Climate Change Caused by CO2: Is it True?
What Do You Think?
Does CO2 Cause Climate Change?
What is Climate?
When you climb in your car and switch on the climate control you expect the temperature in your car to reach the desired setpoint as quickly as possible. During the trip the temperature in the car will swing a bit around its setpoint, let's say you've put it on 68° Fahrenheit. Engineers call this (these minute temperature swings around the setpoint) a negative feedback mechanism.
The climate debate has become hotter than ever. There are many internet forums where supporters and opponents of carbon induced global warming incessantly bombard each other with arguments. It's a jammed trench warfare. The discussion hasn't made one inch of progress over the years.
Where is climate actually made of? Temperature, humidity, wind speed, rainfall, and sunny hours give a good indication of what climate actually is. When the patterns of these five variables permanently change on a significant scale we could speak of a changing climate. Is this ever done properly on a global scale? No, it isn't. It's because earth's climate system is an amazing complex system, and still far beyond the reach of human comprehension.
Is our climate really changing? And if that is so why could it be changing?
World Map Temperatures - Based on Ground Stations
High Resolution Map
- Temperature Map of the World
This map gives an indication of global warming. Based on about 100 stations. Over 3 million lines of data was processes to create this map. Some areas are cooling down, some are heating up. The earth could heat up with about 0.0068°C/yr. Source: NOAA
How Sun Spots and SST Correlate
Own Research Versus Copy-Paste Believes
It is widely believed, also in the climate change discussion, that we can control the climate like in our cars by reducing CO2 emissions.
A glimpse on the historical data shows us that the temperatures changed constantly over the history. Who or what made this CO2 a few hundred thousands years ago? Or is CO2 the effect and not the cause? Because that would explain more then vice versa.
Is our climate changing? And when that appears to be the case, what is the cause? Are we able to find out ourselves what is really going on? Yes, we are able to find out much more by ourselves than we tend to believe at first hand. But that requires a lot of work. Not many people are willing to do that for just a song.
Climate Change Based on Weather Stations
The Only Evidence for Carbon Induced Global Warming is Based on Circular Reasoning
Relation Between CO2 and Temperature is Obvious
The Relation Between CO2 and Climate Change
The relation between CO2 and temperature is obvious. Whether we look at recent records, or at ice core data, the relation is always present. What can we say more than the simple conclusion that CO2 is responsible for climbing temperatures? But is that conclusion really so simple?
The relations are so obvious that only a fool dares to say that CO2 is not responsible for climate change.
Some cases of cause and effect are simple and obvious: does asbestos cause cancer, or does cancer causes asbestos? Because asbestos preceded the cancer, it is the cause.
But not all cases are so obvious. Does CO2 cause climate change or does climate change cause CO2?
Another case of cause and effect; are the wheels of a car responsible for the turning of the steering wheel or is it vice versa? There might be some odd cases where former situation counts. The steering mechanism is so tightly connected to eachother, that if we wouldn't know better, we would have a very hard time to find out objectively what is the cause and what the effect. The tolerance in the system, when we change direction would be the only way to find out the cause. This is called hysteresis. The thing that would lag behind would be ipso facto the effect. Grasping this principle is crucial, also for our climate.
An Obvious Example of Cause and Effect
The Elephant in the Room: CO2 Lags Behind
If we analyse the data by zooming in we see that CO2 lags behind on temperatures. Who knows that? The climate scientists know about it, but ignore this problem stubbornly. It is the elephant in the room. A huge problem.
In a feedback mechanism the cause is always ahead of the effect. When the alleged cause is lagging behind we can ipso facto not speak of a feedback mechanism. When you want to make something responsible as the cause, but that "thing" is lagging behind we might have a problem on our hands in our theory. We could try to deal with it as a feedforward mechanism. It must look into the future. But these systems:
- function only properly when effects of disturbances are predictable;
- function only properly when they don't generalize to other conditions;
- destabilize when the system changes.
None of these three conditions comply to earth's climate. The climate system is no feedforward mechanism, because the earth changed significantly over the many hundreds of millions of years, while the 'setpoint' temperature remained the same. It shows clearly we are dealing with a feedback mechanism where cause and effect follow each other.
