A Guest Editorial by Claude Christographer
I put this information here for the record in case anyone doubts Leo’s climate position but lacks a reason. Leo has lost his climate compass. Calling climate change the greatest moral issue of our time is beyond ignorant.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. It is frequently alleged that carbon dioxide (CO2) drives global temperatures, yet without physical experimental proof. Churchmen have unfortunately succumbed to the hoax of dangerous uncontrolled climate change from lack of knowledge, and in consequence have greatly misled others (e.g., Cardinal Turkson).
Climate models developed by climate hoaxers are not physical proof, especially when “tuned” by biased input and false internal strictures to produce a pre-determined result. Temperature increase observed when CO2 is irradiated in a tube in a lab is not proof. It’s a physical experiment, but pertinent climate co-factors are absent that completely change how CO2 behaves in the natural environment.
On the other hand, there are 3 solid proofs that CO2 has an effect on global temperature that is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ZERO.
1) Temperature always changes before CO2 in the alternations between Ice Ages and warm Interglacial eras (we are now much nearer the end of the Holocene Era interglacial than the beginning). This observation is obtained from Antarctic ice cores from which information on the variation of temperature and CO2 and their relationship in time is derived. This proves that temperature drives CO2, not the opposite. This effect is presumably due to degassing huge amounts of CO2 from the oceans during warming and re-gassing during cooling (the Coca-Cola effect, or what’s called Henry’s Law in Chemistry).
2) The effect of CO2 on temperature can be obtained algebraically. The known effects of sun, volcanic activity and ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) are subtracted from time-temperature series, leaving as residual the effect of CO2. Before subtraction, the lines are upward sloping with time. After subtraction, line slopes are statistically indistinguishable from zero, meaning that the effect of CO2 is too small to be detected. Zero, for all practical purposes.
3) The forward and backward statistical correlation of CO2 and temperature is determined. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature 6 months later. On the other hand, there is high correlation between temperature and CO2 6 months later. So, again, it is seen that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.
By means of 3 different physical experimental approaches, it is shown that CO2 depends on temperature, but temperature doesn’t depend on CO2. Why not? Because other larger factors control global temperatures. The naked assertion without proof of CO2-driven runaway global temperature is conclusively disproved.
Of course, this is only one of many areas where Leo reveals that he is fully in on the mass formation black Psyops being perpetrated against the general population by the global elitists.
+ + +
+ + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +
Brother, i think that the most compelling argument against AGW is a simple cross examination of the carbon cycle. Biosphere emissions aside, ACO2 only accounts for 10% of the ocean emissions cycle. The claim is that nearly 100% of ocean emissions (from the equator) sink into the ocean near the poles, while only about half of ACO2 sinks out at the poles. There is no reasoning for this. (bear in mind that there is universal agreement that aco2 will eventually sink out anyway)
As far as arguments about CO2 being driven by temperature & not the other way around, no serious climatologist would disagree. That was just a gross error of Al Gore’s in his movie Inconvenient Truth. It’s well understood that temps drive co2, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that co2, as a “greenhouse gas” drives temperature, too…
This situation is much like the response of the Church when an as yet formally undeclared but certain element of faith is questioned. The Church issues a dogmatic statement, such as about the Divinity of Christ, or about Theotokos. Likewise, the studies elaborated in evidence descriptions 1/, 2/ and 3/ were done because some climatologists (and some in related sciences) questioned previously established climate understanding.
We shouldn’t get into personal characterizations such as “serious” this or that. A scientist can be well credentialed and competent yet sincerely propose a hypothesis that, unawares, happens to be wrong. That doesn’t render him unserious. Science advances by error as well as accuracy. A very few other scientists propose a hypothesis they know is wrong, but they remain well-credentialed and competent. Most are in the middle: they want science to abide by what they think, their personal beautiful theory, when the opposite holds. The well-credentialed and competent aspects are what make them so proficient at evading climate truth. Referring to “serious climatologist(s)” gets us no closer to objective truth. It’s the evidence and a clear explanation of it that counts, not who speaks it.
“In God we trust. All other bring data.” (Edward Deming).
