EPA Rebuttal – CO2 Innocent, CFC’s real Cause of Global Warming?
Written by Robert Ashworth PE
Did CFC’s and not CO2 cause Earth to warm in the late 20th Century; and will the wider scientific community be the key to exposing this mistake? Robert Ashworth presents a fascinating analysis revealing how the infant science of climatology overlooked important evidence that points to human emissions of carbon dioxide being innocent and puts ozone depletion in the frame.
Here is an excerpt1 from a paper written by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorologist; “Climate models used for estimating effects of increases in greenhouse gases show substantial increases in water vapor as the globe warms and this increased moisture would further increase the warming.” However, this meteorologist along with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) crowd got it completely backwards about water vapor and CO2 — they cool the earth like all other gases and dust in our atmosphere!
Although moisture in the atmosphere does increase with warming, this is because the higher temperature causes more water to evaporate. With every pound of water evaporated 1,000 Btu is absorbed and that causes cooling. Further, increased water in the atmosphere causes further cooling (not warming) by reflecting more of the radiant energy from the Sun that is hitting the water vapor molecules back to outer space, e.g. cooler on a cloudy day than a clear day.
Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Documentary — Cause and Effect Reversed
Al Gore presented the climate change fraud in his “Inconvenient Truth”, actually a “Convenient Lie” presentation of the Vostok Ice Core data, see below. In this documentary, Gore fudged the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 line graphs so it would show a CO2 spike coming first in time, but the real graph showed just the opposite. See the data in a shorter time frame (250,000 Years rather than 420,000 Years Before Present showed by Gore). This makes it easier to see which came first, Figure 1.
It is clearly seen that a global warming spike (blue line) always comes first. The spike warms the oceans, which slowly reduces the solubility of CO2 in water that results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans around 800 years later (see Figure 2). Gore gave no explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place, but then again he is a politician with an agenda to make him wealthy. See the most recent time of warming between the 500 year long medieval warming period and the start of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. One can see that CO2 started increasing during a cooling period showing it was not controlled by recent warming that started some 80 years later and it is about 800 years from the end of the medieval warming period. This is historically what happens. Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, eliminated the Medieval Warming period with his hockey stick graph, – clearly a fabricated one by “cherry picking” the temperature data.
Man-made Emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 emissions created by man, i.e. combustion of fuels, (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1 was developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who promote the global warming lie. This is their data. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature. You cannot find this table anymore, like Lois Lerner IRS emails it has been deleted. Using the table in combination with a total concentration of 401 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in May 2014, one sees that the CO2 caused by man’s activities amounts to only 11.6 ppmv of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse-milk quantity compared to nature’s emissions. If we eliminated worldwide, all man-made CO2 emissions tomorrow, we would go back to the level we had in 2008. Since 1998 there has been no warming and yet CO2 in the atmosphere increased some 31 ppmv, almost triple the global man-made quantity.
Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis which is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. For every pound of biomass formed some 8,000 Btu are removed from the atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by some 300+ %, depending on temperature and available moisture4, see Figure 3.
More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man’s feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle and without it, life would not exist on earth!
A Common Sense Scientific Truth
Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace — you will feel cooler! Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of the sun, most people feel cooler, but perhaps not the IPCC pseudo-scientists. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling.
More radiation hits our atmosphere from the sun (342 Watts/m^2) than is reflected back from the earth (164 Watts/m^2) to the atmosphere see Figure 4. The overall effect will always be cooling – not warming!
The IPCC scientists must not realize we get our energy from the sun; they look at only one-half of the mass and energy balance. It is like saying you don’t need a furnace in your house in the winter, insulation alone will keep you warm. If common sense isn’t good enough for you there is also scientific proof.
Proofs — Water Vapor Cools the Earth
Water vapor is considered by the IPCC pseudo-scientists to have the greatest greenhouse gas effect. If this so-called greenhouse gas actually cools the earth, so must all of the other gases cool that are put in that greenhouse gas category (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, etc.).
Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited commercial aviation over the United States for three days following the attacks. This presented a unique opportunity to study the temperature of earth with and without jet airplane contrails.
- David Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin, along with two others, looked at temperatures for those three days (2001) and compared them to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the lower 48 states (U.S.) for the period 1971-2000, and compared the three-day grounding period with three days before and after the grounding period. They found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was 1.1°C higher during September 11-14 (see Figure 5) compared to September 8-11 and September 11-14 for other years with normal air traffic.
An experiment was performed by Carl Brehmer to study the effect of rising and falling levels of humidity on soil temperature and discovered that the addition of moisture to the atmosphere exerts a significant negative feedback (cooling effect).
The experiment showed the same result as the analysis of the 9-11 data; on an overall basis increased humidity reduces the temperature on earth; it doesn’t warm it. The data were[RA1] taken over 38 days so the first thing done was to find the 38 day mean dew point and divide the days up between those that fell above the mean — the “humid” days — and those that fell below the mean — the “arid” days. Then the data was averaged as shown on the curves on the graph below. One can readily see the hotter day time temperatures for the arid days (red line), Figure 6.
The Climate Change Agenda is a Complete Fraud
There is a lot of supporting evidence that indicates that the Climate Change agenda is and always has been a fraud. Why is it called a fraud? An event now referred to as “Climategate” publicly began on November 19, 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution had played a central role in the “climate change” debate: its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were responsible for analyzing and collating the measurements of temperature from around the globe from the present to the distant past.
- John Costella7 relays, “Climategate has shattered that myth (the myth of global warming).” It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their research.
Back in time, the IPCC relayed there was a greenhouse signature in the atmosphere and the temperature 8-12 km above the tropics was warmer than the ground temperature8. Actual temperature measurements refuted this. They also violated the second law of thermodynamics by saying a cooler atmosphere can warm a warmer earth. They don’t have a clue, or they think people are stupid — two bogus explanations that are easy to show are completely false.
Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. It can be shown that systematically and purposefully, country by country, they removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers kept were near the tropics, the sea, and airports near bigger cities. These data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. From 1960 through 1980, there were more than 6000 stations providing temperature information. The NOAA reduced these to fewer than 1500. Calculating the average temperatures this way ensured that the mean global surface temperature for each month and year would show a false-positive temperature anomaly, a bogus warming trend. Interestingly (although absent scientific credibility), the very same stations that were deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature base periods, further falsely increasing the bias towards earth warming.
An internal study by the U.S. EPA9 completed by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson concluded the IPCC was wrong about global warming. Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who wrote a damaging report to Lisa Jackson’s EPA agenda, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information.
One statement in his executive summary found that the crucial assumption in the Greenhouse Climate Models (GCM) used by the IPCC concerning a strong positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative. This is exactly what is shown here, water vapor in the atmosphere causes a cooling (negative feedback), not a positive warming feedback.
EPA tried to bury Dr. Carlin’s report. An email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Dr. Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbade him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. In a March 17 email from McGartland to Carlin, stated that he will not forward Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator (Lisa Jackson) and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.
I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” I guess telling the truth would be a negative impact to the EPA. A second email from McGartland stated “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. “McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Dr. Carlin’s study because his conclusions ran counter to the EPA/IPCC position. Yet this study had its basis in three prior reports by Carlin (two in 2007 and one in 2008) that were accepted. Another “government cover-up”, just what the United States does not need.
Most of the U.S. House of Representatives agree with the fraud assessment.10 On February 19, 2011 they voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With a vote of 244-179, they said that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.
The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), said; “The IPCC scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda”.
The organization responsible for managing a global cap-and-trade system worth billions of dollars for carbon emissions projects around the world is trying to get sweeping legal immunities for its actions, even as it planned to expand its activities in the wake of the 2012 United Nations’ Rio + 20 summit on sustainable development.11 Yes, global warming from CO2 is a complete fraud – that is why they are seeking shelter from prosecution.