To become aware of the fact that CO2 is lagging behind you must zoom in on the data. I collected the data from Vostok and Dome-C, and processed them. How many people have done this? Just a few. How many people just swallow what's presented to them. Most. What if everything that's presented to you is wrong?
It is crucial to grasp that if you want to know which is causing what, you need much data where the direction changes, like the graph below. The lag between input and output is called hysteresis.
In the graph below there is not one single example where CO2 is not lagging behind on changes of temperature.
Temperature Leads CO2 by an Average of About 1,000 Years
Positive and Negative Feedback Mechanisms
The Greenhouse effect is often presented as a mix of both positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
The essence of negative feedback is that such systems have a tendency to stabilize itself at a certain setpoint, or always swing around the setpoint, while positive feedback systems have a tendency to run out of control or to block completely.
There are many climate scientists who believe (note that it's never been proven) that CO2 is the cause and the effect. Does anyone remember the bootstrap problem? The man who lifted himself from the swamp by pulling himself out by pulling on his boots. That's an example where cause and effect fuse. But how does that work scientifically? This is the kind of 'science' climate scientists believe in without any solid foundations.
Did the climate ever run out of control? No. If we look at long term climate records, the temperatures always returned to a certain 'setpoint'. Therefore we can say that there is a strong negative feedback mechanism at work in the climate system, much stronger than any possible positive feedback mechanism. Since CO2 lags on the temperatures it cannot be the cause. By definition not. It doesn't help to construct amazing difficult theories. Never ignore Occam's Razor!
CO2 lags behind on temperature and is therefore ipso facto not the cause. CO2 is the effect, and temperature is the cause. Now, what causes the temperatures to change then?
Reasons Why Temperatures Increase in Urbanized Zones
About 85% of the measuring stations are on land, while land covers just about 33% of the planet. It is not difficult to see that when we use these data we introduce major errors when we try to calculate an average global temperature.
About 50% of the stations which are used to measure global temperature are situated on airports. Many of these stations are incorrectly located, which means they collect heat from the exhaust of airplanes or from the tarmac runway. Since the air traffic has increased, the heat collection by the sensors from the jet exhausts increases as well. The short, intense heat bursts of the engines accumulate to serious errors in many of the measurements.
Most other stations are located in expanding urbanized areas. The measurements are affected by growing traffic and growing heat radiation of buildings over the last decennials. The explosive growth of air conditioners on buildings added an enormous heat source to cities that also influenced the measurements of urban situated weather stations.
The slick looking presentations made by computer programmers of NASA, the WMO and the IPCC are based on flawed material, like a flag on a mud barge. Unbelievable, isn't it? You're actually looking at a lie that looks awesome. Because it looks great it makes most people believe it is therefore true. The fact is that these climate models have no scientific value at all.
The measurements from some of the stations in large urbanized areas have to be corrected by other nearby remote stations before they can be used to present a global warming map. And even if we do this, we still present only the temperatures at ground level. We have no idea what happens high up in the atmosphere, and deep down in the oceans.
How Accurate Are the Temperature Measurements?
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the amount of weather stations dropped dramatically from about 12,000 in 1990 to about 6,000 stations in 1995. In the same period the alleged global temperature started to rise like a rocket taking off.
- Cause: the "cold" stations were gone from the statistics. Mainly the warm urbanized stations remained.
- Effect: the statistics started to present a distorted picture of the global temperatures.
Is that science? Not really. We might call it science of the delusion. The current models as shown by NASA, WMO or the IPCC are not representing the truth.
Recently a far better way of collecting data has come into use: Remote Sensing Systems, or shortly RSS. Satellites gather data over large areas by using microwave sensors. This data is much more reliable and much better to process than the old fashioned weather stations where most of the climate models are still based on.
If you don't trust the results I present here, you can verify it yourself at the site of Remote Sensing Systems. The data shown here is not made in just one afternoon. It is the result of original research and hard labour. If you want to know what is true and what is false you must be prepared to work hard for scratch. Or just believe the data I present here is correct.
Results of RSS: The Atmosphere is Cooling Down
RSS Results Over the Last Two Decades
Net Ratio +/- deg/yr
The Atmosphere is Cooling Down
Over the last two decades is the atmosphere as a whole unmistakeably cooling down. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2°C over the last 20 years. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere.