“As far as arguments about CO2 being driven by temperature & not the other way around, no serious climatologist would disagree.” That would be disproved if only one climatologist disagreed, and that’s rather easy. As for whether any climatologist (or scientist in a field bearing on climate studies) thinks temperature is driven by CO2, there are literally hundreds. Here are examples off the top of my head.
That temperature is driven by CO2 is the central premise of the U.N. IPCC group and its periodic reports. That group includes scores of scientists.
They use a parameter called Climate Sensitivity, the definition of which is the equilibrium increase in temperature (degrees Celsius) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. An overly high Climate Sensitivity yields overly high estimates of future warming. This is not an endorsement of climate computer models which are unvalidated because they cannot match past temperatures unless the time period is very narrow (a few decades) and unless they are coached (“tuned”) to produce the best match. Currently, climate computer models are running about two times too hot (two times the actual warming rate) and are right at the verge of failing the statistical confidence interval (meaning that actual temps and model temps are two statistically distinct data sets bearing no correlation to each other).
Many climate modelers believe that CO2 drives temperature. They build an overly high Climate Sensitivity into the models which had a value of 3 last time I looked several years ago. That wasn’t experimentally determined; it was simply chosen by convention. However, recently it has been possible to experimentally determine Climate Sensitivity. A range of values is obtained, but all values are significantly below 3. Roughly, the values lie between 0.7 and 1.5. Yet they continue to use the value of 3 which has no experimental basis.
Some meteorologists believe that CO2 drives temperature, such as those at Accuweather.
Climatologist and Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and co-founder of the RealClimate website, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, believes that CO2 drives temperature. The famous former director, Dr. James Hansen, believed the same. UPenn climatologist (with a specialty in Dendrology) Dr. Michael E. Mann of Hockey Stick fame believes the same. Most if not all the major figures at the UK’s national weather bureau, the Met Office, believe the same. Most of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology believe the same. Ditto CSIRO.
Even a “lukewarmer” like Dr. Roy Spencer, team leader for the U.S. weather satellites, believes (to a lesser degree) that CO2 drives temperature. He will occasionally remind people of that.
So, there are many climatologists (and those in fields bearing on climatology) who believe CO2 drives temperature.
CO2 in a laboratory test tube does increase temperature when irradiated with the appropriate frequencies (the Arrhenius experiment). However, matters are different in the natural environment. There, CO2 is outcompeted for available radiation by species whose absorption spectrum substantially overlays that of CO2, mostly by the more abundant and strongly absorbing water vapor. The claim that CO2 drives temperature in the natural environment is not supported by a physical experimental result.
On the other hand, the opposite claim that temperature drives CO2 is supported by 3 distinctly different experimental approaches based on physical measurements. Thus, the “possibility” that CO2 drives temperature is in fact not a possibility because it is conclusively disproved.
” Thus, the “possibility” that CO2 drives temperature is in fact not a possibility because it is conclusively disproved. ”
Claud, this is silly… Temperature can drive CO2 levels while at the same time CO2 can drive temperature. What don’t you get about that? i don’t know who was advising al gore (lonny thompson?), but he erred when suggesting that CO2 levels (in ice cores) were driving temperatures and not the other way around. Modeling of ice ages suggest that CO2 drives only about a third of the warming from an ice age to an interglacial. BOTH temps drive CO2 levels, and CO2 can drive temps to some degree (at least that’s the theory) simultaneously. Nothing that you have stated proves otherwise.
My comment was intended for Brother Alex anyway. (i don’t think he does himself any favors by posting silly commentary about climate change on his blog)…
(the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence!🤓)
(non sequitur!🤓)
To articulate more precisely:
Just because temperature drives CO2 levels, it does not follow that CO2 cannot drive temperatures (to some degree) as well.