Why Was It Done?
It is all about the money. For example, Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management LLP was started in 2004 and in 2008 this announcement was made, “It will be closed to new investors, having risen close to its $5 billion target!”12. It rose to five billion dollars in 4 years! This shows that a lot of investment firms were in on the scam big time. They also hooked in nefarious pseudo-scientists who were awarded grants for their work in promoting this fraud. Sadly, much of the world runs on the tenet, “Show Me the Money!” They don’t care seem to care one whit about our children or the jobs of the people who work in conventional fuels, such as coal, petroleum and natural gas!
CFC Destruction of Stratospheric Ozone did cause the Earth to Warm?
A greater than normal warming did occur from 1966 until 1998 but no measurements confirm an increase in CO2 emissions, whether anthropogenic or natural, had any effect on global temperatures. As a matter of fact, all atmospheric gases and dust in our atmosphere cools our planet, they don’t warm it 13 as explained above. However, there is very strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the cause of the near recent abnormal warming. It is not a radiation effect, it is because of the reaction of CFCs with stratospheric ozone. CFCs were used primarily in air conditioning units. Acting in accordance with an International Treaty called the Montreal Protocol (1987); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the phase-out of CFCs (R-22) through the Clean Air Act.
CFCs and other halides created both unnatural atmospheric cooling and earth warming based on these facts. CFCs destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37o C from 1966 to 1998, see Figure 7.
The ozone loss allowed more UV-B light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 2″ of the earth by 0.5o C (1966 to 1998). The effect of banning CFC production started having its effect around 1998. Since 1998 there has been no warming, see Figure 8.
Most of the temperature change from ozone loss is in UV-B light, that is 2% of the 8% of the UV light (based on total light) that hits our atmosphere. UV-B light provides 25% of the energy that hits the earth. E = hf and high frequency UV-B photons carry much more energy than visible light photons.
Stratospheric ozone was diminished by CFCs and other refrigerants-propellants released into the atmosphere. These compounds are broken down by the sun’s UV-B rays and release chlorine and bromine molecules that destroy the ozone.
Scientists estimate that one chlorine atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules over its life in the stratosphere. With less ozone in the stratosphere, more UV-B rays hit earth, warming it up and increasing the risk of skin cancer.
The ozone layer extends from 8 km (upper troposphere) up throughout the stratosphere. It is well known that the warming of the stratosphere is caused by the reaction of ultraviolet light with ozone. Energy is absorbed and ozone (O3) converts to diatomic (O2) and (O) nascent oxygen. Conversely, ozone loss decreases the amount of UV-B light absorbed and thus causes the stratosphere to cool and the earth to warm.
Figure 9 (see above) shows the lowest value of ozone measured by TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) each year, a satellite instrument used to determine ozone levels. One can see how CFCs destroyed the ozone in the late 1960’s until the late 1990’s.
CFCs, chlorinated solvents, halons, methyl bromide, methyl chloride and halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in the stratosphere have begun to show a slow decline after reaching a peak in the mid-1990s.
Large solar heating-cooling cycle variations also occur every 80,000 to 110,000 years, but the sun’s thermostat also changes in shorter term cooling-warming cycles of approximately 11 years, see Figure 10. The period chosen for analysis to negate this effect was from 1966 to 1998. At these two points in time, the solar irradiance hitting the earth was approximately the same (1365.8 W/m2). Table 1 and Table 2 show mass and energy balances around the earth and stratosphere from 1966 to 1998.
The start of the reduction of ozone in the stratosphere is the result of the Montreal Protocol of 1987 and later amendments. CFC production ceased in developed countries in 1998 and was stopped in underdeveloped countries in 201016. The decline is now about 1% per year and the ozone is also now increasing slightly in the stratosphere as shown above in Figure 8.