The greenhouse gases may trap partially the collected warmth in the troposphere. Yes, here the climate scientists might have a point, but this mechanism is much too weak to trap temperatures over plus/minus 2 degrees. When the temperature difference (ΔT) between the lower and higher atmosphere increases, the troposphere will cool down. The cause: the second law of thermodynamics (energy flows from hot to cold) overcomes the greenhouse effect.
The CO2 levels will still rise for the next decades to come, while the temperature curves of the ground stations will level off. Why? Because CO2 lags behind more than a whopping thousand years. Remember?
The climate movement will be confused how that is possible, because they still believe that CO2 is responsible for warming. Their amnesia made them forget about the lagging effect. The fact will become clear that the data analysis was incomplete and infantile. Climate science is for real scientists, not for the noisy irrational feeling and sensing types.
And there you have it: pollution is the real problem, CO2 was never a real problem. But the hysteria around CO2 took all the attention away from the real problem.
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
A fairly unknown phenomenon in the climate discussion is the PDO cycle, which offers a short-term (<60 yrs) explanation for the small temperature variations (and so for the short term release or absorption of CO2 by the oceans).
The Pacific Ocean covers a whopping 33% of earth's surface. Even the minutest cooling or warming of this vast ocean has colossal impact on the release or absorption of CO2. That also explains why CO2 is lagging behind on the temperatures as shown above.
The most likely driver of the PDO are the Bretagnon cycles that oscillates over the much larger Halstatt cycles. Both these cycles are Sun cycles. What else is the best candidate for the temperature changes than the Sun itself?
Midterm Hallstatt cycles and Short-term Bretagnon Wave Osculation
Where Does All the CO2 Come From?
The increase of CO2 from 290 ppm to about 400 ppm over the last 100 years is caused by the warming of the oceans. The oceans contain about 98% of all the carbon in the biosphere. The release of CO2 is partially caused by the above mentioned Sun cycles, and by the rebound effect of the last (little) ice age.
What many people don't know is that especially seawater is able to dissolve huge amounts of CO2. When temperatures of seawater drops it will dissolve more CO2. Logically, is this CO2 again released when the oceans temperature rise again. There is ipso facto a strong correlation between temperatures and CO2. But the water temperature of the ocean decides which levels of CO2 are released to the atmosphere.
This is in a nutshell what happened after the ice age ended. The ocean temperatures bounced back up again. On top of that accumulate a few midterm oscillations that cause constant small swings around the "setpoint". This is why CO2 is lagging behind on temperatures.
The small CO2 variations we saw over the last three decennials are caused by ocean currents driven by a varying Sun activity. The large CO2 increase over the last 12,000 years is the rebound effect of the last ice age, and partially driven by the Hallstatt cycles.
What Caused the Large Temperature Changes?
The big question is then: what caused the very large long-term temperature swings of the last glaciations?
- Sun spots? No.
- El Nino and El Nina? No.
- Bretagnon oscillations? No.
- PDO? No.
- Hallstatt cycles? No.
- Earth Crust Shifts? Yes!
Earth Crust Shifts are rejected and even ridiculed by geologists, while they offer the only true explanation for the very large long-term temperature swings around the "setpoint". It is said there is no evidence for crustal shifts, while the paleomagnetic records provide the best evidence one can get. And what happens with ice core samples with the assumption that the crust was fixed? The interpretations will lead to conclusions of very large temperature swings, which in fact never took place. The location of the drill core changed location to another latitude, hence the other "readouts".
Read the seemingly unrelated article below and you might understand how it works. The article "How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?" proves that the last four glaciation cycles were in fact Earth Crust Shifts. It might be a very tough reader for some people.
The only rational explanation for the ice ages are crustal shifts. They are caused by large eccentric orbits of earth around the Sun (large tidal effects). That is the reason why ice ages relate so well to the Milankovitch cycles, which is also a confusion between cause and effect.
Do not confuse pollution with climate change. Pollution is a problem. Is carbon induced climate change a hoax? Yes. A very big one too. So nothing appears what it seems to be!
This topic and many related topics will be covered in a book that's currently in the making under the working title "Atlantis is Here". The title refers to the idea that Atlantis was never gone. Only our own perception and consciousness temporarily left us, making it much harder for us to perceive the ultimate truths.
© 2016 by Buildreps