governor I am hoping to survive until the general election.  I’m dubious whether any of my fellow candidates will attract the funds needed for an effective campaign. Also, the number of candidates reduces the number of votes required to finish second.  

The press attacks on Tim Eyman would seem to limit his pro-I-976 candidacy.  My name familiarity from previous “perennially failed” candidacies in opposition to Sound Transit on the west side of state and this opposition to any carbon tax on east side increase my chances.  While as with my previous 8 candidacies, the media will probably ignore me, I’m optimistic I’ll be able to use this candidacy to rebut the incumbent, one of the most prominent advocates of the “existential threat” of fossil CO2 emission, in the general election.  The bigger the stage the better.

My Global Warming Denier Candidacy,

This morning I successfully used the following to “edit” the list of Republicans for the Wikipedia 2020 Washington State Gubernatorial Elections. 

 Bill Hirt, Global Warming Denier Candidate: Global warming is the cause for increasing atmospheric CO2 not the result. 

(I noticed today they recently "edited" me out)

My previous 8 candidacies have all been attempts to attract readers to my blog detailing Sound Transit and WSDOT decade-long failure to deal with the areas congestion and the Seattle Times and others abiding if not abetting their failure.  The candidacies and more than 850 posts have attracted nearly 150,000 page views and more than 200,000 votes, with more than 48,000 votes for governor, third out of eleven, in 2016 primary without spending a dime campaigning.  This year I’m confident that the Northgate extensions operation in 2021 or the East Link operation in 2023 will vindicate my concerns. 

Again I described the submission as "successful" because Wikipedia had rejected my "Fossil CO2 Emission Hoax" and multiple organizations dealing with the climate change issue ignored my submission.  Thus the goal with this candidacy for governor is to tell as many as possible that the current global warming is the reason for increased CO2 in the atmosphere not the result.  This candidacy is especially warranted as the current governor is one of the prominent advocates for the “global warming” crisis.  

I look forward to debunking his concern that fossil CO2 emissions are an existential threat and his carbon tax response.  That he and other "alarmists" throughout the world have spent hundreds of billions annually for 40 years on renewable energy sources that have done little to change either atmospheric CO2 or global temperature. 

In the meantime I intend to use the following as the Voters’ Pamphlet Candidate Statement.  I will send it to all the media outlets that will likely ignore it.

Candidates Statement

As with my previous 8 candidacies my goal is not to win but to inform as many as possible climatologists grossly overstate the impact of fossil CO2 emissions on global temperatures. 

The world’s fossil CO2 emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017.  A plot of CO2 in the atmosphere showed CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960 to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as for 1990 to 2014.  Clearly the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions had little impact on the rate of increase of CO2 in atmosphere. 

The whole basis for the fossil CO2 emission global warming concerns is that while CO2 allows the Sun to heat the earth it tends to block radiant heat transfer back to space.  Climatologists have used computer models to conclude that the increased fossil CO2 emissions have 10 times the impact on global temperatures as that from increased heating from the Sun. 

However if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions has not significantly changed the rate of CO2 increase in atmosphere they cannot be the cause for current global warming.  The fact that global temperatures increased from 1970 to 1990 at the same rate as from 1990 to 2017, again, despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions substantiates that conclusion. 

The only rational conclusion is that global temperatures driven by the Sun have increased CO2 out gassing from ocean surface.  Global temperatures are the cause for increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result.  The sooner the whole world recognizes that the better.  My candidacy is an attempt to tell them

My Take, The fossil CO2 emission hoax

(I'm submitting the following to Seattle Times as a way they can add to their 10 Pulitzers)

My Take, The fossil CO2 emission hoax

Yesterday I emailed the following to Wikipedia in hopes they would choose to use it to inform their readers.  It followed an earlier emailing to the Science and Environmental Policy Project  (SEPP) and “Waat’s Up With That?” both frequent critiques of global warming.  All three chose to ignore it.  So I’m left to other venues of raising the following issue

Fossil CO2 Emission Hoax,

No one seems to recognize climatologists grossly overstate the impact of fossil CO2 emissions on global temperatures.  The world’s fossil CO2 emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017.  A plot of global temperatures from 1850, (Little Ice Age) to 2018 shows the temperatures increased between 1920 and 1945, before significant CO2 emissions, at the same rate as from 1970 to 2018.  The temperature increased from1970 to 1990 at the same rate as from 1990 to 2018 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions.  Clearly global temperatures were not that sensitive to those emissions.

Also a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere showed CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960, to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as for 1990 to 2014.  Again despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions.

If increasing fossil CO2 emissions didn’t increase atmospheric CO2 PPM they could not be the reason for increasing global temperatures.  The only rational explanation was global temperatures, driven by the sun were increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface.  That global temperature increases were the cause of increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result.

I’m a retired Boeing engineer but it shouldn’t take much education to recognize that if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions doesn’t result in a dramatic change in the rate at which global temperatures or atmospheric CO2 levels increase its “unlikely” fossil CO2 emissions are the reason.  Yet apparently 96% of scientists don’t recognize that rationale.

One of the seminal arguments for global temperature sensitivity was an August 2007 Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”.  The article claiming to be “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming” based that conclusion on the failure of their computer models of climate temperature with their initial estimates for “forcing” (influence of) to match measured temperature.  The end result was matching their computer model results to measured data required "forcing" for fossil CO2 emissions to be 10 times that of the Sun.  The fact that the global temperature increase from1990 to 2017 was essentially the same as from 1970 to 1990 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions would “seem” to belie that conclusion.

The fact that atmospheric CO2 level increase from 1970 to 1990 was also the same as from 1990 to 2017, again despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions reaffirms the lack of sensitivity.  The real correlation is between global temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere. As the letter concludes the likely reason is global temperatures, driven by the sun, have increased CO2 out gassing from the ocean surface.  Again, that increasing global temperatures are the cause for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not the result.

The conclusion is fossil CO2 emissions are not an existential threat to the planet.  Hundreds of billions have been wasted each year attempting to limit fossil CO2 emissions.  That all the billions spent attempting to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources have likely had little affect on either global temperature or atmospheric CO2 levels.  The sooner the whole world recognizes that the better.