Category Archives: volcanoes

The Myth of Man-made Ozone Depletion


Guest Post by Richard F. Cronin

August 3, 2017

After 31 years working for E.I. DuPont de Nemours here is my understanding about “ozone depletion” — the warm-up act for anthropogenic CO2-induced “global warming”.  Even the proponents of human-induced “ozone depletion” are starting to realize that the thinning of the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon that just waxes and wanes.

http://www.theozonehole.com/2017ozonehole.htm

Ozone (O3) is produced in the stratosphere by the intense solar radiation causing photo-dissociation of the di-atomic oxygen molecule (O2). The oxygen singlet (- O) is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts with another O2 molecule to yield ozone.   Ozone is not produced during the dark polar winters and its lowest point is in the early spring. The ozone layer is renewed by the sunlit polar summers.

Molina and Rowland published in 1974 and their core premise is that heavier-than-air chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs) convect upwards using a “one dimensional diffusion model”, where they photo-dissociate due to ultraviolet radiation in the band of 2000 Angstroms to yield ozone -destroying chlorine and bromine. Molina and Rowland also stated that CFCs do not dissolve in water, so they are not scrubbed out by rain at lower elevations. However, it is known that organo-halogens adsorb on dust particles and aerosols which are scrubbed out by rain in the troposphere.  Finally, volcanoes emit CFCs as well as copious amounts of hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrodrobromic acid (HBr) which carry up to the stratosphere. (Ian Plimer, et al).  See “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide.  There is always some equilibrium presence of these molecules, in trace quantities.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG013i001p00001/full

Click here for Atmospheric aerosols in the Earth System

Continue reading

Advertisements

Study Says CO2 Not Statistically Significant In Global Temperature Change


This might be the most important report written in 2016 and perhaps in this century. In my simple understanding of things global warming, it seems that any honest scientist that reads this must be able to show this report to be wrong or, if not already, join us as a skeptic. By zeroing out natural causes, this report shows why man-made CO2 does not have a statistically significant impact on global warming. It validates other studies, especially ice cores,that show that CO2 is a lagging variable, not a leading variable.

A new report “ On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” demonstrates that CO2 has only minimal effect on the global warming. The authors of the report challenge critics of these finding by saying :

“Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?”

Some background. The damage to the US economy caused by the EPA claiming that CO2 emissions will eventually lead to catastrophic increases in Global temperatures was first permitted as a result of the US Supreme Court telling the EPA to determine if CO2 was hazardous. So if the EPA could make an endangerment  determination, then the Court would allow CO2 (and several other minor greenhouse gases) be added to the Clean Air Act (CAA). CO2 was considered in detail by Congress when they passed the CAA and Congress rejected its inclusion. Once again the Supreme Court, fully aware of Congress’ rejection, decided to legislate –not their prerogative– by including CO2 if the EPA said it was hazardous.

To no one’s surprise, the EPA did conclude it was hazardous and began sending out regulations of all kinds based upon their catastrophic global warming theory. The EPA in their CO2 Endangerment Finding said they had found 3 lines of evidence that demonstrates their Finding: They are:

“The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS)” is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations1. (The new report scientist are challenging this by saying that the proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines [upper & lower troposphere and surface] all statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?)

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan–recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies.

The scientists that issued the report: On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” have set out in detail their methodology and data used to arrive at their conclusions. These can be examined by clicking on the link above.

In summary, the scientists looked at natural causes for increases and decreases in global temperature as well as man-made causes. CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is a man-made source. There were three natural factors—an increase or decrease in Solar radiation, volcanic activity, and ENSO (El NINO Southern Oscillation) . Natural factors can not be the result of human actions.

ENSO is a three part phenomenon.. ElNino, LaNina and Neutral

make_enso_plot_v2-r-enso

El Ninos and La Ninas are irregular in their size and frequency. While this chart goes back to the fifties when ENSO was first recognized, Scripps Institute of Oceanography says:

There have been many El Niños observed in the past. Theres every reason to think that they have been happening for many thousands of years”

Obviously, fossil fuel produced CO2 is not a issue here.

These scientists removed from 13 temperature records the effect of natural causes of temperature changes leaving only the man-made causes. The temperature records were from balloons, satellite, ground and ocean temperature readings.

From the scientists report, here is what they did and found:

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate–13 times in fact–that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their (critic’s) claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?

I reviewed a website that had discussed these findings that there is no significant statistical evidence of CO2 causing global warming. Not a single challenge using data and facts. All of critics were saying that “97%” could not be wrong or using ad hominem attacks on the author.

So as the authors of the report say about having a factual disagreement, “Where is it?

cbdakota

Plate Climatology Theory


ClimateChangeDispatch posted “Global Warming and Plate Climatology Theory” on 7 October 2014.   The posting was written by James Edward Kamis, a Geologist who says he believes there is a probable connection between Geology and Climate. He begins this discussion of his theory by saying:

“The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of Earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can contribute significantly to short-term variations. The theory proposed herein is that periods of active Earth tectonism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events.

Increased global tectonic activity equates to more faulting and crustal plate movement, which leads to more global heat release from faults, fractures and volcanoes that are more active.

Altered heat input equates to climate change.

seafloorvolcano

Continue reading

Are Seafloor Volcanoes Altering The Climate?


I have received some interesting email of late that states that seafloor volcanoes are altering the Globe’s climate. So, I have been combing through the internet to see what I could find on this topic.

One theory is that seafloor volcanoes are more active in the time of glaciations than at time of the warming period in between. The thinking is that the increased weight of the ocean’s water, as it rises due to glaciers melting, reduces the activity of the many seafloor volcanoes.   The converse is true about the land-based volcanoes that would become more active as the weight of the glacial ice disappears. The ash emitted from land-based volcanoes can cause cooling of the atmosphere but seafloor ash does not get into the atmosphere.

Continue reading