By around 2100 the ozone should be back to the levels seen in 1960. Ozone in the year 2002 was higher in the ozone hole because of unusually high temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere (probably due to more interaction with air outside of the Antarctic region).
The global average ozone is about 300 Dobson units. Before 1980 ozone less than 200 Dobson units was rarely seen. In recent years ozone near 100 Dobson units has become normal in the ozone hole. The Dobson unit is the most common unit for measuring ozone concentration. One Dobson unit is the number of molecules of ozone that would be required to create a layer of pure ozone 0.01 millimeters thick at the surface of the earth at a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1 atmosphere.
The legendary hypotheses of Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland, and led to CFCs being banned because they were destroying stratospheric ozone. Total stratospheric organic chlorine is currently over 2.5 ppbv, in 1970 it was just over 1 ppbv, see Figure 11.
One can see how the reduction in stratospheric chlorine has affected global temperature. As it stopped its rise in 1998 and started decreasing the temperature also started decreasing slightly (refer back to Figure 7).
Since 1966 it is apparent that CFC destruction of stratospheric ozone was the only mechanism that caused the earth to warm. Since 1998 when CFC production was stopped in developed countries and CFC concentration in the stratosphere stopped increasing, the earth temperature has not increased.
Fairly recently18, Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Waterloo stated, “a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C from 1970-1998. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases”.
Although there is no such thing as greenhouse gases, the author is pleased that someone else has determined that CFCs not CO2 and has caused the earth to warm. The author discovered the CFC effect back in 2009, Dr. Lu has been touting this for years as well but most scientists haven’t accepted it.
So, based on real data evaluation, CO2 causing global warming is completely contrived. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle to eliminate conventional fuels, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from either carbon taxes and/or alternative “non-green” energy sources such as windmills, solar power, and hydroelectric power.
Science is a search for truth — nothing else; when scientific truth is trashed (the US EPA is complicit in this) for personal gain by a few influential greedy charlatans, the world and the average people in it, are in very deep trouble!
- Ross, R. J., and Elliott, W.P., “Radiosonde-Based Northern Hemisphere Tropospheric Water Vapor Trends”, Journal of Climate, Vol. 14, 1602-1612, July 7, 2000.
- Petit, J.R., et. al., “Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica”, Nature 399: 429-436, June 3, 1999.
- Loehle, C. and McCulloch, J.H. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy & Environment 19: 93-100.
- Pearch, R.W. and Bjorkman, O., “Physiological effects”, in Lemon, E.R. (ed.), CO2 and Plants: The Response of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric CO2, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), pp 65-1055.
- Travis, D., A. Carleton, and R. Lauritsen, 2002: Contrails reduce daily temperature range. Nature, 418, 601.
- Brehmer, Carl, “The Greenhouse Effect Explored”, February 21, 2012, http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/143-the-greenhouse-effect-explored
- Costella, J.P., “Climategate Analysis”, http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
- David Evans, “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming”, November 28, 2007, http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf.
- Carlin, A. and Davidson, J, “Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”, March 9, 2009. Deleted can’t find, copy attached from my files.
- Washington Times – “Global Climate Change Group Seeks Immunity for Actions, June 12, 2012, http://times247.com/articles/global-climate-group-seeks-legal-immunity-for-actions#ixzz1ySY2gR5D
- New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-gore.4.10942634.html?_r=1
- “CFC Destruction Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!”, Hydrocarbon Processing articles, October and November publications, 2009. http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2152
- http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index_2012.htmlGlobal Surface Temperatures Anomalies, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Sept. 17, 2012. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
- Lean, J. 2000, Evolution of the Sun’s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder minimum. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp.2425-2428, Aug. 15, 2000
- Nobel Prize in Chemistry, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, October 11, 1995
- Australian Government Department of Environment, http://www.environment.gov.au/node/22144
- Qing.-Bin Lu, International Journal of Modern Physics B, “Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change”, DOI: 10.1142/S0217979213500732, May 30, 2013.