Fwiw, i whole heartedly agree with your point 2 (on attribution). i used to post commentary at Watts Up With That on the attribution of CO2 warming with regard to the ice ages — using climate models (“their” data). After accounting for solar changes, cloud cover, ice cover, & water vapor, there was precious little room left for CO2 warming. My comments were very well received there with little to no push back. (which to my mind means that there is just not much generally known about the subject as opposed to any brilliance on my part) i have no idea how they come up with a 3°C climate sensitivity from glacial to interglacial…
In summary…
Not one of the climate scientists listed in your reply to me would disagree “that temperature drives CO2, not the opposite” (your words in point 1) with regard to the ice ages. Not one would dispute “that temperature drives CO2” (16ppm/1°C globally), nor would they dispute that it’s “not the opposite” (a la Al Gore). They would, however, take umbrage to your ‘non sequitur’ conclusion from that: CO2, therefore, cannot be the cause of any of the warming coming out of an ice age. Most on that list would peg it at about 1/3 of the warming from glacial to interglacial (3°C climate sensitivity). Spencer, who you mentioned, would put it at just 1/6 of the warming (1.5°C climate sensitivity, at the low end of IPCC projections). Furthermore, none of those climate scientists would be unaware of the modern observations (in your point 3) either. How much warming would you expect to see six months later from relatively minute changes in CO2 anyway? (not much)…
There you have it, Brother(!) i hope my pain has been your gain and you’ve enjoyed the (granted largely one sided!) discussion here. i want to leave you with a comment from a climate blog that pretty much says it all. A “Ferdinand” is mentioned here, but he could have just as easily referenced a “Claude” or similarly anyone else in the blogosphere. (they’re dime a dozen!🤓) And it IS a gem…
Paul Birch
August 9, 2010 at 4:06 am
I have to wonder whether Ferdinand & Co are Georgists, because their arguments are almost perfect parallels. The mass-balance argument is almost identical to the notoriously fallacious argument by which Henry George “proved” that Rent on Land was to blame for all the evils of the world. They debate like Georgists too. Hard-pressed, they slide away into slightly different claims, subtle shifts of meaning, or endless appeals to irrelevant details, thereby avoiding the immediate charge, then, when the pressure is released, slide back again to the old fallacy. All this is the sign of a “crank” doctrine, not science. It’s not the original conjecture that’s unscientific – it might even be substantially correct – but the manner in which it is believed and defended. Unfortunately, even the hard evidence that might provide good confirmation or disconfirmation of the theory is then filtered through the veil of the underlying logical error, and so becomes worthless, confusing and confounding rather than enlightening.
post script ~ you might want to think twice about inviting claude back to do another post (😉)
I am watching your debate in which you both claim to be right, and the other wrong, but are using language in such a way as to allow both to be right. For in comparison to the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun, CO2 in the atmosphere has a negligible effect in the present state of the Earth Atmosphere. So I really don’t see why you take umbrage with that. Hypothetically in other alleged prehistoric states of the Earth Atmosphere, models give to CO2 a greater role then than today, because of the higher concentrations. And finally, we are in an end of a glacial cycle and the Earth would warm up even without human intervention. I won’t even get into the debate that our measurements are over such a short scale as to be unreliable in formulating models about the past or future. To a scientist perhaps the word, “negligible” means something more strict that it would to Claude or myself, who am trained in anthropology, but in the end, its an argument over comparative adjectives.
” …CO2 in the atmosphere has a negligible effect in the present state of the Earth Atmosphere. So I really don’t see why you take umbrage with that. ”
i’m actually “worse” than Claude in that not only do i not believe that CO2 causes warming, but i don’t believe that it’s our CO2 either(!) i just take umbrage to the use of non sequiturs to “prove” the point. Not too crazy about his attitude either. When you’re used to the quality, genteel analytics of Brother Alex, getting a snoot full of Claude at your blog is not something that i’m looking for. (the drop off is precipitous!🤓) We come here to listen to what Brother has to say. You’re that gifted — and getting better all the time, i might add.
Fonzie, as you may have noticed, at FromRome.Info I publish 99% of the time not what I say, but what others says. And perhaps at least 50% not even things I agree with 100%, which is why I write so many, “Editor’s Note’s”. So I think I have failed terribly, whenever I hear that my readers come here to hear what I say, as if I am sort of authority or oracle of truth.
Well…
Brother, you’re very good at what you do, and, let’s face it, most people are not very good at what they do. And what i think you do well is faithfully represent the deposit of the faith. Most Catholic writers don’t even have the chops to begin undertaking the task, let alone getting it right. And even those who do, lack the depth that you bring to the table. So, yeah, that’s why we’re here(!) (kinda hard to get around that)…